Taser Company Axon Is Selling AI That Turns Body Cam Audio Into Police Reports (forbes.com) 53
Axon on Tuesday announced a new tool called Draft One that uses artificial intelligence built on OpenAI's GPT-4 Turbo model to transcribe audio from body cameras and automatically turn it into a police report. Axon CEO Rick Smith told Forbes that police officers will then be able to review the document to ensure accuracy. From the report: Axon claims one early tester of the tool, Fort Collins Colorado Police Department, has seen an 82% decrease in time spent writing reports. "If an officer spends half their day reporting, and we can cut that in half, we have an opportunity to potentially free up 25% of an officer's time to be back out policing," Smith said. These reports, though, are often used as evidence in criminal trials, and critics are concerned that relying on AI could put people at risk by depending on language models that are known to "hallucinate," or make things up, as well as display racial bias, either blatantly or unconsciously.
"It's kind of a nightmare," said Dave Maass, surveillance technologies investigations director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Police, who aren't specialists in AI, and aren't going to be specialists in recognizing the problems with AI, are going to use these systems to generate language that could affect millions of people in their involvement with the criminal justice system. What could go wrong?" Smith acknowledged there are dangers. "When people talk about bias in AI, it really is: Is this going to exacerbate racism by taking training data that's going to treat people differently?" he told Forbes. "That was the main risk."
Smith said Axon is recommending police don't use the AI to write reports for incidents as serious as a police shooting, where vital information could be missed. "An officer-involved shooting is likely a scenario where it would not be used, and I'd probably advise people against it, just because there's so much complexity, the stakes are so high." He said some early customers are only using Draft One for misdemeanors, though others are writing up "more significant incidents," including use-of-force cases. Axon, however, won't have control over how individual police departments use the tools.
"It's kind of a nightmare," said Dave Maass, surveillance technologies investigations director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Police, who aren't specialists in AI, and aren't going to be specialists in recognizing the problems with AI, are going to use these systems to generate language that could affect millions of people in their involvement with the criminal justice system. What could go wrong?" Smith acknowledged there are dangers. "When people talk about bias in AI, it really is: Is this going to exacerbate racism by taking training data that's going to treat people differently?" he told Forbes. "That was the main risk."
Smith said Axon is recommending police don't use the AI to write reports for incidents as serious as a police shooting, where vital information could be missed. "An officer-involved shooting is likely a scenario where it would not be used, and I'd probably advise people against it, just because there's so much complexity, the stakes are so high." He said some early customers are only using Draft One for misdemeanors, though others are writing up "more significant incidents," including use-of-force cases. Axon, however, won't have control over how individual police departments use the tools.
Please let them be encrypted and signed (Score:2)
The AI will undoubtedly get it wrong, leaving room for officers to adjust the report. Of course with a wide range of styles when it comes to making those adjustments.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As the product name implies, the AI will -draft- the report. The officer still has to read and adjust it before submission.
Re: Please let them be encrypted and signed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd rather the pigs not have access to the body cam audio or video at all when they're writing reports.
It would make it MUCH easier to catch their lies.
I'm not talking about a bit of forgetfulness, of course. I'm talking about the blatant lies that the scumbags are known for.
Re: Please let them be encrypted and signed (Score:2)
Re: Please let them be encrypted and signed (Score:2)
Coming from a lethal "non-lethal" weapons manufacturer, what could go wrong?
Oh, wait, I forgot that "justice" in the US doesn't mean what the dictionary says it means.
Re: (Score:2)
The AI will undoubtedly get it wrong, leaving room for officers to adjust the report. Of course with a wide range of styles when it comes to making those adjustments.
An easier solution would be to just have it just implement a South Park "My God! It's coming right for us!" mode [youtube.com], which allow for a standardized incident report.
I think this is OK? (Score:2)
This honestly sounds like a good use case for something like a language model? If you are going to be charged in any way it should obviously be the actual audio used as reference and any AI transcription should be labelled as such with a link to said video, if the AI transcription is wrong somehow and used for a charge and the actual audio is exonerating, that's a pretty easy slam dunk.
I'd also be interested to see how the error rate compared to the existing way of doing things which, if it is in fact the
Re: (Score:2)
If AI cannot be used as evidence, it must be thrown away from the proceedings. Anything done by AI can and will influence anyone involved, and if the judge already have a bias against the person in fron
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on how it's implemented, this creates an excuse for inaccurate police reports. "The AI typed it for me."
If that excuse isn't given breathing room (it will be), maybe you could save some marginal seconds of officer time. But do officers typically transcribe entire conversations word-for-word, for every report they file? That's the only way this could possibly benefit anyone. Why would an interested party go to a transcript and not the original footage?
I'm sure there are some AI unicorns who'd love
Re: (Score:3)
If that excuse isn't given breathing room (it will be)
Yeah that's a problem, the liability still has to be on the officer that those words are their words, however they got on the page. The AI getting it wrong is you getting it wrong.
do officers typically transcribe entire conversations word-for-word
Yeah I am curious about that too. If they do then this is probably good. But that leads to my next question, are police body cam logs not normally transcribed unless they need to be? Maybe if this allows them all to be transcribed, even if not as rigorous as human transcription might that be a good thing?
Re: (Score:2)
No, they do not stand there with pen and paper scribbling as they talk to people. Short notes on items of interest is about it.
If they need to know every word you said, you get brought in for an interview and it's on camera. Though maybe with the bodycams we're going to see less of that and more of what was said at the scene. I wouldn't know, the last time I did any tech work for cops they were only starting to talk about maybe not resisting bodycams.
Re: (Score:2)
It's one of those "good intention" things that will cause SERIOUS problems in the future.
The police report is THE document of record in many instances. It's one thing for an AI to give a starting point "first draft" to save some time, but you know very well that, eventually, cops will just stop doing the "phase 2" proof-reading because the AI saved so much time that their work-load was just increased.
So, now we have a document of record that no human ever touched.
How long before a person is convicted of a s
Re: (Score:2)
How long before a person is convicted of a serious crime because the police report said something.
This is a fair concern but nobody is pulling a conviction from a police report solely by itself for the same reasons of whether an AI or a human officer writes it, both are fallible and you will need corroboration. An officer testimony alone is generally not enough to convict someone of even just a parking ticket, they ahve to bring something else.
And again my way of going about this is that at the end of the day person responsible for the words on the report is the officer. If an AI writes it its their r
Re: (Score:2)
How long before a police officer is convicted of perjury because the AI mistranslates the audio?
and aren't going to be specialists in recognizing (Score:1)
Obviously, BOTH audio recording and transcription will be available to both parties in case of disputation.
The role of transcription is auxiliary, it's not going to be a decisive piece of evidence, only to funnel cases that are more likely to stick.
That's it. Author if this piece is making a big deal out of nothing.
speech to text (Score:2)
This is not new territory.
It is just automatic speech to text. As long as it flags that the report contains or is based upon automated speech to text from body cam footage (which can be subpoenaed and reviewed and challenged in court) then it is all good.
The current reporting method is that after the fact the cops write down what they remember happening. That is pretty bad -but the best we had available before body cams.
Re: speech to text (Score:2)
While a transcript would be nice, I'm wagering they are going to be giving a synopsis. The purpose of a report is to have a digestable account of the events, and a transcript is unlikely to be ready to follow.
Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
If the AI sells bodycams and reduces paperwork.. Good.
Most officers I've worked with really don't like the idea of body cams. They will go on about how it will impair their ability to use discretion to go easy on people who have violated the law, but somehow I suspect it's more about the oversight and not being able to get away with little things any more. And on that score, screw 'em. I don't really care about the little things except that the circumstances that allow those also allow for the big things.
The public really doesn't like paying officers to do clerical work. Officers don't like it either, and wherever it can be done there is generally a push to move things over to civilian clerical staff. Then there are people like me, who came along and started connecting different systems to automate the process enough that you didn't even need as many clerks. You would not believe how many times an officer has to fill out the same information on different forms that became part of the process for different reasons at different times... well, at least in the municipalities I did work for, that got cut down quite a bit.
So you're going to end up with cops doing more policing and less paperwork, and they're going to do it with their cameras on to get there. This is win/win for the public, we will get better policing for less money.
Re: (Score:3)
Are Police reports used as evidence in criminal trials? Do we need to add another layer of scrutiny to the process to ensure everything was recorded properly, and not transformed by this model into something that doesn't resemble the truth in the least? We already need to deal with finger print experts and other forensic evidence fraud. Now the police report that's generated will be a source of attack for the defense, along with every other weak investigative tool Police currently use. Get into deep learnin
Re: (Score:2)
The AI summary will be more like an index to the actual recorded evidence, and whether you trust that or not is based on whether you trust the verification tech the camera manufacturers employed and the chain of custody from camera to courtroom.
If you're ever in court on a jury and have to judge whether an officer's written notes are trustworthy... well, they are a trustworthy record of what the officer wanted to have recorded. I'm not saying I ever saw deliberately faked notes or ever saw an officer with
Re: (Score:2)
Are Police reports used as evidence in criminal trials?
In general, documents are considered hearsay and are inadmissible. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow them to be introduced, for example public records that are made in the normal course of business, but police reports are explicitly and specifically excluded from those exceptions. It might be possible to introduce a police report as evidence if the officer who wrote it is present to testify to its authenticity and accuracy, and to be cross-examined about its contents, but if the officer is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Vast improvement on status quo (Score:1)
If you actually follow up the countless video channels that document police work, you'll find a common trend of police reports being "what police officer remembered happened" are often wrong on details. Sometimes diametrically opposite of reality, as documented by officer's own body camera footage. Human perception at a time of crisis is a weird thing, and so is what it chooses to put into long term memory and what is forgotten. An issue well documented in psychology and criminology.
Automated speech recogni
This ought to be good (Score:2)
Can't wait to read some of the commentary.
any judge that accepts this (Score:2)
Ought to have a police report written about him by an AI.
And when the feds 'forget' to wear body cam? (Score:2)
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.... [thetruthaboutguns.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing happens to local cops when they “forget” to turn on their cameras. Or they all mysteriously malfunction.
Sounds like a win (Score:2)
I think I'd trust the AI version of events more than the cops' version of events in most cases.
"Don't tase me bro!" (Score:2)
...will be translated into "The suspect was resisting arrest and the officer had no choice".
Each. And. Every. Time.
This is just going to be automated whitewashing. Because why would Axon antagonize their customers by making an impartial AI bot that transcribes the truth eh? They clearly have a conflict of interest here.
Re: (Score:2)
This guy gets it!
Taser company (Score:2)
Taser company selling body cam transcribers? That's an easy task, most output will resemble "Oooww oouch stop zapping me! Aaaooow!..."
Reminds me of when I worked for an environmental cleanup company that was eventually bought out by a chemical company. The company was thus paid to clean up its own messes, via Fed Superfund money.
Quality control (Score:2)
police officers will then be able to review the document to ensure accuracy
Yeah. Like that's going to get done correctly.
My only experience with a red light camera involved the local police sending me a ticket for running a light in a late model car. In spite of the fact that the vehicle description based on the plate number was my 45 year-old FJ40. Not even close. They mistakenly entered a 'Q' instead of an 'O' and never even bothered to look at the DMV record their system retrieved.
Fixed with a phone call. But other stuff will undoubtedly slip through.
guilt generator (Score:2)
Let me guess, its trained on police reports. Well police are full of shit a lot. This thing is a guilt generator, no matter what actually happened. Seems more like a weapon against the public than a useful tool for society.
eliminates evidence (Score:2)
Once the AI has written a report of what it thinks it saw on the bodycam, the actual bodycam recording will be deleted in order to "save space".
These reports are used in three ways, currently.
First, the prosecutor uses it as the basis of charging the crime and the particulars. Second, it is used for performance reviews and administrative oversight of the policeman (ie. is he meeting his arrest quota).
Finally, in court the judge relies on the police report. Whatever a policeman says in court is presumed by t
Re: (Score:2)
There was just a case in Toronto where a guy was found innocent of killing a plain clothes cop with his car. Even the prosecution's own expert witness was forced to contradict the testimony of three cops who swore under oath to a version of events that simply wasn't true.
The idea that the police can get their hands on a tool like this is genuinely terrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
>Once the AI has written a report of what it thinks it saw on the bodycam, the actual bodycam recording will be deleted in order to "save space".
Baseless fearmongering. If they ever tried that, the defence would have an easy time getting the reports based on the original missing evidence thrown out.
Bodycam recordings will be deleted in accordance with an official retention schedule, but anything determined likely to be needed as evidence for court will be preserved beyond that standard limit.
What I woul
Re: (Score:2)
>Once the AI has written a report of what it thinks it saw on the bodycam, the actual bodycam recording will be deleted in order to "save space".
Baseless fearmongering. If they ever tried that, the defence would have an easy time getting the reports based on the original missing evidence thrown out.
It's already hard for the defense to get bodycam footage. Somehow, it often was accidentally deleted. And when it is available, the cop used the Mute button, and just turned the camera on and off in order to edit the recording. The defense is not allowed to infer anything from the missing/edited/muted footage -- the cop's word is (by law) assumed by the court to be truthful. And as you point out, if there were other cops, they will back up that testimony.
Bodycam recordings will be deleted in accordance wit
It's a great idea. (Score:2)
Using LLMs to summarize meeting transcripts is awesome powerful. It's one of the best examples of what they can do.
Regarding this, I don't know how it would work, but this is what I would do:
1. Summarize audio into reports, retain everything of course.
1.a. There are a variety of approaches, I would do time segments, couple of minutes (context over time isn't as important as accurate fact capture), may involve multiple audio/officer sources, need to line up over time.
2. Officer review of report, sign off
Running Man (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, this is the world we are barreling headlong into...
Obviously unconstitutional. (Score:2)
Not Legal (Score:2)
The first time one of these reports hits an actual court containing one of LLM's inevitable hallucinations, it's going to get bounced and probably sack the whole case. Technically submitting one of these LLM-generated documents will be regarded as perjury, and the whole system will collapse overnight. And no one will get their money back.
It's all vaporware and hype.
Those reports are mostly fabricated anyway (Score:3)
We've all seen video after video after video where the incident report and the body cam video told very different stories. They know they're on video, but lying is such an ingrained SOP they just can't help themselves. Not sayings its all LEOs, but its enough of them than none can be trusted by default.
This should not be allowed (Score:2)
And police officers should be under penalty of perjury for what they write in their reports.
Cops' fictitious testimony: now powered by AI! (Score:2)