> This policy would mandate that police reports created in whole or in part by generative AI have a disclaimer that the report contains content generated by AI

> This policy would mandate that police reports created in whole or in part by generative AI have a disclaimer that the report contains content generated by AI and requires officers to legally certify that the report was checked for accuracy. I have a friend in law enforcement who was part of an early trial group for Axon Draft One (which is called out specifically in the article) and has been using the product for maybe a year now (if not longer). I want to point out that Draft One literally already does this. Here's a video from last year with the PM of the product talking about exactly that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRMw5RjNjO0&t=290s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRMw5RjNjO0&t=290s). I also believe that if a report includes content that was AI generated it is marked as such, but I'm less certain on that part. I fully support making these things par for the course to ensure any any competitors entering the space have to follow the same pattern as well as ensuring that when this is brought up in court it's clear to all sides that AI was used. That said, AFAIK, Draft One is really the only product doing this right now and already does what the bill requires, so this bill won't really change anything in the present day other than ensuring that a standard is set. What people don't realize though is that when submitting a report, there are almost always multiple levels of approval for each report needed from a supervisor and a records clerk and regardless of whether the report was AI generated or written completely by the officer it's court admissible and the officer needs to be able to testify to what is in the report. If there's hallucinations in the report and that's called out in court, it's not like people are just going to go "oopsie" and throw up their hands. A defense attorney will absolutely use that to their advantage and could very likely lead the person who is charged going free. Again, I realize that the hard part for a defense is finding and proving that those hallucinations are actually hallucinations, but still, all parties involved have a vested interested in keeping hallucinations to as close to 0 as possible. Maybe I'm a little to close to this, but it seems a little disingenuous that the EFF article doesn't mention that the main product on the market that would be regulated by this bill already complies with the bill, since it paints the story and Axon in a little bit of a different light.