Axon’s Draft One is designed to defy transparency(eff.org)
eff.org
Axon’s Draft One is designed to defy transparency
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/axons-draft-one-designed-defy-transparency
174 comments
Yeah the avoidance of record keeping to reduce disclosure smacks of the policies that got Google into hot water recently: https://www.epspros.com/news-resources/news/2024/google-accu...
> sign an acknowledgement that the report was generated using Draft One and that they have reviewed the report and made necessary edits to ensure it is consistent with the officer’s recollection.
We already know that police officers are not more reliable than the general public as eye witnesses and that eye witness reports are generally very unreliable as they are very susceptible to prompting bias. This seems like leaning in to prompt bias. The AI is now prompting the human rather than the other way around. This is perverse.
We already know that police officers are not more reliable than the general public as eye witnesses and that eye witness reports are generally very unreliable as they are very susceptible to prompting bias. This seems like leaning in to prompt bias. The AI is now prompting the human rather than the other way around. This is perverse.
No doubt.
I was watching one of those youtube bodycam videos of an accident scene where one of the cars ended up in a gas station. Police show up and it's chaos -- victims on the ground needing medical attention, witnesses helping (or not) said accident victims, police not knowing who was in what car, &etc.
In the midst of all this (when it calmed down enough for the police to get a handle on the scene) they tried to identify someone who didn't want to be involved and promptly cuffed them and threw them in the back of a squad car for "being uncooperative". One of the other witnesses, having seen this, decided that person was the missing driver of the other car and told this to the police with all sorts of confidence.
Now the police have a 'suspect' to concentrate on because anyone 'acting squirrelly' must have something to hide as it's totally inconceivable to them someone might just not want to participate in their investigation. Luckily this poor, traumatized kid was able to 'prove' they weren't involved before spending who knows how much time behind bars based on 'credible' eye-witness testimony.
These audio-only AI generated reports should be all kinds of accurate now that police are trained to say 'quit resisting' anytime there's any level of force involved specifically for the body cams...
I was watching one of those youtube bodycam videos of an accident scene where one of the cars ended up in a gas station. Police show up and it's chaos -- victims on the ground needing medical attention, witnesses helping (or not) said accident victims, police not knowing who was in what car, &etc.
In the midst of all this (when it calmed down enough for the police to get a handle on the scene) they tried to identify someone who didn't want to be involved and promptly cuffed them and threw them in the back of a squad car for "being uncooperative". One of the other witnesses, having seen this, decided that person was the missing driver of the other car and told this to the police with all sorts of confidence.
Now the police have a 'suspect' to concentrate on because anyone 'acting squirrelly' must have something to hide as it's totally inconceivable to them someone might just not want to participate in their investigation. Luckily this poor, traumatized kid was able to 'prove' they weren't involved before spending who knows how much time behind bars based on 'credible' eye-witness testimony.
These audio-only AI generated reports should be all kinds of accurate now that police are trained to say 'quit resisting' anytime there's any level of force involved specifically for the body cams...
I wondering how much this even matters in the age of everything being recorded.
If they are using axon body cameras and vehicle cameras, then usually the entire interaction is recorded, often from multiple officers.
I cannot imagine a defense so incompetent that they rely on the police report rather than watching the entire body cam footage and doing their own assessment.
Even if the cops are doing something sketchy (like turning off their camera) then it's not like the police report would be any more trustworthy.
If they are using axon body cameras and vehicle cameras, then usually the entire interaction is recorded, often from multiple officers.
I cannot imagine a defense so incompetent that they rely on the police report rather than watching the entire body cam footage and doing their own assessment.
Even if the cops are doing something sketchy (like turning off their camera) then it's not like the police report would be any more trustworthy.
The current administration has already removed the requirement for federal police forces to wear body cameras. As well as made statements (but little action so far) to federalize the police force to be under the jurisdiction of the DOJ. Everything being recorded may not be the case very soon.
Sorry, I’d get sources but I just woke up, I’ll edit this later with them.
I mean, already at the local cop level "forgetting" to turn the body cam on or only releasing the video (at least, quickly) if it puts the officer in a positive light seems to be the norm
* https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/officers-body-camera-wen...
* https://www.nbcmiami.com/investigations/body-cameras-turned-...
* UK but it's the same discussion https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66809642
* https://www.wbrc.com/2025/07/12/coroner-completes-report-jab...
* https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/release-of-police-bodycam-...
* https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/officers-body-camera-wen...
* https://www.nbcmiami.com/investigations/body-cameras-turned-...
* UK but it's the same discussion https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66809642
* https://www.wbrc.com/2025/07/12/coroner-completes-report-jab...
* https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/release-of-police-bodycam-...
If it’s not being recorded, what would this AI summary be based on?
You describe the conviction you want to achieve and the AI makes up a report to secure that.
They keep all the video in cloud servers, and everyone sends to be ignoring that. I know from being inside Axon
> > If it’s not being recorded
> They keep all the video
I guess you could say that Axon servers keep every single video that was never recorded because the camera was off. It's very space efficient too.
> They keep all the video
I guess you could say that Axon servers keep every single video that was never recorded because the camera was off. It's very space efficient too.
“You are a helpful agent. Police officers will describe an interaction to you and you will write a report that highlights the appropriateness of the officer’s actions, omitting anything that might indicate they acted improperly”
Are people missing that this AI is being offered by a body cam company?
They are not a body cam company. They sell all sorts of equipment to police, including but not limited to body cams. They used to be named Taser international (guess why!) and later branched out into body cameras. They will happily service any law enforcement client, with or without body cams.
https://www.axon.com/products
https://www.axon.com/products
Why do you think that's relevant?
Because people seem to be raising a concern that this AI's summaries of police interactions would be relied upon as a substitute for bodycam footage, with people citing regulations absolving police of obligations to record interactions in the first place.
But this AI is being pushed by Axon, who sells bodycam systems. Do you think they would be touting this as a replacement for bodycams?
But this AI is being pushed by Axon, who sells bodycam systems. Do you think they would be touting this as a replacement for bodycams?
The scenario was not Axon would persuade police forces to stop using body cameras. The scenario was police forces would decided to stop using body cameras. And the concerns about this use of generative AI are not about the vendor's identity.
[deleted]
It goes a lot deeper than this, the real world isn't as simple as 'objective truth' and much of the law relies on interpreting the facts we all seek. This is where this technology fails, it normalizes nudging the margins to include a framing of what happened (including that video) using particular and precise language. That language influences court decisions.
For example, the phrase 'furtive movements' seems really anochronistic. Is that a phrase you use? cops use in their day to day life? But it constantly shows up in police reports. Why? The courts have said that 'furtive' movements are suspicious enough to trigger probable cause - which justifies a search. So now, cops every where write that they observe movements that are furtive. Is what your attorney viewed furtive? where they normal movements? were they suspicious? The cop described them as furtive though and we defer to cops, in part because they speak the language of the courts, and now your arrest is valid and that search is valid and whatever is recovered is valid - because a court said movements need to be furtive and you sneezed and a cop described that as furtive even though he had already decided to do the search before he got out of his car.
The only way our system works is if at every level every participant (people, jurors, judges, politicians) distrust the words of police - especially when they habitually use the language of the law to justify their actions. What this tool does is quite the opposite, it will statistically normalize the words police use to describe every interaction in language that is meant to persuade and influence courts now and over time to defer to police.
https://www.bjjohnsonlaw.com/furtive-movements-and-fourth-am...
https://www.californialawreview.org/print/whack-a-mole-sus
For example, the phrase 'furtive movements' seems really anochronistic. Is that a phrase you use? cops use in their day to day life? But it constantly shows up in police reports. Why? The courts have said that 'furtive' movements are suspicious enough to trigger probable cause - which justifies a search. So now, cops every where write that they observe movements that are furtive. Is what your attorney viewed furtive? where they normal movements? were they suspicious? The cop described them as furtive though and we defer to cops, in part because they speak the language of the courts, and now your arrest is valid and that search is valid and whatever is recovered is valid - because a court said movements need to be furtive and you sneezed and a cop described that as furtive even though he had already decided to do the search before he got out of his car.
The only way our system works is if at every level every participant (people, jurors, judges, politicians) distrust the words of police - especially when they habitually use the language of the law to justify their actions. What this tool does is quite the opposite, it will statistically normalize the words police use to describe every interaction in language that is meant to persuade and influence courts now and over time to defer to police.
https://www.bjjohnsonlaw.com/furtive-movements-and-fourth-am...
https://www.californialawreview.org/print/whack-a-mole-sus
I was thinking the same thing. If the AI report depends on the raw audio, then it should be preserved and the defense should compare that to the final police report. Having the edit history would be useful for improving the software and analyzing the officer's motivations, but ultimately we're not in a worse situation than before.
I'd predict the synthesis of the AI transcript and the police officer's memory will be more accurate than just the police officer alone. Would be nice if there's an independent study.
There are very incompetent public defenders, if we attribute to incompetence instead of malice, AI isn't changing that.
I'd predict the synthesis of the AI transcript and the police officer's memory will be more accurate than just the police officer alone. Would be nice if there's an independent study.
There are very incompetent public defenders, if we attribute to incompetence instead of malice, AI isn't changing that.
Body cameras capture a lot less than you'd think. Lets just take one example: you can't see the cop at all.
Imagine a cop says "stand over there" but a suspect doesn't know where they mean and doesn't move. Axon might well add "I pointed to the kerb" on the police report, which the police officer rubber stamps. Now the system has invented a clear non-complying suspect with nothing but their word to refute it.
Similarly shaky camera, limited field of view, poor audio, periods when cameras are off all add opportunities for camera footage to fail to prove what happened. Police reports have a lot of weight in court, they are treated as true by default.
Imagine a cop says "stand over there" but a suspect doesn't know where they mean and doesn't move. Axon might well add "I pointed to the kerb" on the police report, which the police officer rubber stamps. Now the system has invented a clear non-complying suspect with nothing but their word to refute it.
Similarly shaky camera, limited field of view, poor audio, periods when cameras are off all add opportunities for camera footage to fail to prove what happened. Police reports have a lot of weight in court, they are treated as true by default.
I cannot imagine a defense so incompetent that they rely on the police report rather than watching the entire body cam footage and doing their own assessment.
Not incompetent at all. Police officers often turn in multiple reports following an incident and arrest. Sometimes they contradict each other, and it would be a foolish defense attorney who did not explore those contradictions.
Not incompetent at all. Police officers often turn in multiple reports following an incident and arrest. Sometimes they contradict each other, and it would be a foolish defense attorney who did not explore those contradictions.
Even in jurisdictions that require recordings at all times, there are times when the police are required by law to switch them off (entering certain non-public spaces etc), so there can always be gaps that are legal, never mind illegal.
This article is about Axon purposely working to make audits harder and police less accountable. Is it so hard to imagine a future feature that summarizes the body cam footage then erases it?
It should matter which parts were written by AI or by officer. Once the officer signs off on the report, they take full responsibility for the content.
I can only assume you meant to write "shouldn't" instead of "should", but if you study human factors you'll discover that certain kinds of taking-shortcuts behavior are inevitable when dealing with humans. Speeding when we drive, for example. We know we are creating a material risk of getting pulled over and fined, but we just basically decide to ignore that risk because for most of us it is outweighed by the convenience (and real value) of getting everywhere we're going faster.
As always considering how a person would interact with an intern is surprisingly instructive to how they will form a working relationship with an non-sentient tool like a language model. You would expect them to give it a probationary experience to earn their trust after which if they are satisfied they will almost certainly express that trust by giving the tool a greater and greater degree of freedom with less active (and less critical) oversight.
It is not the initial state that worries me where the officers still mistrust a new technology and are vigilant of it. What worries me is the late-stage where they have learned to trust it (because it has learned to cover their asses correctly) and the AI itself actually ends up exercising power in human social structures because people have a surprising bias towards not speaking up when it would be safer to keep your head down and go with the flow, even when the flow is letting AI take operational control of society inch by inch
As always considering how a person would interact with an intern is surprisingly instructive to how they will form a working relationship with an non-sentient tool like a language model. You would expect them to give it a probationary experience to earn their trust after which if they are satisfied they will almost certainly express that trust by giving the tool a greater and greater degree of freedom with less active (and less critical) oversight.
It is not the initial state that worries me where the officers still mistrust a new technology and are vigilant of it. What worries me is the late-stage where they have learned to trust it (because it has learned to cover their asses correctly) and the AI itself actually ends up exercising power in human social structures because people have a surprising bias towards not speaking up when it would be safer to keep your head down and go with the flow, even when the flow is letting AI take operational control of society inch by inch
Yeah, shouldn't :)
Taking your point with speeding, it is government policy for public transit bus drivers to speed +15MPH over the limit to stay up with traffic because it is safer, even though it is technically the government breaking the law.
You have the same worries as I regarding AI taking operational control which is likely inevitable at this point.
Taking your point with speeding, it is government policy for public transit bus drivers to speed +15MPH over the limit to stay up with traffic because it is safer, even though it is technically the government breaking the law.
You have the same worries as I regarding AI taking operational control which is likely inevitable at this point.
Yeah; Law Enforcement & the Judiciary is going to be an early flashpoint in the "a computer must never make a management decision" conflict. IMO: Its actually really important that these systems do not explicitly mark content as AI generated versus not, because if the operator is going to be held responsible for the final content, we can't allow repudiation of that content through an argument "well, that part was AI generated". Even if it isn't written with their voice; it should be reviewed and accepted by them, and at that point it doesn't matter if the AI writes it.
This is a contrived metaphor, but imagine some case report makes its way to a judge, and its missing some significant details about the case. But, its hand-written, and the officer argues that hand-writing is physically harder than typing, so of course hand-written reports wont be as comprehensive as typed ones. That argument is insane, partly because its an imperfect metaphor, but the line of logic is there.
This is a contrived metaphor, but imagine some case report makes its way to a judge, and its missing some significant details about the case. But, its hand-written, and the officer argues that hand-writing is physically harder than typing, so of course hand-written reports wont be as comprehensive as typed ones. That argument is insane, partly because its an imperfect metaphor, but the line of logic is there.
There is no accountability behind that responsibility.
Cops are not held to account for lying now. Even when they are caught, 99% of the time the worst consequence for them is their testimony is ignored in court. They don't face professional repercussions in practice.
So even if officers are responsible for their reports they will still take the easy route and sign off on AI garbage. There is no downside, and it helps them meet pressure from their bosses and avoid the part of the job they hate the most.
Cops are not held to account for lying now. Even when they are caught, 99% of the time the worst consequence for them is their testimony is ignored in court. They don't face professional repercussions in practice.
So even if officers are responsible for their reports they will still take the easy route and sign off on AI garbage. There is no downside, and it helps them meet pressure from their bosses and avoid the part of the job they hate the most.
Do you read EULAs all the way through every time?
People just LGTM rubber stamp nearly everything they're given, as it's time efficient in the now.
People just LGTM rubber stamp nearly everything they're given, as it's time efficient in the now.
Do you think there is a difference between a civilian driver ignoring the routine maintenance schedule for their car and a professional pilot ignoring the maintenance schedule for their plane?
That’s absolutely their choice, then. But if it turns out the AI wrote bullshit into the report, the officer that rubber stamped it must be held accountable for that, with no difference to a situation where they had written the bullshit themselves.
"Responsibility" doesn't help the person who goes to prison based on the "evidence" of the bullshit report that the jury decided to believe. Or the person who goes to prison when the bullshit report should have exonerated them, but didn't. Or in the other direction entirely a victim whose abuser goes free because of the bullshit in the report.
Ultimately accuracy in police reports is a high stakes endeavour, it's not a place to be putting bullshit generators.
Ultimately accuracy in police reports is a high stakes endeavour, it's not a place to be putting bullshit generators.
The real issue is accountability - officers need to be held accountable for reports the way pilots are accountable for use of auto-pilot[1].
[1] yes they are: https://www.google.com/search?q=are+pilots+accountable+for+u...
[1] yes they are: https://www.google.com/search?q=are+pilots+accountable+for+u...
Law enforcement needs greater accountability altogether.
I’ve long believed that police officers should be required to carry private liability insurance, just like professionals in many other high risk fields. If an officer is uninsurable, they should be unhireable, plain and simple. Repeated misconduct would drive up their premiums or disqualify them entirely, creating a real consequence for bad behavior.
It’s astonishing that police officers aren’t held to the same standards as the rest of us. As a carpenter and building contractor, if I showed up at the wrong address and built or tore down something by mistake, I’d be financially and legally responsible. I’d be expected to make it right, and my insurance would likely step in.
But when a police officer raids the wrong home, injures or kills innocent people, or throws tear gas into a room with a baby, there’s rarely accountability—legal, financial, or professional. That’s unacceptable in any system that claims to serve and protect the public.
I’ve long believed that police officers should be required to carry private liability insurance, just like professionals in many other high risk fields. If an officer is uninsurable, they should be unhireable, plain and simple. Repeated misconduct would drive up their premiums or disqualify them entirely, creating a real consequence for bad behavior.
It’s astonishing that police officers aren’t held to the same standards as the rest of us. As a carpenter and building contractor, if I showed up at the wrong address and built or tore down something by mistake, I’d be financially and legally responsible. I’d be expected to make it right, and my insurance would likely step in.
But when a police officer raids the wrong home, injures or kills innocent people, or throws tear gas into a room with a baby, there’s rarely accountability—legal, financial, or professional. That’s unacceptable in any system that claims to serve and protect the public.
> But when a police officer raids the wrong home, injures or kills innocent people, or throws tear gas into a room with a baby, there’s rarely accountability—legal, financial, or professional. That’s unacceptable in any system that claims to serve and protect the public.
The American public, or at least the set of them whose vote counts among the gerrymandering, have explicitly chosen this. Their representatives are now building an even less accountable system to be used against "immigrants", i.e. anyone non-white, who can be abducted and denied legal representation.
The American public, or at least the set of them whose vote counts among the gerrymandering, have explicitly chosen this. Their representatives are now building an even less accountable system to be used against "immigrants", i.e. anyone non-white, who can be abducted and denied legal representation.
> But when a police officer raids the wrong home, injures or kills innocent people, or throws tear gas into a room with a baby, there’s rarely accountability—legal, financial, or professional.
It's not just that there's rarely accountability - there's explicitly no accountability.
People have sued officers, police departments, cities for the cost of damages from such mistaken raids (including ones that were completely negligent, like wrong street entirely) and the courts have explicitly ruled that they have zero reponsibility to pay for any of the damage caused.
It's not just that there's rarely accountability - there's explicitly no accountability.
People have sued officers, police departments, cities for the cost of damages from such mistaken raids (including ones that were completely negligent, like wrong street entirely) and the courts have explicitly ruled that they have zero reponsibility to pay for any of the damage caused.
That’s a dangerous slippery slope. Most public officers (employees) are subject to a wide range of ethics and other regulations that impact post-service employment. In exchange, you’re indemnified for official acts and the government has a duty to defend you.
I’ve served in policy making roles at different levels of government. There’s a variety of businesses post employment that I’m not permitted to enter in post employment, some for 2-5 years, some indefinitely. Those restrictions are taken seriously, and I know that I’ll be held accountable.
Putting the onus on the employee is really enabling bad behavior - the issue is the poor governance of the police, and using the courts as some sort of cudgel won’t fix it, it will just create more corruption as the powers that be will hang out patsies to take the fall.
If the police are allowed to operate paramilitary forces, they need paramilitary discipline and rules of engagement. Army soldiers breaking rules of engagement get punished and officers sidelined and pushed out of the service. Police in many cases have been allowed to create cultures where everyone scratches each others back. Many police are veterans, and many privately will comment on the differences between those experiences.
IMO, the way to address the issues you describe is standard separation of duties. Invest in state and regional police forces, disempower local police, and move enforcement and investigation of police to a chain of command removed from the police. (Perhaps a State AG) When you need to blunt the variance associated with people’s poor application of discretion, the answer is usually a bureaucratic process.
I’ve served in policy making roles at different levels of government. There’s a variety of businesses post employment that I’m not permitted to enter in post employment, some for 2-5 years, some indefinitely. Those restrictions are taken seriously, and I know that I’ll be held accountable.
Putting the onus on the employee is really enabling bad behavior - the issue is the poor governance of the police, and using the courts as some sort of cudgel won’t fix it, it will just create more corruption as the powers that be will hang out patsies to take the fall.
If the police are allowed to operate paramilitary forces, they need paramilitary discipline and rules of engagement. Army soldiers breaking rules of engagement get punished and officers sidelined and pushed out of the service. Police in many cases have been allowed to create cultures where everyone scratches each others back. Many police are veterans, and many privately will comment on the differences between those experiences.
IMO, the way to address the issues you describe is standard separation of duties. Invest in state and regional police forces, disempower local police, and move enforcement and investigation of police to a chain of command removed from the police. (Perhaps a State AG) When you need to blunt the variance associated with people’s poor application of discretion, the answer is usually a bureaucratic process.
The difficulty with enforcing via AGs is that prosecutors feel the need to have a good relationship with the police for their other cases. You need an office who isn't going to be working with local and state cops at all, maybe a federal body?
Attorneys General are usually not states or district attorneys. That may vary by state — I’m not an expert in this… iv lived in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York, where the role doesn’t include that so my perspective.
Point being, as much separation as possible from the police (or any) chain of command is essential. The Federal government successfully used independent agencies until the circus that came to town with Trump part 2 appeared.
Point being, as much separation as possible from the police (or any) chain of command is essential. The Federal government successfully used independent agencies until the circus that came to town with Trump part 2 appeared.
Why is idemnification an appropriate answer to post-service restrictions? What do you mean by ethics regulations? What sorts of fields are public employees forbidden from working at post-employment? How is gp's statement a slippery slope?
> Those restrictions are taken seriously, and I know that I’ll be held accountable
I applaud your honesty, but in many ways, neither of those statements apply to police in practice, even if they theoretically apply legally.
I applaud your honesty, but in many ways, neither of those statements apply to police in practice, even if they theoretically apply legally.
> I’ve long believed that police officers should be required to carry private liability insurance, just like professionals in many other high risk fields. If an officer is uninsurable, they should be unhireable, plain and simple. Repeated misconduct would drive up their premiums or disqualify them entirely, creating a real consequence for bad behavior.
And it'd be administered by some faceless bureaucracy full of accountants, rather than a couple local politicians that the union can just bully (or bribe or whatever) into ignoring things.
But of course the current mess derives from sovereign immunity, which might be a bit tricky to get the politicians to tinker with more than they already have. :(
And it'd be administered by some faceless bureaucracy full of accountants, rather than a couple local politicians that the union can just bully (or bribe or whatever) into ignoring things.
But of course the current mess derives from sovereign immunity, which might be a bit tricky to get the politicians to tinker with more than they already have. :(
>Law enforcement needs greater accountability altogether.
Which is directly contrary to what's good for the state. So unless the lack of accountability is more threatening to the state than less useful to the state law enforcement is the lack of accountability will remain. At best it might get slightly better over decades.
Which is directly contrary to what's good for the state. So unless the lack of accountability is more threatening to the state than less useful to the state law enforcement is the lack of accountability will remain. At best it might get slightly better over decades.
Politically, you could probably sell the insurance idea as actually protecting officers. But then you'd get the wrong people opposing it...
We could call it a cost cutting measure to save the taxpayer billions in unnecessary legal fees and settlements.
Chesterton’s fence cones to mind. I wonder what unintended positive effects the current policy has.
IMO Chesterton'ing the state of policing in the US results in deep fundamental awkwardness.
Why are police heavily armed and adopting military tactics?
Because of famous encounters with heavily-armed criminals by lightly-equipped cops.
Why are criminals able to be so heavily armed?
Because of treating a "right to bear arms" as semi-sacred. Supposedly in the name of distrust of government.
A heavily-armed citizenry doesn't have to lead to fascism but it can certainly give people great excuses to enable it... (See also how it allows the existence of armed private militias who will talk about "standing by" to assist with certain government actions.)
Why are police heavily armed and adopting military tactics?
Because of famous encounters with heavily-armed criminals by lightly-equipped cops.
Why are criminals able to be so heavily armed?
Because of treating a "right to bear arms" as semi-sacred. Supposedly in the name of distrust of government.
A heavily-armed citizenry doesn't have to lead to fascism but it can certainly give people great excuses to enable it... (See also how it allows the existence of armed private militias who will talk about "standing by" to assist with certain government actions.)
Chesterton's fence, as properly applied, should have been considered when granting the immunity we see now.
e.g. I wonder what unintended (or perhaps intended) negative effects the current policy has compared to the previous one.
e.g. I wonder what unintended (or perhaps intended) negative effects the current policy has compared to the previous one.
Is your question what’s the positive effect of an unaccountable and violent police force? In general the effect is continued terrorization of poor and black and brown communities and the entrenchment of the police’s municipal power. This is a “positive” effect only to the worst people who want a hierarchical society where they get to be on top by force.
You’re describing a rather far end of the spectrum. I’m thinking of police having sort of a monopoly on violence. And being “too weak” would come with its own challenges.
Qualified immunity is a relatively modern invention by the Supreme Court. The origins were fairly reasonable in the civil rights era, saying in Pierson v. Ray that some Mississippi police officers were not liable for enforcing a state law against assembly which was later ruled to be unconstitutional, which is probably the strongest case for a positive effect.
The negatives started mounting as it was rapidly expanded from the question of whether the action was legal at the time as in the Mississippi case to whether the officer violated clearly-established precedent for the specific actions they made. There really isn’t a positive argument for that better than “the courts invented a doctrine because Congress didn’t set a clean policy”. Because it ties into some hot-button political issues now, we’re unlikely to see improvements for a while but it is interesting to contemplate the alternate timeline where the Markey/Booker/Harris resolution in 2020 actually turned into a law.
The negatives started mounting as it was rapidly expanded from the question of whether the action was legal at the time as in the Mississippi case to whether the officer violated clearly-established precedent for the specific actions they made. There really isn’t a positive argument for that better than “the courts invented a doctrine because Congress didn’t set a clean policy”. Because it ties into some hot-button political issues now, we’re unlikely to see improvements for a while but it is interesting to contemplate the alternate timeline where the Markey/Booker/Harris resolution in 2020 actually turned into a law.
I really wish policing would take more inspiration from aviation on a different avenue for police accountability.
The NTSB exists not to blame pilots (though they sometimes do), but to make air travel safer and prevent future plane crashes. In the business of preventing disaster in safety-critical industry, if you chalk something up to human error or call it a tragic accident, you guarantee that it will happen again. Finding that everyone did everything by the book means the book needs to be rewritten because the book that exists today contains a recipe for plane crashes.
I wish police would treat use of force incidents the same way. The investigations after police use of force ask whether the officer violated the law or department policy. Like most law enforcement and judicial work, the exercise focuses on identifying, trying, and punishing guilty parties. If there is no guilty party, the process can produce no change. I would like to see more investigations into police use of force that focus on improving safety outcomes instead.
The NTSB exists not to blame pilots (though they sometimes do), but to make air travel safer and prevent future plane crashes. In the business of preventing disaster in safety-critical industry, if you chalk something up to human error or call it a tragic accident, you guarantee that it will happen again. Finding that everyone did everything by the book means the book needs to be rewritten because the book that exists today contains a recipe for plane crashes.
I wish police would treat use of force incidents the same way. The investigations after police use of force ask whether the officer violated the law or department policy. Like most law enforcement and judicial work, the exercise focuses on identifying, trying, and punishing guilty parties. If there is no guilty party, the process can produce no change. I would like to see more investigations into police use of force that focus on improving safety outcomes instead.
> I wish police would treat use of force incidents the same way
Cops have the system they want. They won't voluntarily change it unless forced.
Cops have the system they want. They won't voluntarily change it unless forced.
Yes. It doesn’t matter exactly how each word in the police report was entered. All that matters is the officer signed off on it. They should be personally & totally responsible for the contents of the report. I don’t care if they use generative AI, speech to text, Dvorak touch typing, QWERTY hunt-and-peck or anything else. An officer must read the final report and sign to assert its accuracy.
If police reports are low quality, it’s an officer performance problem. Obviously performance management in public safety is exceptionally challenging, but that’s the problem domain that matters. You cannot solve law enforcement accountability by tweaking your AI User Interface.
That said, this seems like a missed opportunity to use technology to increase accountability. If you’re running speech to text on body cam footage, great! Everyone involved in the conversation should get a copy of the transcript. There should be a straightforward way to challenge STT errors.
Again though, it’s the same deal as the body cam footage itself. Always-on body cams with default public access are one thing, officer-managed, sue-to-review is quite another. The crucial issues are political, not technical.
If police reports are low quality, it’s an officer performance problem. Obviously performance management in public safety is exceptionally challenging, but that’s the problem domain that matters. You cannot solve law enforcement accountability by tweaking your AI User Interface.
That said, this seems like a missed opportunity to use technology to increase accountability. If you’re running speech to text on body cam footage, great! Everyone involved in the conversation should get a copy of the transcript. There should be a straightforward way to challenge STT errors.
Again though, it’s the same deal as the body cam footage itself. Always-on body cams with default public access are one thing, officer-managed, sue-to-review is quite another. The crucial issues are political, not technical.
That’s really just one issue among many, and it actually makes me worry more about this technology, not less: it provides a clear incentive for the officer to stand by the contents of a report that he or she did not write, even if they realize at some point it is wrong, because they hastily or lazily signed it.
The way this technology is designed is a clear example of dystopian outcomes driven by market forces: capitalism inserted into processes (like justice) which society ought to protect against perversion by profit motives. I can imagine a version of this technology that is designed with societal benefits in mind, but instead we get one designed to make the sale.
The way this technology is designed is a clear example of dystopian outcomes driven by market forces: capitalism inserted into processes (like justice) which society ought to protect against perversion by profit motives. I can imagine a version of this technology that is designed with societal benefits in mind, but instead we get one designed to make the sale.
Here's the thing. I've read thousands of police reports. Most police reports are super short and super vague. Most police reports are never read even once, even though a large percentage result in convictions. Most criminal charges result in plea deals. Most defendants will never see any evidence against them before pleading guilty†.
If, in the exceptionally rare case that a defendant goes to trial, an officer has to testify, it is probably on average a year after he wrote the report. He will be sat down just before trial by the prosecutor and shown his report and asked to read it. On the stand he generally will not have his report available to reference and is supposed to use his memory, but this will be corrupted by his reading of whatever is in the report he read a couple of hours before. If his report is full of inaccuracies he will almost certainly testify under oath to those.
†This situation has changed very slightly in the last few years with lawyers now supposed to verify the probable guilt of their client before recommending a guilty plea.
If, in the exceptionally rare case that a defendant goes to trial, an officer has to testify, it is probably on average a year after he wrote the report. He will be sat down just before trial by the prosecutor and shown his report and asked to read it. On the stand he generally will not have his report available to reference and is supposed to use his memory, but this will be corrupted by his reading of whatever is in the report he read a couple of hours before. If his report is full of inaccuracies he will almost certainly testify under oath to those.
†This situation has changed very slightly in the last few years with lawyers now supposed to verify the probable guilt of their client before recommending a guilty plea.
> Most police reports are never read even once, even though a large percentage result in convictions.
Watch the videos of Judge Fleischer on YouTube, dealing with probable cause.
It is OBVIOUS from these videos that the first time the prosecutor has EVER read the report (and bear in mind, this is THE report, the police report establishing probable cause for the arrest in the first place).
And most of them are entirely garbage. "Was observed in a vehicle" "Was he driving?" "Doesn't say"... "Initiated a traffic stop?" "Why?" "Doesn't say..."
Watch the videos of Judge Fleischer on YouTube, dealing with probable cause.
It is OBVIOUS from these videos that the first time the prosecutor has EVER read the report (and bear in mind, this is THE report, the police report establishing probable cause for the arrest in the first place).
And most of them are entirely garbage. "Was observed in a vehicle" "Was he driving?" "Doesn't say"... "Initiated a traffic stop?" "Why?" "Doesn't say..."
The solution to police state is more policing?
What about less? Take away guns and reach of the cops and politicians?
Accountability by making 900k cops across all levels of government stripped of power and made normal people? Same for the 600k politicians coast to coast. Screw their story mode mental illness.
Make everyone busy generalizing logistics process to serve biology and stop with story mode hustling memes about fiat (vacuous proclamations) valuations using jargon from the 1800s?
Roughly 1.5 million pols and cops have 10s of millions wrapped around their finger. With urbanization the best part is a bunch of them live just a few miles from any given large urban area full of people being screwed by them.
The time for demanding meager reforms from 60+ year olds who have no skin in our future is long gone.
Skip the guns and go the route of making everyone a normie civil servant and no one has leverage https://aeon.co/essays/game-theory-s-cure-for-corruption-mak...
Except the low level gossipy kind like “so n so cheated”. Statistical analysis of death trends suggest we kill each other on Main Street over such gossip at the same rate humans did centuries ago. It’s those moments of nation state fueled atrocity and imperialism when human death spikes. Seem clear in the streets most adults just don’t go on murderous rampage.
What about less? Take away guns and reach of the cops and politicians?
Accountability by making 900k cops across all levels of government stripped of power and made normal people? Same for the 600k politicians coast to coast. Screw their story mode mental illness.
Make everyone busy generalizing logistics process to serve biology and stop with story mode hustling memes about fiat (vacuous proclamations) valuations using jargon from the 1800s?
Roughly 1.5 million pols and cops have 10s of millions wrapped around their finger. With urbanization the best part is a bunch of them live just a few miles from any given large urban area full of people being screwed by them.
The time for demanding meager reforms from 60+ year olds who have no skin in our future is long gone.
Skip the guns and go the route of making everyone a normie civil servant and no one has leverage https://aeon.co/essays/game-theory-s-cure-for-corruption-mak...
Except the low level gossipy kind like “so n so cheated”. Statistical analysis of death trends suggest we kill each other on Main Street over such gossip at the same rate humans did centuries ago. It’s those moments of nation state fueled atrocity and imperialism when human death spikes. Seem clear in the streets most adults just don’t go on murderous rampage.
That's incredibly naive. Spend some time watching police body camera footage. By and large, the police are doing exceptionally well in hostile and difficult circumstances. We're all safer because there is a real counterforce to tough guys, mafias, and paramilitary strong men. They don't exist or are heavily controlled, because the police are a powerful force for good. Taking away the police would create a power vacuum that would be filled faster than you can imagine; and by people who will treat us all much worse than the police ever have.
And yet, many wealthy countries have no worse problems with crime than the US, despite having a fraction of our police forces (per capita) and prison populations.
The real naivete is thinking the US police force is the best policing model on the planet, when that's demonstrably false.
The real naivete is thinking the US police force is the best policing model on the planet, when that's demonstrably false.
America's crime problem isn't caused by the behavior of police while arresting people.
If you make that conclusion after watching police camera footage, aren’t you making a classic survivorship bias fallacy? Those films are not a randomly-selected representative sample. Those films that you watched were those films that
1. Were allowed by the police officer themselves to be recorded in the first place (i.e. the cameras were either deliberately switched on, or at least suffered no timely “camera malfunctions”)
2. And also only films which made it through the filter of being considered suitable for publication, after the fact.
What you have actually been watching are carefully-selected propaganda pieces that, even assuming they are indiviually true and unaltered, are undoubtedly presenting a false view, supporting the powers that select them.
1. Were allowed by the police officer themselves to be recorded in the first place (i.e. the cameras were either deliberately switched on, or at least suffered no timely “camera malfunctions”)
2. And also only films which made it through the filter of being considered suitable for publication, after the fact.
What you have actually been watching are carefully-selected propaganda pieces that, even assuming they are indiviually true and unaltered, are undoubtedly presenting a false view, supporting the powers that select them.
Such videos are not the only basis on which to make the argument I put forth. But you'll also find many sources of police videos that are not "released" by the police, but secured by FOIA requests. There are of course examples of videos with police planting evidence, or using excessive force, or other unfortunate things. But by and large, you'll see over and over, the police behaving admirably and in the public interest.
> you'll see over and over, the police behaving admirably and in the public interest.
Where do we see that? The police camera footage? As I explained, those are not reliable.
Note that I am not arguing against police in general; I agree with you that they are necessary. But your stated source is fundamentally flawed.
Where do we see that? The police camera footage? As I explained, those are not reliable.
Note that I am not arguing against police in general; I agree with you that they are necessary. But your stated source is fundamentally flawed.
No, it's not fundamentally flawed. It _may_ be flawed, but just because you imagine that the available videos are somehow skewed in one way or the other, does not mean that you're correct.
As I stated, if it was simply one source of the videos, with one agenda, then perhaps you'd have a stronger argument. But in fact, that are many more people who are interested in the videos that expose police corruption, and they tend to be more circulated than the others. That is the benefit of the FOIA; as citizens we can get access to police body cam videos, when anyone alleges that there has been malfeasance in a given case.
As I stated, if it was simply one source of the videos, with one agenda, then perhaps you'd have a stronger argument. But in fact, that are many more people who are interested in the videos that expose police corruption, and they tend to be more circulated than the others. That is the benefit of the FOIA; as citizens we can get access to police body cam videos, when anyone alleges that there has been malfeasance in a given case.
This requires audio to work and appears to create more transparency. You can request the audio recording to verify accuracy. This will happen as a routine procedure from defense attorneys. Any problems with the technology would be discovered quickly and if the officer didn’t do their job of correcting the errors before the report is generated they would be torn apart.
You can verify the accuracy of a transcript, but a police report is much much more than a transcript. It includes off-camera action, smells, states of mind, impressions, context, facial expressions, etc. If Axon hallucinates that stuff, there's no way you can use video footage to check the accuracy or refute the statement.
When EU introduced its AI Act there was much gnashing of teeth here at HN over "stifling of innovation" and "getting left behind in technological backwater".
EU AI Act specifically calls out and forbids such applications. Of course, the state will do what the state will do, but there's an actual obstacle enshrined in law.
EU AI Act specifically calls out and forbids such applications. Of course, the state will do what the state will do, but there's an actual obstacle enshrined in law.
And there is the right to privacy enshrined as well but that has no bearing on what states will do ultimately.
The EU is in the midst of ending encryption and will soon require lawful access to all your data by forcing providers to bake in legal backdoors in OSes so that nobody can bypass/deactivate them.
All of this done under the guise of protecting the children, stopping misinformation(the ministry of truth is back) and protect democracy (TM).
The AI act may be a good thing in some cases but we should all stop pretending that the EU is not following in the footsteps of the US when it comes to loss of privacy and restriction of freedom of speech.
Many western countries are slowly sliding into wannabe authoritarian regimes.
The EU is in the midst of ending encryption and will soon require lawful access to all your data by forcing providers to bake in legal backdoors in OSes so that nobody can bypass/deactivate them.
All of this done under the guise of protecting the children, stopping misinformation(the ministry of truth is back) and protect democracy (TM).
The AI act may be a good thing in some cases but we should all stop pretending that the EU is not following in the footsteps of the US when it comes to loss of privacy and restriction of freedom of speech.
Many western countries are slowly sliding into wannabe authoritarian regimes.
Creative lawyers will be all over this. First you get the officer to testify that AI helped write the report, then you call the AI as a witness. When the judge tosses that, you start issuing subpoenas to everyone you can find at OpenAI and Axon.
As others point out, the actual bodycam footage will be definitively probative for the events it records. But there are plenty of cases where the report itself leads to later actions that may be tortious or criminal, and finding out who's to blame for the exact wording used is highly relevant.
Example: AI incorrectly reports that during A's arrest, A made incriminating allegations about B. Based on the report, the police get a warrant and search B's house. When it turns out B is innocent, B sues the department, and when the report turns up during discovery, we're off to the circus.
As others point out, the actual bodycam footage will be definitively probative for the events it records. But there are plenty of cases where the report itself leads to later actions that may be tortious or criminal, and finding out who's to blame for the exact wording used is highly relevant.
Example: AI incorrectly reports that during A's arrest, A made incriminating allegations about B. Based on the report, the police get a warrant and search B's house. When it turns out B is innocent, B sues the department, and when the report turns up during discovery, we're off to the circus.
Wonder if OpenAI has all the originals, especially in light of that lawsuit with nytimes.
From TFA, “ You can read our full report, which details what we found in those documents, how we filed those public records requests, and how you can file your own, here.” With the last word here being a link to another article:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/effs-guide-getting-rec...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/effs-guide-getting-rec...
Their models run on Microsoft models and on azure.
If so, it'd definitely be FOIA'able.
I don’t think FOIA applies to private companies, only government records.
Not correct. All FOIA laws that I know of say that any records created or held by private corporations under contract to the government are FOIA-able via the government. (the government has to go out and get the records for you)
Yep! Here's Illinois's statutory language on this topic:
(2) A public record that is not in the possession of a public body but is in the possession of a party with whom the agency has contracted to perform a governmental function on behalf of the public body, and that directly relates to the governmental function and is not otherwise exempt under this Act, shall be considered a public record of the public body, for purposes of this Act.
Yeah, my bad, I forgot the extra clause. And, of course, you often have to fight even harder for these types of records as it is extra work for the government to do, as chaps above can surely attest.
Some stuff slips through, though. For instance, I tried to FOIA the source code for the Voyager probes, but NASA outsourced the dev to Caltech and somehow there is a copyright restriction on it, or something daft like that, which means it cannot be released, even though taxpayers paid the bills.
Some stuff slips through, though. For instance, I tried to FOIA the source code for the Voyager probes, but NASA outsourced the dev to Caltech and somehow there is a copyright restriction on it, or something daft like that, which means it cannot be released, even though taxpayers paid the bills.
[flagged]
‘In passing by the side of Mount Thai, Confucius came on a woman who was weeping bitterly by a grave. The Master pressed forward and drove quickly to her; then he sent Tze-lu to question her. “Your wailing,” said he, “is that of one who has suffered sorrow on sorrow.”She replied, “That is so. Once my husband’s father was killed here by a tiger. My husband was also killed, and now my son has died in the same way.” The Master said, “Why do you not leave the place?” The answer was, “There is no oppressive government here.” The Master then said, “Remember this, my children: oppressive government is more terrible than tigers.”’
The subject of this paper is the problem of ensuring that government shall be less terrible than tigers.
--- From The Taming of Power by Bertrand Russell, 1938
The subject of this paper is the problem of ensuring that government shall be less terrible than tigers.
--- From The Taming of Power by Bertrand Russell, 1938
孔子過泰山側，有婦人哭於墓者而哀，夫子式而聽之。使子貢問之曰：「子之哭也，壹似重有憂者。」而曰：「然，昔者吾舅死於虎，吾夫又死焉，今吾子又死焉。」夫子曰：「何為不去也？」曰：「無苛政。」夫子曰：「小子識之，苛政猛於虎也。」
https://ctext.org/liji/tan-gong-ii#n9720
https://ctext.org/liji/tan-gong-ii#n9720
I wonder if her husband, son, and father in law would agree with that conclusion.
Yes? They stayed and did not leave. Confucius asking the woman did not create that option. It was always there.
My personal thought would also be that one has significantly higher chances to succeed against a tiger than a government, including much more control over whether a tiger attacks in the first place (for example, fences or not going out alone would already improve your chances significantly, which would do nothing against government officials).
My personal thought would also be that one has significantly higher chances to succeed against a tiger than a government, including much more control over whether a tiger attacks in the first place (for example, fences or not going out alone would already improve your chances significantly, which would do nothing against government officials).
I don't doubt that. But the story just demonstrates survivor bias, literally. Surely there's a better way to illustrate the point. As it is the obvious fallacy makes me inherently skeptical of a conclusion that I'm otherwise inclined to agree with.
nosianu says "one has significantly higher chances to succeed against a tiger than a government"
I don't think so! A tiger will kill you in the blink of an eye.
As for fences: while clearing land for the British railway lines in India, it was sometimes necessary to bring in skilled tiger hunters to eradicate these beasts. In one attack, for example, a tiger jumped a high fence (intended to keep tigers out) around a human encampment, seized a victim, jumped over the fence again carrying his prey and ran away with the meal.
I don't think so! A tiger will kill you in the blink of an eye.
As for fences: while clearing land for the British railway lines in India, it was sometimes necessary to bring in skilled tiger hunters to eradicate these beasts. In one attack, for example, a tiger jumped a high fence (intended to keep tigers out) around a human encampment, seized a victim, jumped over the fence again carrying his prey and ran away with the meal.
...and that was in 1938, when there was no such thing as an AI panopticon.
It also came just before some particularly terrible governments really hit their stride.
And the original “Tyranny is Fiercer than a Tiger” significantly predates even that!
> I dont want to live in a technocratic police state
Unfortunately the police state mentality is spreading.
The attacks on encryption and the "need" to crackdown on terrorism and CP gives wet dreams to a lot of government officials who won't be satisfied until there is a camera in every home and your phone snooping on you 24/7 and reporting back to the cops all your crimes alleged or otherwise.
No government is immune. France, Australia, the UK, The EU, they are all coming for our privacy and freedom of speech and they will get them sooner or later.
They say history does not repeat but it often rhymes. I think a lot of people have forgotten/never experienced what it's like to live in a police state and the 2030s may just bring back these memories for some and potentially introduce these concepts to a new generation entirely.
Unfortunately the police state mentality is spreading.
The attacks on encryption and the "need" to crackdown on terrorism and CP gives wet dreams to a lot of government officials who won't be satisfied until there is a camera in every home and your phone snooping on you 24/7 and reporting back to the cops all your crimes alleged or otherwise.
No government is immune. France, Australia, the UK, The EU, they are all coming for our privacy and freedom of speech and they will get them sooner or later.
They say history does not repeat but it often rhymes. I think a lot of people have forgotten/never experienced what it's like to live in a police state and the 2030s may just bring back these memories for some and potentially introduce these concepts to a new generation entirely.
This seems like as good a spot as any to drop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generatio...
This isn't a new thing. Orwell was pretty clear about it in 1984. The people who don't have much to take get mostly left alone.
There's no money to be made, no wealth to be captured, by running a dystopian government in Haiti, or whatever. So nobody does it.
There's no money to be made, no wealth to be captured, by running a dystopian government in Haiti, or whatever. So nobody does it.
Come on over to the Dominican Republic. I’ve been here for 15 years, and I’ve had no problems running several projects from here. In the Cibao region you’ll find IMHO the best culture, and Santiago has a little of everything, though it takes some looking to find the gems. I prefer the mountains between Santiago and Puerto Plata, close to everything but not in the middle of anything. Above 1000m elevation the weather is cool nights, warm days.
If you get here HMU if you want to talk about the third industrial revolution and what we’re working on to make it a better ride for humans.
If you get here HMU if you want to talk about the third industrial revolution and what we’re working on to make it a better ride for humans.
I spent a month there working for a client at "caso de campo". I really enjoyed the month. What was weird, I stayed at a town outside (I'm not elite enough to stay at caso de campo :P) forget the name but the whole town was just filled with Italian expats. It has been on my list of potential places.
However, the one thing I didn't like though was all Haitian workers, I actually witnessed some pretty awful stuff (like literal bloody fights over water bottles) inside caso de campo where they virtually had Haitian slaves. I'm talking guys standing behind me at dinner waiting to refill my water, and that was their entire existence. Probably better than living Haiti, but it made me feel uncomfortable. Not sure if the rest of the DR is like that though, I didn't really leave that area.
However, the one thing I didn't like though was all Haitian workers, I actually witnessed some pretty awful stuff (like literal bloody fights over water bottles) inside caso de campo where they virtually had Haitian slaves. I'm talking guys standing behind me at dinner waiting to refill my water, and that was their entire existence. Probably better than living Haiti, but it made me feel uncomfortable. Not sure if the rest of the DR is like that though, I didn't really leave that area.
Ive not seen that kind of mistreatment of people, but I’m sure it happens especially in situations of extreme class disparity.
Where I live it’s extremely laid back- it’s rural, 50 minutes from Santiago and an hour from puerto plata.
We have a coffee plantation that I pretend to run, but I spend most of my time working on tech and improving our micro-grid and water micro-utility systems.
Lots of avocado and fruit trees, cacao, etc. there are several houses and a bunch of cabanas we have built here since 2018, a couple of parks, a lounge, trails etc. we moved a whole project here during Covid, so we built out the campus a little bit to accommodate that. It’s a very campo vibe, but with modern conveniences and systems.
If you come by this way, let me know.
Where is casa del campo located? Was the town Sosua? I’ve always thought of Sosúa as being mostly German expats, but TBH I typically avoid those kinds of places in favor of the Latino culture, so I wouldn’t really know.
There’s island culture and Latino culture here, as well as enclaves and barrios of a lot of nationalities. Santiago has some very euro feeling neighborhoods - but that’s immigrant communities, not expats.
Unfortunately a lot of expats prefer spend their time commiserating with other expats about whatever isn’t the same as it is back in their country lol, so I tend to avoid that scene and mostly associate with more established families and people.
I like the Cibao area, more of a Castilian vibe, Spanish colonial, and not so much island culture. It’s not that island culture is bad, it’s just that it centers around hospitality, entertainment and tourism, so a white guy often isn’t looked at as a person so much as an opportunity.
I think that’s pretty universal across where I’ve been all over the world, port towns and tourist hotspots all have that same vibe.
Where I live it’s extremely laid back- it’s rural, 50 minutes from Santiago and an hour from puerto plata.
We have a coffee plantation that I pretend to run, but I spend most of my time working on tech and improving our micro-grid and water micro-utility systems.
Lots of avocado and fruit trees, cacao, etc. there are several houses and a bunch of cabanas we have built here since 2018, a couple of parks, a lounge, trails etc. we moved a whole project here during Covid, so we built out the campus a little bit to accommodate that. It’s a very campo vibe, but with modern conveniences and systems.
If you come by this way, let me know.
Where is casa del campo located? Was the town Sosua? I’ve always thought of Sosúa as being mostly German expats, but TBH I typically avoid those kinds of places in favor of the Latino culture, so I wouldn’t really know.
There’s island culture and Latino culture here, as well as enclaves and barrios of a lot of nationalities. Santiago has some very euro feeling neighborhoods - but that’s immigrant communities, not expats.
Unfortunately a lot of expats prefer spend their time commiserating with other expats about whatever isn’t the same as it is back in their country lol, so I tend to avoid that scene and mostly associate with more established families and people.
I like the Cibao area, more of a Castilian vibe, Spanish colonial, and not so much island culture. It’s not that island culture is bad, it’s just that it centers around hospitality, entertainment and tourism, so a white guy often isn’t looked at as a person so much as an opportunity.
I think that’s pretty universal across where I’ve been all over the world, port towns and tourist hotspots all have that same vibe.
> I dont want to worry about a white van pulling up in front of my house because I said something sarcastic online.
I find it fascinating that people will genuinely worry about this happening to them, despite it not happening, and then openly prefer a place they describe as “a lil dangerous” and “a degree of lawlessness”
This is the kind of thinking that happens when you build your entire worldview around exaggerated headlines and online fear mongering. When you go somewhere that isn’t in the headlines all of the time, you have to build your worldview around what you see and the vibes you sense instead of the fear mongering headlines. When a place described with words like dangerous and lawless starts to sound like the safer alternative than a country that is demonstrably safer, you’re probably getting too much of your information from internet sources designed to trigger your senses of fear and rage for engagement.
Every time there’s an anecdote with cognitive dissonance like this (describing the lawless, “lil dangerous” place as feeling safer) it comes down to getting perceptions of one community through vibes and the other community through news headlines. In this case, the description of the US as a technocratic police state where people get thrown into a white van for sarcastic online comments versus seeing some cops at a local bar one time.
I find it fascinating that people will genuinely worry about this happening to them, despite it not happening, and then openly prefer a place they describe as “a lil dangerous” and “a degree of lawlessness”
This is the kind of thinking that happens when you build your entire worldview around exaggerated headlines and online fear mongering. When you go somewhere that isn’t in the headlines all of the time, you have to build your worldview around what you see and the vibes you sense instead of the fear mongering headlines. When a place described with words like dangerous and lawless starts to sound like the safer alternative than a country that is demonstrably safer, you’re probably getting too much of your information from internet sources designed to trigger your senses of fear and rage for engagement.
Every time there’s an anecdote with cognitive dissonance like this (describing the lawless, “lil dangerous” place as feeling safer) it comes down to getting perceptions of one community through vibes and the other community through news headlines. In this case, the description of the US as a technocratic police state where people get thrown into a white van for sarcastic online comments versus seeing some cops at a local bar one time.
> I find it fascinating that people will genuinely worry about this happening to them, despite it not happening
Oh, but it is. Lots of people are getting picked up for online speech, the government is letting "their guys" off the hook for open crimes, and it's escalating to talking openly about imprisoning the other party.
We're there, it's fascism happening openly, and America isn't what it never was anyways.
Oh, but it is. Lots of people are getting picked up for online speech, the government is letting "their guys" off the hook for open crimes, and it's escalating to talking openly about imprisoning the other party.
We're there, it's fascism happening openly, and America isn't what it never was anyways.
No US citizen has had a federal law enforcement abduct them for making a sarcastic comment online (unless it was a legal threat, which has never been tolerated).
The US residents and visa holders who it has happened to, such as Mahmoud Khalil, are largely out of detention and, in his case, in a position to file a tort claim against the government of $20M dollars.
The current administration is a threat to the rule of law and I have no doubt they wish they were not subject to it. But they are, they have not attempted an auto-golpe, and people harmed by the administration continue to have the ability to seek redress through the courts. We are a little over a year away from midterm elections, which will almost certainly bring congressional impediments to executive power as well, at the very least in the form of investigations.
We in a dangerous period in US history, but it is not unprecedented, and the outcome is not yet determined. We are not in a fascist dictatorship today and, fortune willing, we might not yet ever be.
The US residents and visa holders who it has happened to, such as Mahmoud Khalil, are largely out of detention and, in his case, in a position to file a tort claim against the government of $20M dollars.
The current administration is a threat to the rule of law and I have no doubt they wish they were not subject to it. But they are, they have not attempted an auto-golpe, and people harmed by the administration continue to have the ability to seek redress through the courts. We are a little over a year away from midterm elections, which will almost certainly bring congressional impediments to executive power as well, at the very least in the form of investigations.
We in a dangerous period in US history, but it is not unprecedented, and the outcome is not yet determined. We are not in a fascist dictatorship today and, fortune willing, we might not yet ever be.
"It's illegal and you can press charges" doesn't save you from being grabbed by a white van. It doesn't save you from being shipped to a prison in another country and the Trump Administration telling the courts "tough, we're not bringing them back". It doesn't save you from the cops "accidentally" killing or maiming you.
We are absolutely living under fascism right now.
We are absolutely living under fascism right now.
They absolutely have attempted an auto-golpe, that's what January 6 was. they're now doing a more subtle one by simply dismantling as much institutional infrastructure as possible, often backed by the clapping and barking of MAGA-hat wearing seals.
Ive been a resident of two countries and am a citzen of the USA. 2 years Norway. 3 years Bahamas. Along with a lot of work in Europe and Asia. So Ive witnessed a wide spectrum of governments, and have been detained by all of these governments at some point for reasons Im not going to speak on.
Maybe its because im a citizen of the USA and they have the ultimate power over me, but i felt the most terrified when under their custody. Hell in the Bahamas the officials took me to Burger King (in handcuffs lol). To be clear im not a criminal I just have a wierd line of work that people question.
Maybe its because im a citizen of the USA and they have the ultimate power over me, but i felt the most terrified when under their custody. Hell in the Bahamas the officials took me to Burger King (in handcuffs lol). To be clear im not a criminal I just have a wierd line of work that people question.
The USA has 4% of the world population and 20% of the world's prisoners. It's not just you - the USA is an extreme outlier on the chart of policestaticity.
I also have spent 6 months in a USA jail for what ultimately resulted in my pleading to a misdemeanor, and never was a crime. My world view is likely a lot different than yours, and the white vans do exist. They are here RIGHT NOW.
> and the white vans do exist. They are here RIGHT NOW.
The comment was that white vans would take them away for posting something sarcastic online
The comment was that white vans would take them away for posting something sarcastic online
I think your mistake is believing that the development of infrastructure for one purpose will be cleanly stopped at a well-demarcated point once the original purpose is served.
When you build the infrastructure for squads of goons to kidnap people, then pour gasoline on the fire by massively increasing their funding, suddenly, a whole lot more people become “deportable.”
When you build the infrastructure for squads of goons to kidnap people, then pour gasoline on the fire by massively increasing their funding, suddenly, a whole lot more people become “deportable.”
We have the government revoking visas for writing articles critical of Israel, and we have white vans grabbing people who the administration alleged no longer have valid visas. This is all happening right now.
I was jailed on a bullsh*t "hate speech" statute, because I said the f slur to a cop (who turned out to be gay, my PI proved this wasn't even true in my civil suit, but that didn't matter, they stuck me with this, along with some other cop related bs (said I coughed on him and tried to give him covid, assault on a police officer) This was the government trying to ruin my life because I hurt a cops feelings. You clearly haven't dealt with authorities much.
In my state there is no intent required, so if a word can have multiple meanings in different contexts, the government gets to decide how you intended to use that word and what meaning you meant. So sorry, you're so wrong. There isn't much difference from what i said to this very annoying cop, and what a lot of people say online. Also, this never would have happened if I had said it to a regular person and not a cop.
edit: So yes, I literally was jailed and forced to admit to a hate speech crime (alford plea) because of something I said to a cop. And you think this is all in my head??
In my state there is no intent required, so if a word can have multiple meanings in different contexts, the government gets to decide how you intended to use that word and what meaning you meant. So sorry, you're so wrong. There isn't much difference from what i said to this very annoying cop, and what a lot of people say online. Also, this never would have happened if I had said it to a regular person and not a cop.
edit: So yes, I literally was jailed and forced to admit to a hate speech crime (alford plea) because of something I said to a cop. And you think this is all in my head??
"In my state there is no intent required, so if a word can have multiple meanings in different contexts, the government gets to decide how you intended to use that word and what meaning you meant. "
By "my state" do you mean one of the United States of America? Or are you speaking of somwhere outside the USA?
By "my state" do you mean one of the United States of America? Or are you speaking of somwhere outside the USA?
The United States.
If I understand the story, sounds like you got prosecuted for assault with a hate crime enhancement.
What do you think happens in the Dominican Republic if you call a cop that? It says more about you and the US that you thought you’d get away with it. I doubt there is any country in the world where personally offending a cop like that might not result in the cop abusing their power over you.
What do you think happens in the Dominican Republic if you call a cop that? It says more about you and the US that you thought you’d get away with it. I doubt there is any country in the world where personally offending a cop like that might not result in the cop abusing their power over you.
> It says more about you and the US that you thought you’d get away with it.
"Get away" with free speech against a police state? Are you serious?
"Get away" with free speech against a police state? Are you serious?
Ah yes, the UK does this kind of thing with Section 5 Public Order act making it basically illegal to swear in front of cops.
Not quite the same thing as just saying something online, although the US has now developed special police for that. From the part of ""free speech"".
Not quite the same thing as just saying something online, although the US has now developed special police for that. From the part of ""free speech"".
[deleted]
The president of the US personally threatened to illegally take away Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship because he doesn't like her. That seems more 'lawless' to me than some third-world countries.
Because he sorely needed to troll the public's attention away from l'affair Epstein. Why is this tactic still so non-obvious??
But it's BS! He's blustering, merely provoking opponents into chasing a figment of their imagination!
And so, here you are, wasting time responding to BS, when your time and thoughts could be more usefully employed elsewhere.
And so, here you are, wasting time responding to BS, when your time and thoughts could be more usefully employed elsewhere.
You make it sound like some 4D chess ploy to "own the libs". Everything I've seen is that it's just a natural consequence of electing an 80 year old half senile grandpa to arguably the most important role in the world.
How long will this "Nothing to see move on. He's just blustering" excuse is going to be used before people realize that this guy will try that even if it is illegal? With the what has happened to immigration and birthright citizen it doesn't seem far fetched. And it is frankly insulting to tell people that they are wasting time when they express real concern.
thisisit says: "...this guy will try that even if it is illegal..."
How will he "try that"? He hasn't done anything illegal and, if he does, his own staff and the courts will prevent him from doing it.
thisisit says: "With the what has happened to immigration..."
They've slowed illegals entering the country and they've begun to move immigrants out of the country. How is this a problem?
I never cared much for birthright citizenship other than for offspring of slavery but arguing about it hardly seems a good argument for or against Trump.
How will he "try that"? He hasn't done anything illegal and, if he does, his own staff and the courts will prevent him from doing it.
thisisit says: "With the what has happened to immigration..."
They've slowed illegals entering the country and they've begun to move immigrants out of the country. How is this a problem?
I never cared much for birthright citizenship other than for offspring of slavery but arguing about it hardly seems a good argument for or against Trump.
> How will he "try that"? He hasn't done anything illegal and, if he does, his own staff and the courts will prevent him from doing it.
Are we talking about convicted felon donald trump or some other guy?
Are we talking about convicted felon donald trump or some other guy?
> He hasn't done anything illegal and, if he does, his own staff and the courts will prevent him from doing it.
Then you must be living under a rock. He is a convicted felon who knowingly broke the law, his people who should fulfil their fiduciary duty helped him.
> I never cared much for birthright citizenship other than for offspring of slavery but arguing about it hardly seems a good argument for or against Trump.
Yep. The goal post shifting Trump supporter. “I can’t refute this so let’s go with “I don’t care for it so not a valid argument””.
Then you must be living under a rock. He is a convicted felon who knowingly broke the law, his people who should fulfil their fiduciary duty helped him.
> I never cared much for birthright citizenship other than for offspring of slavery but arguing about it hardly seems a good argument for or against Trump.
Yep. The goal post shifting Trump supporter. “I can’t refute this so let’s go with “I don’t care for it so not a valid argument””.
Its the president of the united states, the place where they live.
This argument has been used a thousand times against things Trump eventually did, stop making it.
I am manifestly certain it won't happen to me. I tick just about every box: straight, white, male, native-born US, healthy, moderately well off.
But I see it happening to others and that makes me upset. And my intention to fight that might some day make me a target, but that's not the core of it. The core is that it shouldn't happen to anyone.
But I see it happening to others and that makes me upset. And my intention to fight that might some day make me a target, but that's not the core of it. The core is that it shouldn't happen to anyone.
I agree with everything that you said but it's a "better the devil you know" type of situation.
The vibe that many people have in the US is that things are constantly in flux and that we have less and less control over our lives and environments. Anything could happen.
Considering that, I could understand wanting to go somewhere where there's a known quantity of danger and a known set of rules for avoiding it.
The vibe that many people have in the US is that things are constantly in flux and that we have less and less control over our lives and environments. Anything could happen.
Considering that, I could understand wanting to go somewhere where there's a known quantity of danger and a known set of rules for avoiding it.
tbh its wild you assumed my world view was curated by headlines. You probably have had the softest, easiest life and have never put your neck on the line in a way that might result in you being locked in a cage by a government official, so you welcome the white vans, because you don't take enough risk in life for it to ever matter to you.
Wild, and offensive. How do you like it when people make assumptions about you?
Wild, and offensive. How do you like it when people make assumptions about you?
> tbh its wild you assumed my world view was curated by headlines. You probably have had the softest, easiest life and have never put your neck on the line
Ironic to make a comment about making assumptions and then go on to make some wild ad hominem assumptions.
The news headlines I was referring to was the article we’re in the comment section discussing.
Ironic to make a comment about making assumptions and then go on to make some wild ad hominem assumptions.
The news headlines I was referring to was the article we’re in the comment section discussing.
Get out of here with "ad hominem", you know what you were saying. Go back to less-wrong.
> I find it fascinating that people will genuinely worry about this happening to them, despite it not happening
I mean, the "white van pulling up in front of a house" is happening on the daily now [1], the current administration has claimed they can suspend habeus corpus [2], they pick up US citizens and legal immigrants in these things [3], and they allegedly deny entry because of political reasons the administration doesn't like [4] (+allegedly [5]).
I don't think the fear of getting disappeared by an administration is unfounded, nor do I think we need to see documented evidence of exactly that particular circumstance happening before we're allowed to worry about it.
I also think the "lil dangerous" part is ironic, given most of these "other" places aren't particularly dangerous, nor is the US particularly safe as-is. "lil dangerous" and "degree of lawlessness" are apt descriptions of the United States, and has been for my entire lifetime.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=masked+ice+raids&udm=2 [2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-is-habeas-corpus-... [3] https://abc7chicago.com/post/george-retes-disabled-vet-us-ci... [4] https://apnews.com/article/immigration-detainees-students-oz... [5] https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/18/australian-deported-o...
I mean, the "white van pulling up in front of a house" is happening on the daily now [1], the current administration has claimed they can suspend habeus corpus [2], they pick up US citizens and legal immigrants in these things [3], and they allegedly deny entry because of political reasons the administration doesn't like [4] (+allegedly [5]).
I don't think the fear of getting disappeared by an administration is unfounded, nor do I think we need to see documented evidence of exactly that particular circumstance happening before we're allowed to worry about it.
I also think the "lil dangerous" part is ironic, given most of these "other" places aren't particularly dangerous, nor is the US particularly safe as-is. "lil dangerous" and "degree of lawlessness" are apt descriptions of the United States, and has been for my entire lifetime.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=masked+ice+raids&udm=2 [2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-is-habeas-corpus-... [3] https://abc7chicago.com/post/george-retes-disabled-vet-us-ci... [4] https://apnews.com/article/immigration-detainees-students-oz... [5] https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/18/australian-deported-o...
>I find it fascinating that people will genuinely worry about this happening to them, despite it not happening
Trump very recently suggested he would revoke Rosie O'Donnell's US citizenship, a natural born US citizen, because of things she's said that's (rightly) critical of him. I have no doubt he will try to do it, and SCOTUS probably won't stop him. This is political retaliation, and it's absolutely abhorrent.
That's where we are. I have no doubt the "white vans" are coming for people who speak out against the tyranny this administration is foisting upon us. I have no doubt that this very comment may even be used against me someday, as ridiculous as that may sound to you right now.
Trump very recently suggested he would revoke Rosie O'Donnell's US citizenship, a natural born US citizen, because of things she's said that's (rightly) critical of him. I have no doubt he will try to do it, and SCOTUS probably won't stop him. This is political retaliation, and it's absolutely abhorrent.
That's where we are. I have no doubt the "white vans" are coming for people who speak out against the tyranny this administration is foisting upon us. I have no doubt that this very comment may even be used against me someday, as ridiculous as that may sound to you right now.
It's a different kind of lawlessness.
I have little worry about some muggers and slumlords creating substandard construction and some restaurant paying off the inspector. I greatly worry about the HN demographics (rich white collar people, generally) voting for solutions to those problems that are worse than the problems while not solving the problems, something they do all over the US.
I have little worry about some muggers and slumlords creating substandard construction and some restaurant paying off the inspector. I greatly worry about the HN demographics (rich white collar people, generally) voting for solutions to those problems that are worse than the problems while not solving the problems, something they do all over the US.
The current state of the US is not that the secret police would come dissapear you for being sarcastic online, but the un-secret heavily-armed SWAT police could certainly show up if your sarcasm pissed off the wrong person.
That ain't great.
Do you feel like the trend of policing in the US is going in the direction of:
1) less heavily harmed, more accountable, more community-involved personal treatment
or
2) more heavily armed, anonymous, opaque large bureaucracies answering only to distant executives?
And which of those directions does the product in the linked article point?
That ain't great.
Do you feel like the trend of policing in the US is going in the direction of:
1) less heavily harmed, more accountable, more community-involved personal treatment
or
2) more heavily armed, anonymous, opaque large bureaucracies answering only to distant executives?
And which of those directions does the product in the linked article point?
And who exactly is this happening to? Who are the wrong people? Who are they swatting?
We all know exactly what is going down with immigration, but vaguely alluding to that instead of just saying it while pretending any given person is in danger would be dishonest.
It’s always like this though. Vague blurry imagery of perceived threats, no details.
We all know exactly what is going down with immigration, but vaguely alluding to that instead of just saying it while pretending any given person is in danger would be dishonest.
It’s always like this though. Vague blurry imagery of perceived threats, no details.
I mean, the president did just threaten to (somehow) revoke the citizenship of a celebrity who disagreed with him online. Based on what we've seen already, what's to stop them from dubiously claiming to have revoked someone's (natural born) citizenship and then deport them to somewhere before anyone has time to argue anything before a judge?
There was a time I would have agreed with you, but now it doesn't seem that implausible anymore.
There was a time I would have agreed with you, but now it doesn't seem that implausible anymore.
While I don’t think you should be downvoted… brother, maybe the headlines aren’t being exaggerated.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted so hard, it's a good point.
I'm not thrilled with where we are and I'm very cautious, but as a Black man in America the net difference in my fear and concern over my own government/police right now, as opposed to e.g. during Biden or Obama, isn't huge.
I'm not thrilled with where we are and I'm very cautious, but as a Black man in America the net difference in my fear and concern over my own government/police right now, as opposed to e.g. during Biden or Obama, isn't huge.
TechDebtdevin says "...how it used to be in the USA in the 70s"
In regard to drinking and driving the 70s were same as now in my experience.
In regard to drinking and driving the 70s were same as now in my experience.
Having picked a habit of watching propable cause proceedings on YouTube, I wonder if this is simply result of real reports that AI was trained on being purposefully obtuse and laconic to give prosecutors a wiggle space in the court room?
Are you talking about Judge Fleischer in Texas?
I do enjoy seeing those (well, I shouldn't).
The prosecutors are given the most absolute trash reports to work with. "Failure to ID, after a traffic stop." "What was the stop for?" "It doesn't say." "So no PC for the stop."
"A caller and said she thought someone was stealing their neighbor's U Haul. A man was observed walking on that street and taken into custody for ..." "For what? Walking while black?"
But no sympathy for the prosecutors either. Garbage reports, but they obviously don't read them pre-hearing, and have plainly become accustomed to judges rubber stamping their PC hearings.
I do like that he doesn't go 'lightly' with the defendants. "You got off lucky this time. You know it, I know it. Do better or it might not go the same next time", and when there is PC or other such, he doesn't put up with any bullshit either.
More judges like him are needed.
I do enjoy seeing those (well, I shouldn't).
The prosecutors are given the most absolute trash reports to work with. "Failure to ID, after a traffic stop." "What was the stop for?" "It doesn't say." "So no PC for the stop."
"A caller and said she thought someone was stealing their neighbor's U Haul. A man was observed walking on that street and taken into custody for ..." "For what? Walking while black?"
But no sympathy for the prosecutors either. Garbage reports, but they obviously don't read them pre-hearing, and have plainly become accustomed to judges rubber stamping their PC hearings.
I do like that he doesn't go 'lightly' with the defendants. "You got off lucky this time. You know it, I know it. Do better or it might not go the same next time", and when there is PC or other such, he doesn't put up with any bullshit either.
More judges like him are needed.
His patronizing tone to the defendants is the one thing I can’t stand about him. Telling some kid who did nothing wrong and was pulled over for no reason “be careful” is bs. What else should the kid do? They already were doing nothing wrong.
I don't find them to be that patronizing (actually, the tone I could see as such). But I think it's more "don't give anyone extra reason to come at you". Like he knows, from daily experience, that they will, and he's doing his part. But more "don't be your worst enemy, because the system isn't right and they will try to make your life difficult".
My favorite explanation for this is "Everything you say can and will be used against you. So why talk if you are winning?".
He has literally said this. The judge was berating the prosecutor, defendant puts his hand up, "Judge, can I say something?" He looks at him. "Are you winning right now?" "Yeah..." "Then you don't say anything."
the most interesting idea so far.
What Axon's product should be: Define "best" police report, and assist the officer to write that.
What it is: Axon makes whatever police departments ask for.
It doesn't have to be a big conspiracy. It's not incompetence either. Hanlon's Razer should really be, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by" the enterprise sales pipeline.
Enterprise sales is why we are talking about Axon and not far older, detailed, thoughtful efforts from all sorts of other organizations.
What Axon's product should be: Define "best" police report, and assist the officer to write that.
What it is: Axon makes whatever police departments ask for.
It doesn't have to be a big conspiracy. It's not incompetence either. Hanlon's Razer should really be, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by" the enterprise sales pipeline.
Enterprise sales is why we are talking about Axon and not far older, detailed, thoughtful efforts from all sorts of other organizations.
but hosters need to save my ip and what not for 1000 years when i surf burger recipes.
I think such a tool could be useful for ensuring all the facts get included, but I hate the idea that some departments could start highering illiterate officers if this tech goes far enough.
This may be news to some, but many departments already hire officers that are borderline illiterate. It’s especially true here in the south.
My mother enjoyed a ~30 year career in law enforcement while being able to read at a junior high level. And that’s being generous.
Of course that’s just one anecdote, but just spend some time with deputies in rural Alabama and you’ll see what I mean.
My mother enjoyed a ~30 year career in law enforcement while being able to read at a junior high level. And that’s being generous.
Of course that’s just one anecdote, but just spend some time with deputies in rural Alabama and you’ll see what I mean.
never have been in Alabama, and i find that super interesting.
how does anyone end up borderline illiterate in the US for the last several decades? can kids drop out without passing reading, like drop out as grade schoolers?
how does anyone end up borderline illiterate in the US for the last several decades? can kids drop out without passing reading, like drop out as grade schoolers?
I've read thousands of police reports. I would say this is true about their literacy, and their typing skills are equally horrible. They also generally really hate writing reports (which are almost universally never read) and tend to make them as short as possible.
Being able to read at a junior high level is literate. The average reading level in the US is 7-8th grade so she’s right in the middle.
> could start highering illiterate officers
I love this mistake.
I love this mistake.
That really should be a word: kind of a portmanteau that combines hire and raise up/promote.
Heh. Gonna leave it then
Can you elaborate a little bit more?
“Highering” should be “hiring”
I asked for viraptor's elaboration on what he thinks of it.
Thanks for your perspective though.
Thanks for your perspective though.
Normally people don’t come back to explain a joke, because it ruins it.
One could say "it's a joke", without explaining it, thus, not ruining it.
Also, saying some vague shit and then claiming it as a joke is very convenient.
Finally, police injustice is not a subject for humor. It's no laughing matter. I'm not the one who's not "getting it" here.
Also, saying some vague shit and then claiming it as a joke is very convenient.
Finally, police injustice is not a subject for humor. It's no laughing matter. I'm not the one who's not "getting it" here.
The original poster said they were worried about this leading to "highering illiterate officers"
Mis-spelling the word 'hiring' as 'highering' when expressing a fear about falling literacy standards in the police is ironic, and therefore funny.
Further elaboration was not warranted, but I'm providing it as a public service.
Mis-spelling the word 'hiring' as 'highering' when expressing a fear about falling literacy standards in the police is ironic, and therefore funny.
Further elaboration was not warranted, but I'm providing it as a public service.
Highering is an existing, valid word, and it fits the phrase.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/highering
I agree that it is an unusual choice, but that doesn't mean you can assume it was a mispelling.
Moreover, the meaning went through. Ultimately, the word itself does not matter, and none of your explanations are relevant.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/highering
I agree that it is an unusual choice, but that doesn't mean you can assume it was a mispelling.
Moreover, the meaning went through. Ultimately, the word itself does not matter, and none of your explanations are relevant.
That word doesn’t make any sense in this context. Stop digging this hole further FFS.
It makes complete sense, it means "promotion" in that phrase.
If you are going to disagree, please elaborate.
If you are going to disagree, please elaborate.
No, nobody ever says “I’m going to higher you” as a way to indicate they are promoting you. Not in the military, not in non-profits, not in the government, and not in any private or public business in the US.
“Higher” is a homophone with “hire” and “hire” already has a critical role in reference to career management.
At this point I can only assume you haven’t worked somewhere where English is the spoken language.
“Higher” is a homophone with “hire” and “hire” already has a critical role in reference to career management.
At this point I can only assume you haven’t worked somewhere where English is the spoken language.
[deleted]
A lot of people worry about a Terminator style AI apocalypse. I don’t.
I worry that we’ve already created the AI apocalypse and that this is what it looks like, along with extremist magnification on social media.
I trust AI to be what is is- essentially a lot of math that classisfies and predicts stuff, usually words, that the prediction can be used generatively, and the classification stuff can be used to identify stuff in various media.
What I don’t trust is that people will use it responsibly. Hell, I don’t, when I’m vibe coding, but that’s on me.
People are venal and self absorbed and busy and lazy and all the other traits that lead to not using AI responsibly. And businesses are amoral (not immoral) and want the shortest path to revenue, with the least friction.
So of course police officers who want to be on patrol and did not sign up to spend countless hours on reports, are going to let the AI write it and call it good without proofreading.
We could pass a lot of laws trying to specify products that force police to act reliably, or we could maybe just pass a law that says that AI cannot be used to write police reports, but that clearly labeled AI generated transcriptions and summaries may be attached unedited to police reports, if and only if the original recordings are also preserved as evidence.
And police departments that keep body camera and car camera footage might be ease up on the report writing and only require officers to annotate it with their impressions, but otherwise let the record speak for itself.
I worry that we’ve already created the AI apocalypse and that this is what it looks like, along with extremist magnification on social media.
I trust AI to be what is is- essentially a lot of math that classisfies and predicts stuff, usually words, that the prediction can be used generatively, and the classification stuff can be used to identify stuff in various media.
What I don’t trust is that people will use it responsibly. Hell, I don’t, when I’m vibe coding, but that’s on me.
People are venal and self absorbed and busy and lazy and all the other traits that lead to not using AI responsibly. And businesses are amoral (not immoral) and want the shortest path to revenue, with the least friction.
So of course police officers who want to be on patrol and did not sign up to spend countless hours on reports, are going to let the AI write it and call it good without proofreading.
We could pass a lot of laws trying to specify products that force police to act reliably, or we could maybe just pass a law that says that AI cannot be used to write police reports, but that clearly labeled AI generated transcriptions and summaries may be attached unedited to police reports, if and only if the original recordings are also preserved as evidence.
And police departments that keep body camera and car camera footage might be ease up on the report writing and only require officers to annotate it with their impressions, but otherwise let the record speak for itself.
our officers don’t have time to comb through every transcript, fixing it for privacy, empathy, and all that. But keeping the transcripts is still a big win: more info in police records can make police officers more data-driven :)
You have to wonder if this will stand up in court. I hope not.
AI has a great opportunity to take processes that contain hidden bias and make them more legible and therefore amenable to fixing.
But it also has the opportunity to do the opposite, and we should be cautious to make sure guardrails are in place when putting this tech into life-and-death systems.
“Stamp this LLM text in a hurry” is an invitation for whatever errors and biases are baked into the system to be propagated. You need provenance and measurement of LLM outputs.