Police in England and Wales told to halt AI use in court statements

echelon_musk

At nearly £500 a year is an FT subscription worth it? Am I going to get invaluable stock tips that will cover the sub?!

embedding-shape

> [...] he had intervened at forces that were deploying commercially available AI tools before they had been properly assessed [...] “All forces have got a good policy on the use of Copilot,” Murray said. “All forces will have a policy that says, ‘Check everything that it produces’.” Not only are they using AI before they've properly assessed them, they also end up using Copilot which must be one of the worse AIs currently available, probably because of existing Microsoft relations. And on top of all that, they hope to be able to rely on "Please review the outputs" which obviously isn't an actual solution here, of course people will get complacent and throw stuff over the wall whenever they can.

tgv

I never thought AI would be the fork in the road to Idiocracy. Can you believe that the people whose evidence and testimony in court means so much, value The Great Hallucinator over hand work? They give a few nice sounding options for using AI ("checking child porn"), but it of course won't end there. They already started. People are so fucking lazy.

techblueberry

I feel like this is where AI like - Are we thinking about how we’re using it, or??? It seems like; there’s two kinds of data that might go into this, boilerplate and subjective information. Subjective information should be input by the police, because I would assert the specific wording matters. It matters that the words used to describe what the policeman saw comes out of the policeman’s brain. If it’s boilerplate, I’d AI really more reliable then copy-paste?

delichon

We can get ambitious and try to head toward a form of statement more probative than even an officer personally typing a report: Have them narrate the facts of the event and the reasons for their decisions as soon as possible after the incident, as a video. Additions and corrections made later would be separate annotations. Where text is needed, auto-transcribe. Courts prefer to have live witness testimony for a good reason. Detectives prefer to have statements made with the events as fresh as possible for a good reason. At the same time an oral report can save time and labor. Where we can take police or witness testimony verbally, more promptly, with less work, and including body language, we should. And video is more AI tamper evident than text.

AJRF

If you listen closely to UK cabinet ministers you can intuit that they are being horse whispered into handing over vast sums of taxpayer money to firms for AI who are promising solutions to the productivity gap (chasm?) that the UK is plagued by. I can say with certainty lots of money will be spent, and the gap will not be filled. I would bet my life on it.

andy_ppp

I’m even seeing colleagues using AI slop instead of writing responses on Slack/Teams… I have no idea if I should call out this behaviour, usually I have been saying “finding the above text difficult to parse” followed by a yes/no question seems to get me closer the the answers I need but it’s excruciating to work like this.