AI cameras catch tens of thousands ahead of Distracted Driving Awareness Month
Tuesday marks the beginning of a month-long effort to crack down on distracted driving, starting with extra enforcement.
"It's so much more of an issue than we even thought it was," South Lake Minnetonka police Sgt. Adam Moore said.
Moore is referring to distracted driving, captured more than 10,000 times in February alone by
AI cameras
along Highway 7 in Shorewood. The volume of violations was so high, police were only able to stop 3% of those drivers, Moore said.
"We've tried other things in the past. This technology that we have, has proven to be really the only effective tool that we've had," Moore said.
In April, Minnesota's Office of Traffic Safety is funding 14 agencies across Minnesota so they can have unmarked vehicle cameras that can see inside cars, spotting drivers illegally using their phones.
Richfield police have used the cameras for more than four years and said they are a great tool for catching distracted driving.
"You can see right down into other people's vehicles and you can see them texting or doing whatever they are doing," Richfield police Sgt. Matt Steen said.
Moore said they are doubling the number of officers watching the AI cameras for the month of April.
"There's still thousands of hours of videos that you can watch when you get to your destination and you don't need to do it while you're driving your car," said Moore. "People have lost loved ones just from distracted driving and they're glad that we're doing something about it."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
'What The F**k': Jim Acosta Slammed Over 'One Of A Kind Interview' With Dead Parkland Victim
Former CNN host Jim Acosta faced backlash on Monday after sharing what he called a 'one of a kind interview' with an AI version of late Parkland school shooting victim Joaquin Oliver, a bot created by his parents to honor their son on what would have been his 25th birthday. The interview — shared to Acosta's SubStack page on Monday — depicts Oliver, one of 17 victims who died in the 2018 massacre, remarking on the cause of death and stressing why it's 'important' to talk about gun violence in schools. The AI — when asked for its 'solution' to gun violence — emphasized a need for a mix of stronger gun control laws, mental health support and community engagement. The bot of Oliver proceeded to speak in a noticeably higher tone before discussing the late teen's interests in the Miami Heat and 'Star Wars.' Acosta — who declared that the technology left him 'speechless' — called the conversation 'so insightful,' telling the late teen's father Manuel Oliver that it felt like the first time he really got to know his son. 'I felt like I was communicating with him which is just so remarkable,' Acosta said. 'People say, 'Well, AI, you know, it could be bad, it could cause all these destructive things.' This is an example of how it might actually do some good, it might help some people who have suffered tremendous losses like your family have a way to hold on to hold onto who this person was which I think is a beautiful thing.' Manuel Oliver and his wife Patricia Oliver — co-founders of the gun control advocacy group Change the Ref — have been involved in other projects that demand action against gun violence including a school shooting video game, a play and a site that uses AI to recreate victims' voices for calls to Congress. Manuel Oliver — in a video shared to X, formerly Twitter — acknowledged that the AI was his and his wife's idea, adding that Acosta shouldn't be blamed for 'what he was able to do' in the 'interview.' 'If the problem that you have is with the AI then you have the wrong problem,' he said. 'The real problem is that my son was shot eight years ago. So if you believe that that is not the problem, you are part of the problem.' While Acosta restricted those who could reply to his posts on X, it wasn't the same case on his BlueSky account where a number of critics were stunned by the AI move. 'Hey Jim. Quick question. What the fuck is wrong with you,' replied one user. 'What I want to know is what the fuck is wrong with the PARENTS?!' another user wrote. Check out those reactions and more below. Related... Progressive Ivy League School Adopts Trump's 'Two Sexes' Policy In Exchange For Federal Funding Radio Host Throws Cold Water On Trump's Claims He's A 'Racist Sleazebag' For Epstein-MAGA Remark Texas Dems Prevent Trump-Backed Redistricting Vote Despite Abbott's Threats
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Springfield attorney fined for using AI, citing ‘nonexistent' cases
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WCIA) — A Springfield attorney is being fined and could face additional penalties after admitting to using artificial intelligence in briefs where he cited eight 'nonexistent' cases — a situation that may be the first of its kind in the Illinois Appellate Court. On Nov. 4, 2024, the circuit court of Sangamon County appointed Springfield attorney William T. Panichi to represent someone in an accelerated appeal from the termination of the respondent's parental rights filed under an Illinois Supreme Court rule. Springfield arson suspect denied pretrial release An opinion filed on July 21, 2025 by Carla Bender in the Fourth District Appellate Court states that following an in-depth review of the briefs, the court recognized that Panichi cited eight 'apparently nonexistent' cases in the respondent's opening and reply briefs. In one instance, he provided a direct quote from one of these cases. Being concerned that the respondent's briefs contained citations to apparently nonexistent cases, this court ordered Panichi to file copies of the following cases: In re M.F., 2022 IL App (2d) 210614 In re A.G., 2022 IL App (1st) 220119 In re R.C., 195 Ill. App. 3d 827 (1st Dist. 1990) In re R.D.S., 2021 IL App (2d) 200092 In re M.H., Jr., 196 Ill. App. 3d 976 (1st Dist. 1990) In re Brandon E., 382 Ill. App. 3d 389 (2d Dist. 2008) In re K.L.P., 381 Ill. App. 3d 817 (4th Dist. 2008) In re Ca. B., 386 Ill. App. 3d 507 (2d Dist. 2008) Panichi was then further ordered to appear before this court personally and to show why he should not be sanctioned. As a result, on June 16, 2025, Panichi filed a two-page response to this court's rule. In part of his response, he stated that two of the eight cases accused of being nonexistent were 'valid, published Illinois Appellate Court decisions' and were 'properly cited.' He also said that another one of the cases is a 'valid published decision but was incorrectly cited.' Later in his response, Panichi admitted that the five remaining citations in the Appellant's Brief were determined to be nonexistent or invalid. UPDATE: Springfield's 6th Street, Oberlin Ave reopen after crash On June 18, 2025, he appeared before the court and acknowledged he was familiar with principles in the Illinois Supreme Court and rules of the state's Professional Conduct. He also said that he was compensated for his work at the rate of $150 per hour for a total of $6,925. Panichi later said that the payment he received for this case 'was more than [he] usually charges[s]' and that this case 'was out of the ordinary in terms of time spent' because his office 'did some exceptional work trying to get some other information before the court' by filing 'a brief trying to open up the proofs,' but he did not remember the exact matter. Addressing Panichi's response, the court pointed out to him that despite his claims that two of the cases were valid and properly cited, he had actually cited in his brief two completely different citations. He said that he was not currently familiar with the content of the cases but claimed he had been so at one time. He also admitted that he did not read either of these decisions prior to filing his response to the court's rule to show cause. Panichi said he misread the court's rule to show cause as citing 'Brandon A.,' when it cited 'Brandon E.' He also acknowledged that he did not list a citation for 'Brandon E.' in his response and never looked up whether 'Brandon E.' existed. Springfield man arrested after search reveals 59 bags of suspected fentanyl, cocaine, more The court said during the hearing that a case Panichi claimed to have intended to cite did not contain the quotation for which he cited in his reply brief. He then admitted he did not know where he obtained the quote and did not believe it was accurate. As a result, the court stated that Panichi may have mislead the court. Later on, Panichi said his incorrect citations in the briefs he attached to his response to the rule to show cause 'might be an example of poor lawyering, poor arguing, stretching principles, I don't have an answer for that.' On the other hand, he then claimed that 'to the best of [his] knowledge, [these cases] were cited for the appropriate principles.' However, he did admit that he had only read one of the three cases he attached to his response and could not remember which one. This court then turned to Panichi's response and asked about how the five nonexistent citations appeared in his brief. At first, he clarified that he did not claim to have an 'excuse,' just an 'explanation.' Suspect arrested after attempted kidnapping in Springfield Panichi then admitted that in preparing the briefs and conducting research in this case, he used artificial intelligence to write a draft of the brief, then 'looked it over and [he] did not read the cases that were in support of the brief.' He further explained that at the time he filed the briefs, he was both 'extremely busy' and 'not thorough enough.' Panichi stated that his use of AI was prompted by a 'perfect storm' of 'temptation of AI out there at a time when [he] was busy and trying to meet deadlines.' Panichi also claimed to have since learned about AI 'hallucinations,' in which the AI 'dreams things up when it doesn't have an answer.' He acknowledged that he should have read the cases that the AI presented to him and admitted he was 'between research software' when he prepared the briefs. He told the court he did not intend to use AI anymore going forward. Panichi admitted that 'the whole thing stems from the fact that [he] barely did any personal work [him]self on this appeal.' He further said he was careless and reckless in his actions and said he was wrong for what he did. He also acknowledged that while he relied on the legal assistant in his Springfield office a great deal, he, as the attorney, was ultimately responsible in this matter. Sangamon, Menard Co. Crime Stoppers seeking tips in 2024 homicide As a result of this situation, Panichi has been ordered the following sanctions: He must disgorge the payment of $6,925.62 he received for his work on this appeal to the Sangamon County treasurer within 30 days of the filing of this opinion and must submit, within five days after payment, a receipt to this court reflecting the payment He must pay $1,000 as monetary sanctions to the clerk of the Fourth District Appellate Court within 30 days of the filling of this opinion The clerk of the Fourth District Appellate Court shall send a copy of this opinion to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission The opinion also stated that this appears to be the first issued opinion in the Illinois Appellate Court to address the citation of fictiti ous ca ses generated by AI, and the additional penalty of $1,000 was issued to help deter other attorneys from following in Panichi's footsteps. Panichi shared the following statement with WCIA as a result of this opinion: 'I want to apologize to the Appellate Court for the extra trouble I put them through. I am responsible for this without any excuse, and I am working on closing out my practice appropriately and surrendering my license.' Attorney William T. Panichi The opinion also stated that nothing within it is intended to 'categorically forbid attorneys from using AI tools.' The Illinois Supreme Court AI policy even explicitly permits the use of AI. However, it urges attorneys to use AI tools 'wisely.' 'We reiterate the supreme court's reminder that '[a]ll users must thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it in any court proceeding to ensure accuracy and compliance with legal and ethical obligations.''AI Policy, supra,' part of the opinion states. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
活化資產＋聚焦AI 鴻海處分美Lordstown廠區
鴻海4日公告處分旗下子公司位於美國俄亥俄州南部的Lordstown廠區資產。該廠被視為鴻海在美部署電動車的重要生產據點，7月底時，鴻海甫公告增資在美子公司之一Foxconn EV System，市場亦解讀為其擴大在美電動車之布局，如今大舉出售逾六百萬平方英尺的廠區與土地，引發市場關注。 鴻海公告，其子公司Foxconn EV Property Development LLC、Foxconn EV Asset Management LLC及Foxconn EV System LLC，將分別處分手上在Lordstown廠區之土地、廠房與機器設備等資產，其中包括近599.6英畝土地、逾604萬平方英尺廠房，將售予CRESCENT DUNE LLC。總交易額約達3.75億美元，處分利益估達1.7億美元。 鴻海指出，此為活化資產並優化該廠區產品組合與營運績效。而在處分該廠後，鴻海先前規畫於今年底前，在北美市場推出的MODEL C電動車計畫進程，據悉進度未受影響。 知情人士指出，鴻海此回處分Lordstown廠區，不僅為了活化該廠區資產，更是延續日前宣布與東元集團策略聯盟、進一步聚焦AI資料中心，同時因應美國強勁AI需求，加速其在AI伺服器與資料中心建置的部署，期望將原有廠房優勢快速轉化為AI營收。 不過，整個Lordstown廠的廠房面積比鴻海正在德州休士頓興建的AI伺服器產線新廠，大了至少6倍，而2021年10月時，鴻海與Lordstown Motors達成資產購買協議、以2.3億美元購得該廠時，主要是為Lordstown生產其Endurance皮卡車款，並合作進行未來其電動車發展計畫。 惟隨著2023年間、Lordstown宣告破產，雙方甚至在美對薄公堂後，鴻海Lordstown廠區的運作幾乎停擺。此回鴻海決議停損並出售後，市場解讀，將有助其減輕折舊、攤提的負擔，有助提升資產周轉效率。 此外，其中仍保留逾15萬平方英尺的廠區空間，後續隨著川普政府欲大力推展的美國AI行動計畫、帶動美國在地的AI基建需求升溫，亦可望為鴻海在美國保有轉作高附加價值業務的彈性，未來可投入AI伺服器、AI資料中心應用場域等利多。 更多工商時報報導 通路共享 全聯全家電支結盟 環球晶明年產能翻倍跳 錢景俏 5檔電池材料供應鏈有戲
