You sound like a badass...are you proud of yourself? That was really macho, bro, yet dumber than shit. It's always been a stupid comment made by people who live in comfort and security. Without life, there is no freedom. If someone is trying to murder you, then your liberty is not a concern. You can talk about "deserving" until you're blue in the face. When I had a gun pointed at me, I wasn't too concerned about civil liberties. You're living in the burbs or a small town if you can utter such stupid things with a straight face. It's like the situation in Gaza or Ukraine, I can comfortably opine all I want from the safety of the USA. To the people facing constant threat of death, they don't really care about your opinions of what they deserve.

This is absolutely correct, and it's extremely important to understand that this behavior is baked into the model. It's not even so much that it's "baked into" the model as it IS the model.

Ever since the earliest days of LLMs and generative AI, we have always, always seen what people call "hallucinations." But the only thing that qualifies such output as a hallucination is that we, the human observer, has judged it as such. By construction, the model DOES NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. If it knew or "understood," it wouldn't have produced the spurious output in the first place.

So every now and then, we see some amusing audio/video clip of some human managing to fool or "break" an AI agent, and it makes the rounds of social media for people to point at and laugh and say "tee hee, how funny!" And then these same people, without thinking about what these hallucinations mean and what they imply about the intrinsic nature of the technology, immediately turn around and ask Claude or ChatGPT what they should make for dinner, or who to vote for, or who to hire and fire; or worse, give them access to their personal data and critical systems. That is a level of uncritical thinking and cognitive dissonance that ought to be profoundly distressing.

From a functional perspective, there is quite literally zero distinction between an AI generated pretty woman breaking and suddenly speaking in Cantonese during an English-language interview, and an AI agent that violates constraints imposed upon it and causes damage. They are both "hallucinations" in the sense that they are unintended behaviors/outputs, and as we have already established, the only meaningful arbiter of "intention" is our own human judgment. AI proponents try very hard to make excuses and minimize the severity of the problem. But it is intrinsic to all models.

Whether through laziness or ignorance, when humans cede their authority to interrogate and decide the truth for themselves and let machines do their thinking for them, who or what ultimately becomes the authority for that truth, and who is or is not accountable for the consequences? Who has a vested interest in controlling the source of truth and knowledge, and what are their motives?

People have been driven to delusion and suicide because of interactions with LLMs, and although you might be able to argue that they would have killed themselves regardless and were in need of treatment, no one can possibly know that, because that's not what actually took place.

But I think the more serious question is the framing of the premise: why is it that the point at which we ought to hold people accountable is if someone is killed? Who decided that the tipping point is when these AI agents start killing people, and why? Not only do most legal systems seek to prevent and punish abusive, antisocial, and outright criminal activity, a just society has a moral and ethical responsibility to apply rules and norms fairly. While we can see that the fair application of the law largely remains an idealistic fantasy and that those with wealth and status often escape accountability, the fact remains that adding AI to that privileged status certainly is not doing anything to help reduce that inequity.

So again I ask: why should agentic AI and their operators be permitted to do things that we would not allow under other circumstances? Just because some people find these tools useful does not excuse the requirement that they be safe and respectful.

Chicago and Oakland have approx the same murder rate, but Chicago is a HUGE city geographically, including northern parts which are affluent suburbs. I lived on the South Side of Chicago, which has twice the population of Oakland and over 4x the murder rate. I heard gunfire nightly during the summer. Everyone in a high crime neighborhood wants BETTER police. And any sharp tool can be abused in the wrong hands, but I will wager if you polled Oakland residents, a majority would want ALPR technology if you could demonstrate it made their streets tangibly safer. White middle class liberals wring their hands about overstepping civil liberties. Those of us who worry about our safety are less concerned. You're sound like someone saying the homeless shelter is a terrible idea because they're not serving organically sourced food.

There's no simple answer. Stepping on Civil Liberties is bad....getting murdered is worse. You're clearly comfortable enough to view the police as the enemy. The people who lived in my old neighborhood were more scared of the local gangs than the police.

Concerns about a free society is a luxury cared for by those who are in danger. I guarantee you those fearing for their life walking home at night aren't concerned about a free society and being a pawn in your battle for your ideals. Your simplistic mottos are cold comforts for the moms burying their sons because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Life is messy and complicated. You're not even wrong....your ideals are noble, but the callous disregard for those protected by law enforcement is not.

Spotted the 2 privileged /. posters who have never been to a bad neighborhood before!, hence your simplistic and childish view of police officers. You sound like children demanding no one should ever get shots because needles are ouchies! The intellect of the average police officer is due to it being a blue collar profession with low pay. The smarter ones go into different branches, like the FBI, DHS, etc. A police officer's primary function in the legal system is to get a suspect in front of a judge, who is the expert on innocence of guilt. The majority of police never draw their weapon nor face any danger from anything more threatening than traffic. If you're making such STUPID arguments, I'll wager your cops haven't had their life endangered recently.

Look, your life is really fucking good if a news story about police behavior that will never actually happen to you gets your little princess panties in a bunch. Mine is really good now. I still live in the city, but once I could afford to, I moved into a nice, gentrified neighborhood. 20 years ago, my neighborhood had a much higher crime rate. I also went to college on the South Side of Chicago and had to rely on my wits to not be a frequent victim of violent crime. Before then, I grew up 20 minutes outside of the sometimes murder capital of the USA.

Crime is not a theory for me. It is a realistic threat. I still need to rely on my wits not to invite violent crime on the subway or in many neighborhoods not far from my house. I have been a victim of break-ins, muggings, a random racial assault, being followed in bad neighborhoods, etc. For the people that live in areas with a heavy police presence, we don't want to defund the police. We don't hate the police. We hate it when they are the real criminals, but as bad as you see things on the TV?....there's 100-1000 people in our neighborhood who will do much worse to us. EVERYONE who needs the police wants better police, not fewer police.

Who is making mindless rants about Flock? People who have never felt threatened by crime and maybe some fucked up weirdos who are either casual criminals or secretly aspire to be ones. The Institute for Justice Database documents over 100 instances of automated license plate reader (ALPR and Flock) abuse in the United States. How much crime do we have? According to Google

Approximately 17,400 to 20,200 homicides per year nationally, depending on the baseline reporting year.

Roughly 920,000 to 1,110,000 reported motor vehicle thefts per year nationwide.

Kidnapping?...estimated broadly between 200,000 and 750,000 occurrences annually in connection with custody disputes and missing-person registry entries.

Flock's CEO stated that the technology "solved" 1 million crimes or supported approximately 1 million investigations and incidents in a year. Other company fact sheets alternatively claimed between 1,000+ crimes solved per day or 2,800+ crimes solved weekly.

Let's assume the CEO is full of shit and the number isn't 1 million. Also, just because flock was used, doesn't mean the crime wouldn't have been solved had it not been available. There are 50 murders per day. Let's say it isn't 1000, but 100 crimes per day actually solved by flock...I think the families of the murder victim would prefer to see their son's killer locked up rather than get self-righteous about a news story of a theoretical concern that will never happen to them or you.

However, what ratio would you tolerate? Are you a stupid, simplistic child who thinks that one criminal police officer stalking his ex girlfriend means those of us in bad neighborhoods should get murdered or have our killers never get arrested? Do criminals deserve to get away with stealing our cars and breaking into our homes? Do people in our community deserve to have their children kidnapped when a custody battle goes awry? How many Amber alerts will you tolerate for your sense of self-righteousness?

An adult would say Flock is dangerous and needs to be controlled, but actually look into facts to see if the risk is worth the reward. You 2 children went off on a "fuck the police" self righteous rant because...well frankly, I envy how nice your life must have been to be old enough to be on /. in 2026 and be more angry at the police than actual violent criminals.

I'm sure it is...but by how much. 10x? Sure, I'd believe that. 100x?...no, not really. I don't believe 6,900 police officers are stalking their exes. Most just want to do their job and go home, like anyone else. Most are happily married, boring civil servants. Most cops don't even have very stressful or dangerous lives. Most are working in the burbs or small towns and dealing with minor crimes or mundane cop duties...not the exciting stuff you see on TV.

The reported number is a nearly 100,000x ratio. Are you stupid enough to say 1 cop harassing his ex girlfriend is a bridge too far to prevent LOTS of abductions, murders, and thefts? If I had data indicating how much flock has reduced crime, I would tolerate a 1000x ratio, especially if the abuses are non-violent. Additionally, I have concerns about cost. How much are we paying? How much benefit are we getting? The Flock company is at the very least taking this seriously and putting more serious audit controls. If we need to have such a system, that's obviously a needed improvement.

In the end, rogue cops are a theoretical concern for me. Living in a major city, mundane crime is a realistic concern for me. I've been a victim of violent crime more than once and had my home broken into twice. So...yeah...those of us who have had our safety threatened by real criminals are not too sympathetic to the theoretical concerns about potential civil liberties abuse of comfy suburbanites living in full safety.

Googling there were 659,880 vehicles stolen in the last year alone and a total of 69 recorded instances of Flock abuse. Now, that obviously doesn't tell us how many were thwarted nor how many police abused Flock and weren't caught...but this is why I want number and enough of this stupid Flock emotional melodrama. Sounds to me like the Flock downsides are a bit overblown...but...I also don't know how to quantify the upsides.

So #1, I don't know...you could be right, but I am neither confident you're wrong or right. #2, even if it's not a deterrent, arrests are. If they drive a stolen car by a flock camera and it helps police find them and take them off the street for a few years, in a way, it has stopped them from stealing...at least until they get out, at bare minimum.

The problem with flock for me is that I have no data to weigh the pros vs the cons. There's some problematic cops breaking the law with them. However, I don't really know how to quantify the benefit. I think anyone who is not a moron would weigh the pros vs the cons. The flock problems are theoretical for most of us non-criminals....so I am not as outraged as others, but I also don't know what I am getting in return.

I have a rational perspective. I am not a freedom/liberty absolutist. I am not phobic of crime. I need data to know if the benefits outweigh the potential for abuse and just the general cost of this program. If it prevents my car from getting broken into and reduces crime in my neighborhood tangibly, I'd be open-minded about it.

It couldn't do worse.

Baking powder is in the pH neutral range because it has acid and base in it...that's the point of it as a leavening agent. I think you meant baking soda, which is alkaline. However, regardless, if that was the case, none of us chewing through tums would get cancer. Look, you want to give this old crank argument about big pharma, but you're just poorly informed.

No alkaline will "cure" cancer. It might prevent some forms due to stomach acid wounds?....but it's not related to infection. Baking soda can only treat symptoms. It won't cure an infection.

Also, if administering alkalines could cure disease, big pharma WOULD be all over it because there are a lot of more effective solutions than baking powder or calcium carbonate that could target the acidity more precisely. Tums just dissolves in your stomach and stops working. More complex packaging, which they could patent, could ensure it works outside the stomach to prevent colon irritation, for example.

A reliable cure for heartburn would be quite profitable for big pharma, especially if OTC. A HUGE portion of adults over 40 have it regularly. We have lots of money and lots of need. It's not that they're not motivated. it's that baking soda doesn't work. If it did, no one would have heartburn!!! Every doctor would tell you just to take it. Doctors want to cure you. They want to keep you healthy. They have no financial motivation to keep you sick. They'd rather see 1000 mostly healthy patients less frequently than 100 depressing, sick ones every week. Remember, the sicker you are, the less money you have to spend. You're either not working to full capacity or you've already spent a huge chunk of change to stay alive.

I'm even skeptical that pharma doesn't want to cure you. I don't think they're that insidious or calculating. I think they want money for useful treatments. There's no evidence of pharma suppressing cures to ensure you're addicted to their drug for a lifetime. They'd rather charge you 10,000 for a single shot cure than 100/month for the rest of your life. It's easier money that way. So if you're going to make stupid stoner conspiracy claims, provide some evidence next time.

To reproduce is to guarantee an innocent person all the suffering and tedium of a lifetime. I cannot imagine a more sadistic act than inflicting life.

There is no altruistic reason to have children. No one suffers when a person opts out of reproduction. To not reproduce is the ethical choice.