This seems like a very obvious and straightforward requirement, force the officer to select an active case to tie the inquiry to.

And at the same time display a warning that selecting an unrelated case "will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination".

Make them just as accountable as any other security system in the pirvate sector.

Understood, and yeah single tasking seems like a good workaround given the situation. Or switching to an LLM with a larger context window, if possible/practical. I was able to get about 7X more context window "runway" using the AST approach, but it's a relatively small code base to begin with.

Sounds like you're running up against the context window of whatever LLM you're using. Try converting your code to a minified abstract syntax tree first and pass that to your LLM, and ask it what full text it needs in addition to that. It should stay within the context window much better that way.

so Keefe also returned to his car and followed several cars behind, hoping to document the next stop."

Yeah that was a stupid thing to do. I don't care which side of the fence you're on regarding Flock cameras, police, or government surveillance, following someone is the wrong response. They're merely an employee doing their job, and you've just escalated it into something very personal.

If that'd have been me, I'd have driven to the cop shop and flagged down an officer, pointed out the car following me, and asked them to go have a word with my tail and ask them to leave me alone.

Taking pictures and filming me out doing my job in public? Sure, fine, go ahead. But if I get tired of it I might leave. Don't follow me, don't harass me. How'd you like it if my buddy with the flock camera mounted on his roof starts following you around? Oh that's different is it? is it really?

Training these models is incredibly expensive. In fact it's so expensive that there is no viable economic model to do so. As such, their options are either to drastically slow down the amount of new models trained or to go bankrupt. This is just a nice whitewashing of that. It remains to be seen if even using their models can be profitable, but we know that with the cost of training the next one they can't be.

"we demand our sovereignty, and also demand you relinquish yours!"

From the sounds of it, the private key used to sign the photograph is IN the camera. So every user holds a private key in their hands they just can't easily get at to use to sign their slop.

And this means it just takes one smart fellow to tear the camera apart and extract the key, and they can sign al the pictures they want to, at least "from that camera".

I suppose as is the case with any asymmetric key-signing system, they'll have a "revocation list" they can use to burn any pictures signed by a "stolen" key once they discover it's been lifted and is out in the wild.

So at that point all the signature can say is "it's not AI until proven otherwise"

And lastly, what's to stop me from generating some slop and throwing it up on a nice monitor and taking a picture of it? Jackalopes are real, I can prove it, here's a certified picture I took of one!

I think this might be the first time I've seen a Slashdot comment with a non-alphanumeric character that displayed properly. Nicely done, AC!

fool me once, shame on you

fool me twice, shame on ME

This looks like a "textbook example" of an authoritarian government abusing law enforcement to silence political criticism.

I don't see how a single person in congress feels they can back this sort of behavior.

makes it sound like a legal obligation. Is it? I wanna see someone change it to Lake Epstein

"Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid."

- Captain Jack Sparrow

Google Maps needs to quit feeding the troll.

I don't see how an event like this doesn't have event security cameras scattered around?

BMW Blames Young People

That sounds intentionally deceptive / deflecting. Makes it sound like Young People broke into the R&D labs and rewrote the blueprints, and forced the manufacturers to remove physical buttons, without their consent or ability to say NO.

This isn't about them being responsible for it, it's about car marketing analysts doing research on their customers, and coming to the conclusion that this is what they will buy, while paying little to no attention to what they really want or need. Without thinking about how this will pan out down the road. And now they're seeing all the backlash and pushback and are hunting for someone to blame.

It's like the parents blaming their kid for his cavities, while ignoring their parental responsibilities. "We gave him the candy because he liked it, so the outcome is all his fault!"

Nobody wants to take responsibility for the state of modern car interfaces, because they're all doing it, and the first one or two that accept responsibility are going to take a temporary hit to their image. They all want to change back, but instead they're all standing around looking at each other, "well, c'mon, you do it first!" so they can all quietly make the same change in a year or two and escape the hole they're in. They all want to change back, but nobody wants to be first.

Reminds me a lot of headphone ports on smart phones. Pretty much at once everybody added a headphone port to their phones. It was a bit of a design nightmare, being physically tethered to your phone, but everybody went "all in" on it, and nobody could give it up because they knew their rivals would all jump on the opportunity to lambast their rival for dropping such a mainstream feature. Finally, after bluetooth was starting to mature, Apple finally bit the bullet and removed the jack. And just as expected, multiple big names dragged them through the alley in their marketing, for having gotten rid of a feature that "everybody loved". They kept up the gas-lighting while their designers quietly erased the headphone jack from their next design. Then like a switch, they quit panning Apple's lack of headphone jack as they released their next model that didn't have one either.

I expect the same thing's going to happen with car interfaces. A few manufacturers are going to bite the bullet and make the necessary changes, get slammed in the media for a year or two, and then everybody else is going to quietly make the same change.