3 ms·

I've seen a policeman write a crime report. He cherry picked and refurbished facts in a way that AI would have blushed. Perhaps the AI transcription isn't such

by riiii 2y ago

I've seen a policeman write a crime report. He cherry picked and refurbished facts in a way that AI would have blushed. Perhaps the AI transcription isn't such a bad idea if the original output is preserved as a diff to the policeman's report.

Terr_ 2y ago
The problem is that there are things which won't be in the camera-record which still need to be recorded ASAP, without the risk of being lost/tampered-with by a random hallucination algorithm... Heck, even a human assistant saying "Let me write that for you" would be a problem. For example, there may be things the officer (claims) they quietly observed outside the scope of the camera. There needs to be a record of any of those which may be significant. ("Oh, that happened, but blame the LLM for the fact that it's not in the record.") It also extends to "I was justified doing X because Y" logic from the brain of the officer, even if generated after-the-fact. Just imagine the LLM as Microsoft Clippy: "Hi! It looks like you're trying to retroactively justify an unreasonable search!"
- euroderf 2y ago
  > "Hi! It looks like you're trying to retroactively justify an unreasonable search!" I wouldn't mind a Federal Court -level LLM that flags anything that looks like parallel construction.
pempem 2y ago
AI can't blush. Also we've seen cops literally arrest sober people for DUIs. Adding AI doesn't really make me more excited
- tim333 2y ago
  The "a body camera captured every word" might help.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - pempem 2y ago
    If "a body cam captured every word" is info that is released, and/or considered information that can be shared as evidence in a court of law and then not discredited as some kind of emotional utterance. Maybe. I suppose my point is, its never quite that simple and it never seems to work out in favor of the citizen. Who is going to fund the dispersement of AI to all of these cops, whose budgets btw have drastically increased? Citizens. citation: https://abcnews.go.com/US/defunding-claims-police-funding-increased-us-cities/story?id=91511971 https://abcnews.go.com/US/defunding-claims-police-funding-in... Who pays for the lawsuits when they mess up? Mostly, overwhelmingly, citizens. Both for their defense + win and for their defense + loss of the case What is the real impact of a force that in the early aughts literally shot its own citizens during Katrina? That at the UCs were quelling protests in the most destructive ways possible (also costing citizens). Unclear to me. citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings citation: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-07-18/uc-unveils-price-tag-for-this-springs-campus-unrest https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-07-18/uc-unvei... I want cops as an idea to work. I have no interest in 'defending my land' or whatever. But the way it is now, plus AI? - no thank you.
geor9e 2y ago
I figured this happens in small towns with racist cops, but then I got in my first car accident and the cop seemed perfectly normal, but then my insurance gave me a copy of his report and everything was fabricated out of thin air. Every single sentence was a complete lie, pinning all the blame on me, saying I admitted I was wrong, saying I didn't yield, just complete nonsense. In reality a car changed lanes into me trying to make an exit. My insurance adjuster empathetically told me it happens all the time. They want a clean and tidy story, so they bullshit and hallucinate to throw one party under the bus. No wonder they'd love LLMs. I can't imagine any scenario where a court wouldn't throw out the entire testimony tho.
Suppafly 2y ago
>I've seen a policeman write a crime report. He cherry picked and refurbished facts in a way that AI would have blushed. If you read more than a couple, just as a casual person that follows a case or two online, it's immediately obvious that they essentially copy/paste or use templates for basically all of them. The reports often state 'facts' that they 'observed' that obviously didn't happen, which are the same things they've happened to observe at every traffic stop or similar interaction. Their testimony in trials is often similar, where they are just repeating canned phrases that may or may not actually be relevant to the specific case. The use of dash cam and body cam footage, as well as trial footage as made it obvious how often this is the case. Their recollections at trial almost never match the footage, and don't match in way where it's obvious that they are fabricating their testimony not just being fuzzy on which details they remember.

by riiii 2y ago

Terr_ 2y ago

The problem is that there are things which won't be in the camera-record which still need to be recorded ASAP, without the risk of being lost/tampered-with by a random hallucination algorithm... Heck, even a human assistant saying "Let me write that for you" would be a problem. For example, there may be things the officer (claims) they quietly observed outside the scope of the camera. There needs to be a record of any of those which may be significant. ("Oh, that happened, but blame the LLM for the fact that it's not in the record.") It also extends to "I was justified doing X because Y" logic from the brain of the officer, even if generated after-the-fact. Just imagine the LLM as Microsoft Clippy: "Hi! It looks like you're trying to retroactively justify an unreasonable search!"

euroderf 2y ago
> "Hi! It looks like you're trying to retroactively justify an unreasonable search!" I wouldn't mind a Federal Court -level LLM that flags anything that looks like parallel construction.

pempem 2y ago

AI can't blush. Also we've seen cops literally arrest sober people for DUIs. Adding AI doesn't really make me more excited

tim333 2y ago
The "a body camera captured every word" might help.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pempem 2y ago
  If "a body cam captured every word" is info that is released, and/or considered information that can be shared as evidence in a court of law and then not discredited as some kind of emotional utterance. Maybe. I suppose my point is, its never quite that simple and it never seems to work out in favor of the citizen. Who is going to fund the dispersement of AI to all of these cops, whose budgets btw have drastically increased? Citizens. citation: https://abcnews.go.com/US/defunding-claims-police-funding-increased-us-cities/story?id=91511971 https://abcnews.go.com/US/defunding-claims-police-funding-in... Who pays for the lawsuits when they mess up? Mostly, overwhelmingly, citizens. Both for their defense + win and for their defense + loss of the case What is the real impact of a force that in the early aughts literally shot its own citizens during Katrina? That at the UCs were quelling protests in the most destructive ways possible (also costing citizens). Unclear to me. citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings citation: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-07-18/uc-unveils-price-tag-for-this-springs-campus-unrest https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-07-18/uc-unvei... I want cops as an idea to work. I have no interest in 'defending my land' or whatever. But the way it is now, plus AI? - no thank you.

geor9e 2y ago

I figured this happens in small towns with racist cops, but then I got in my first car accident and the cop seemed perfectly normal, but then my insurance gave me a copy of his report and everything was fabricated out of thin air. Every single sentence was a complete lie, pinning all the blame on me, saying I admitted I was wrong, saying I didn't yield, just complete nonsense. In reality a car changed lanes into me trying to make an exit. My insurance adjuster empathetically told me it happens all the time. They want a clean and tidy story, so they bullshit and hallucinate to throw one party under the bus. No wonder they'd love LLMs. I can't imagine any scenario where a court wouldn't throw out the entire testimony tho.

Suppafly 2y ago

>I've seen a policeman write a crime report. He cherry picked and refurbished facts in a way that AI would have blushed. If you read more than a couple, just as a casual person that follows a case or two online, it's immediately obvious that they essentially copy/paste or use templates for basically all of them. The reports often state 'facts' that they 'observed' that obviously didn't happen, which are the same things they've happened to observe at every traffic stop or similar interaction. Their testimony in trials is often similar, where they are just repeating canned phrases that may or may not actually be relevant to the specific case. The use of dash cam and body cam footage, as well as trial footage as made it obvious how often this is the case. Their recollections at trial almost never match the footage, and don't match in way where it's obvious that they are fabricating their testimony not just being fuzzy on which details they remember.