I find this article strange in its logic. If the use of AI generated content is problematic as a principle I can understand the conflict. Then no AI should be used to "transcribe and interpret a video" at all - period. But if the concern is accuracy in the AI "transcript" and not the support from AI as such, isn't it a good thing that the AI generated text is deleted after the officer has processed the text and finalized their report?
That said, I believe it is important to aknowlegde the fact that human memory, experience and interpretation of "what really happened" is flawed, isn't that why the body cameras are in use in the first place? If everyone believed police officers already where able to recall the absolute thruth of everything that happens in situations, why bother with the cameras?
Personally I do not think it is a good idea to use AI to write full police reports based on body camera recordings. However, as a support in the same way the video recordings are available, why not? If, in the future, AI will write accurate "body cam" based reports I would not have any problems with it as long as the video is still available to be checked. A full report should, in my opinion, always contain additional contextual info from the police involved and witnesses to add what the camera recordings not necessarily reflect or contain.
My worry is at scale AI from one vendor can introduce biases. We wont know what those biases are. But whatever they are the same bias affects all reports.
That is something to worry about, agreed. So, the quality and the reliance of AI is what we should focus on. In addition we should be able to keep track (and records of) how AI has used and build its narrative and conclutions.
The EFF's angle is that the police can use an LLM's initial report maliciously to 1) let incriminating inaccuracies generated by the LLM stand or 2) fabricate incriminating inaccuracies. Afterwards, because the LLM generated the initial report, the officer would have plausible deniability to say they themselves didn't intentionally lie, they were just negligent in editing the initial report. So it's about accountability washing.
>That said, I believe it is important to aknowlegde the fact that human memory, experience and interpretation of "what really happened" is flawed, isn't that why the body cameras are in use in the first place? If everyone believed police officers already where able to recall the absolute thruth of everything that happens in situations, why bother with the cameras?
I follow the author's arguments and agree completely. He perfectly articulated how the creative industries have long operated as a "protection racket" with skewed economics. It’s extraordinary how many artists and writers seem not to understand this game. You'd think their collecting societies would, but they don't. It is sad, and the artists loose.
If you are using X to conduct political discourse, you are the internet equivalent of Bobby Boucher riding his lawnmower to the pep rally. There hasn't been a serious microblogging social movement since what, 2018?
The IA's work is essential for historians and archivists who depend on it for research and preservation. However, this is not a concern for the music industry or the major labels.
The argument that the industry's lawsuit against IA might ultimately harm its own interests—by jeopardizing valuable archival resources—rests on a misconception: that the industry cares about art and artists. It doesn’t. The industry's focus is shifting toward AI-generated music and hired musicians, prioritizing commercial output over artistic legacy. Their future is not tied to the past but to what comes next. In this scenario, history is not a resource—it’s competition.
I think it is increasingly clear that Europe, Canada, the UK, and other Western liberal democracies are laying the groundwork for a new strategic direction, one where the United States is no longer viewed as a dependable superpower or a guaranteed partner.
This does not mean the US will be written off entirely, at least not in the foreseeable future. However, the era in which the US could dictate the global agenda, particularly in Europe, appears to be coming to an end. A recent example is the US Vice President’s speech in Germany, followed by meetings with the AfD rather than the German Chancellor - an unmistakable signal that Washington no longer prioritizes its European allies in the same way.
A similar shift may be seen in the area of technology. Reliance on American tech companies and investments is likely to decrease, with governments and businesses seeking alternatives. Even China could play a role in this transition, despite the security risks it presents. Economic growth depends on global trade, and many nations may be unwilling to let US protectionism dictate their technological and economic choices.
It is an unexpected turn, but in hindsight, one we could have seen coming. The transformation of the US Republican Party, coupled with growing public support for politicians who embrace extreme rhetoric, reject objective facts, and show little respect for science or democratic principles, has reshaped the country’s global standing. Many of these figures claim to uphold democracy but, from an outside perspective, promote an increasingly authoritarian vision through their policies and rhetoric.
Ultimately, it is up to the American people to choose their government and shape their society. However, the US has become increasingly unstable and polarized, straying from both common sense and the ideals of a liberal democracy. As this internal turmoil continues, it is no surprise that its traditional allies are beginning to seek a future less dependent on American leadership.
It’s reassuring to see an expert bringing facts and perspective into the public discourse. Whether the right people will read it is another matter, but I find this article both thorough and clear.
I find Thiel's chronicle disturbing, and I believe everyone should read it. To cite Norway's largest business newspaper, Dagens Næringsliv: His vision of the internet as the destroyer of the liberal "ancien régime" and thus the true savior of the people is fundamentally totalitarian. It assumes that once the outdated liberal hegemony is annihilated, there will no longer be any conflicts of interest. The masses can finally cast off the oppressive yoke, and from the depths of the people, pure truth will emerge. Such is the essence of Peter Thiel's message.
I use a mix of cymbals, also Zildjian, and the last years I've moved more to Istanbul cymbals but did not know this part of history and the connection the craft had to the old city. It is not surprising, though. Istanbul has a history as a cultural center since the Roman empire and before, holding its position long after Rome fell. It is one of my favorite cities in the world because of the mix of cultures across crafts and arts, and people - also within music. It's role in the cymbal and drum making history just adds to my impression. Istanbul unfortunately currently is a shadow of what it was, after many years of Erdogan and his followers' efforts to make Turkey less liberal and secular. I do hope history will show that this will turn, and that Istanbul will continue to be a metropol of blended cultures and creativity.
People on here just can't seem to comment without the political cheap-shots. Believe it or not, you can enjoy a thing/place/etc without "americanizing" it (making everything political).
I thought Istanbul was amazingly rich in terms of culture, food, etc as well as fairly liberal and safe. Didn't think twice about who's in charge nor cared. Can't wait to go back.
I am not from America, and do not favor Americanizing anything. I enjoy Istanbul, was there last summer actually, and love the city. I just point out what's been happing with the city the last 15 to 20 years, and that this is mostly due to political reasons, connected to the conservative and religious party of Erdogan. You should not mistake a comment made out of love for the city to be a comment of how things are better in the US or trying to make everything political. That is to give me intentions I do not have.
Looks like Nordic companies are consciously lagging behind; "Nordic enterprises are already seeing strong value from GenAI with 77% ramping up investments, yet there is strikingly lower interest from top management, compared to executives in other regions."
Ricardo Semler experimented with this at Semco Partners and wrote a book about it which I read in the 90ies. It was called "The other way" in it's Norwegian edition. In English I think it is this one "Maverick! The Success Story Behind the World's Most Unusual Workplace". It was a about self run teams in and corporation democracy.
All though the article has an 100 percent correct description on how things can be in an organization, I do believe that what he describes is a badly run corporation, not a well run. I also believe that the way Semler reorganized his organization is an anomaly. It seldom works this way.
People, us all included, does not work well in cooperation when we are in large groups, without some sort of guidance. In corporations the most effecient guidance are incentives. That said, setting the right incentives and be able to adjust as you go is a very hard task. There is no "one solution" to how this is done, but if you succeed you usually reach your targets.
I don't trust someone claiming to have run a heterodox org as much as someone claiming to have worked in one, like Creo sister comment threads.
Any incentive turns perverse, and incentives are not how our zillion cells are prompted to make our bodies work. Incentives work to an extent, but have inevitable adverse effects.
That said, I believe it is important to aknowlegde the fact that human memory, experience and interpretation of "what really happened" is flawed, isn't that why the body cameras are in use in the first place? If everyone believed police officers already where able to recall the absolute thruth of everything that happens in situations, why bother with the cameras?
Personally I do not think it is a good idea to use AI to write full police reports based on body camera recordings. However, as a support in the same way the video recordings are available, why not? If, in the future, AI will write accurate "body cam" based reports I would not have any problems with it as long as the video is still available to be checked. A full report should, in my opinion, always contain additional contextual info from the police involved and witnesses to add what the camera recordings not necessarily reflect or contain.