This is an interesting claim since their cameras dont seem to capture video. Just still images.

You know

Trying to impose this kind of structure on the agent workflow creates more work and decreases quality. It's an illusion of control.

How would uploading bad footage negatively effect people trying to find license plates? It's not deleting the footage they are looking for.

But was this in New Hampshire? The retention policy is set by the customer.

The default retention policy is 7 days and the local customer (IE the police) can set it to whatever.

I wonder what can be done within 3 minutes?

Can you elaborate? How in the world would I interface with claude other than sending it messages?

> How in the world would I interface with claude other than sending it messages?

The protocol will of course be `text -> text` for the typical LLM (though some new models are structured, as we saw yesterday with Jev). Even so, the user doesn't need to be exposed to the protocol (almost ever). It's not like I'm crafting a POST request to send this form.

There's a lot of room for window dressing, and I look at AI like I look at the touch-screen. It was a fun technical toy until people (mostly Apple) poured in a lot of serious effort into "ok, how do we make this pleasant to use, intuitive, and genuinely useful?"

So ... what?

Dictation? Neuralink thought-to-text?

For the abstract "you can do anything" product, you want an open ended interface, but if I'm, eg, renting a car, is a free form text box really the way to go? The rental company knows exactly what information they need from me before they'll rent me a car, so a free form text box so the computer can ask me questions one by one vs a traditional form, seems suboptimal.

But we're talking about Claude right? Not some bespoke app powered by AI? The interface cant only be wide enough to rent cars.

Text based workflows are king

PPWR is an obvious one. Its such a dysfunctional law that they actually told people to ignore it.

Programmers keep thinking law is if/then, it's not, it's a set of instructions to judges, which may contain obvious errors or conflict with other instructions, which is why we allow humans to interpret them instead of computers.

Do you grant that there are poorly written laws?

Are you defending PPWR? Not in spirit but actual implementation?

It will never get so-far as the judge because the EU has already admitted the law cant be followed and arent going to be taking people to court over it.

Regardless of the intent, it's an abject failure.

That is fascinating and seems plausible. Hard to say though.