It is possible to put laws into place that require how public-private partnerships work. It would be an imposition upon Flock and upon the police. And that is just fine, and as it should be.
Law enforcement contracting to the private sector should not be allowed to be a bypass of our rights.
The only place I see Al in the legal profession making sense is to do basic caselaw research, where it can cite the sources and the references upstream and downstream to those sources. The lawyer should be responsible to review the claimed caselaw citations to determine the merit of their support for the argument that the lawyer is making, and to pick the particular citations to use that are the strongest for the particular case.
Likewise the same sort of search but inverted, for one's opponent's most likely arguments or rebuttals might be performed, again with the lawyer doing the review based on the citations that the Al tool provided.
There was a television series in the 2010s called Person of Interest where the premise was that one of the main characters had managed to achieve Al, but in order to satisfy legal constraints, the Al was only allowed to spit-out a single phrase about a person, rather than any detail of any sort. It was up to the limited number of persons associated with the Al to figure out why this 'person of interest' had been referenced, whether they were the perpetrator, the victim, a witness, or someone who would suffer downstream effects. While soft science fiction, and pretty clearly taking inspiration from the older series Quantum Leap in having to figure out why they were there, the concept had some merit as to how Al should really be used. It should be treated as untrusted, it should be treated as requiring thorough review. It should be treated as another tool available, but no more trustable or authoritative than any other, and arguably a bit less trustable, a bit less authoritative.
I've seen firsthand in meetings people saying, "Well Claude says..." or "Well ChatGPT says..."
What's bothering me about this is that those running the meeting aren't shutting that crap down immediately.
Except that in basically all of the examples that you cite, the transition was from one proven technology slowly into another technology that was at least approaching some degree of maturity by the time it it mass-market adoption.
In most of those examples. early adopters were nearly all ultrawealthy who were using it for themselves. Those who weren't incredibly rich were technology-enthusiasts of some fashion or another. Those groups initially worked-out most of the showstopper-problems with the technology before widespread adoption, and in many of those industries either compatibility or outright law added extra constraint over time.
AI for the masses has taken a different development path. It's not ready and is misbehaving, to the detriment of many. "Hallucinations" should not be tolerated at this scale of deployment.
Terrible for police encounters.
Not if you're the police.
Or as it was put nearly two millennia ago, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
This is why systems like this require human oversight. Arguably if there's a judicial review process for allowing searches, then this system needs to be required to use that process. With a system containing precinct, local court district, municipal, county, state, and federal district jurisdictions, the nature of setting up proper permissions alone should be a mandatory herculean effort, probably the most difficult part of the entire system.
Without such a system requiring judicial oversight to confirm that searches are authorized, all we have is a further slide into a police-state.
Around 2029 we'll see that a ride is available for $16 or $31 with a driver.
Rider's choice. I'll guess it goes about 80/20.
He seems like a real scumbag but it's worth keeping in mind that the people who told us that have a massive incentive to pin their crimes on a scapegoat.
Since we pretty much know that FTX was the #1 donor to a party's political action committee with money laundered through Ukraine, he would have been smarter to wait for that conflict to conclude.
The people who benefited from the crime also prosecuted him which is never reliable.
It might not be FedSlop but unless it is proven that both parties didn't benefit we shouldn't trust this government either.
We do know that Ladybug Graham got $18M straight into his bank account from Ukraine so there is certainly smoke.
It's only since a dead man can't sue for libel that people are willing to print that nugget now.
Not in a Corporate Democracy.
The people who would prosecute OpenAI want to use OpenAI to maximize their power and wealth at your financial and legal expense.
Remember when they tried to extradite Gary McKinnon for twenty years for looking at a spreadsheet when he accidentally got RDP access to an unsecured NASA desktop with a simple Perl script? Intent is not relevant for prosecutors (mens rea should be an element in a Constitutional case).
The legal basis is there but the will to power is not.
Two systems of courts for different classes of people (yet again). It would be an error to call that a Justice System.
n.b. the Culture War psyop is there to try to convince you that the classes are something else.
I am sure you know this and are just trying to shit on the editors, as one does on
There are corrections to gravity that include the current size of the Universe as s term that gives extremely small differences in calculations but explains most observations.
It has a certain allure from an Information Theory perspective and is extremely parsimonious in ask.
But funding is for finding wimps and axons and evidence of mysteries that use the old equations so you are called crazy if your simple theory threatens that gravy train.
Some people say useful physics is too dangerous to fund and we're better off wasting time and money.
Twenty years ago Dark Energy seemed like a good idea to me. So did Supersymmetry. Most new ideas that can be tested and used or disproved probably should be. That LHC found no Supersymmetric pairs is a good thing.
Apologies to the original.
According to a report I heard yesterday Talarico has 50x the cash of Paxton and it's the Bush politicial machine that is funding him.
The situation was similar in the primary but the base favored Paxton over Cornin by such a huge margin that the spend didn't matter.
The dual state people hate Paxton so much they have been after him for years.
It's populists vs. oligarchs in most races where party affiliation is a distant second to the money machine.
Since Trump ran on populism but then did a 180 with Judas knives out for his "former supporters" the odds of any Republican getting elected anywhere but an R+20 are extremely thin regardless of warchest.
DC's interference in free elections is gross but it probably won't matter on Election Day.
Impeachments of officials over FCC actions are quite likely at this point.
"You're folding it wrong," obviously.
Perhaps Tim Apple had the sense to get out ahead of this.
Happy to be proven wrong! That would be amazing engineering and might actually allow the rollable Global to come to fruition.
But since everybody who has claimed to have perfected the engineering hasn't actually done so one should be cautious on such investments.
Consent is the difference between it and lovemaking.
A legitimate government listens to 90% of its citizens when they agree on an issue. Delegated powers and such.
Science is to computer science as hydrodynamics is to plumbing.
