Officials apprehend armed poachers in protected reserve — all with the help of high-tech cameras
Wildlife officials in India recently arrested six poachers on the Similipal Tiger Reserve with the help of artificial intelligence cameras, The Times of India reported. The accused poachers were arrested after killing a protected chevrotain, also known as a mouse deer, in the conservation area located in the Indian state of Odisha.
The accused poachers were armed with three improvised, unlicensed firearms and a snare trap. They remain in judicial custody after their bail pleas were rejected.
According to The Times of India, wildlife officials say high-tech cameras have been key to protecting the reserve's vulnerable animals. This is the fifth instance of the strategically placed cameras assisting in identifying poachers on the reserve. Just two weeks before this incident, reserve authorities arrested five poachers who killed a young black tiger in the protected area.
A mouse deer doesn't look like North American deer species you may be used to. The small mammal, which weighs around 6 to 7 pounds, is a rare sight in the wild, as it is highly nocturnal and shy, according to Pugdundee Safaris. While Indian mouse deer aren't considered endangered, animals on the protected reserve are illegal to hunt.
Mouse deer are prey of tigers, a highly endangered species. A recent study estimated that there are around 3,682 tigers in India — roughly 75% of the global population. Currently, 27 tigers live on the Similipal Tiger Reserve, ETV Bharat revealed.
Stopping poachers is crucial to conservation efforts, even when the illegal hunters target a non-endangered species. Poaching can disrupt entire ecosystems and threaten biodiversity, as many non-endangered species play key roles in their environments. For instance, mouse deer — aside from serving as tiger prey — are essential seed-spreading animals, Pugdundee Safaris explained. When their populations are impacted, it can cause a chain reaction throughout the ecosystem, potentially harming endangered wildlife.
Any form of poaching also fuels the illegal wildlife trade, supporting the black market that makes endangered species valuable to poachers. By arresting and prosecuting poachers, wildlife officials can help weaken and discourage this black market.
Recent arrests at the Similipal Tiger Reserve highlight the growing role of tech in conservation efforts. AI is often rightly critiqued for using massive amounts of electricity and water to power energy-hungry data centers, as the United Nations Environment Programme explained. But it can also make poaching prevention efforts more successful by helping officials monitor vast conservation areas and respond to threats in real time. While AI can be controversial, its success in safeguarding vulnerable species is becoming increasingly undeniable.
Should we be actively working to kill invasive species?
Absolutely
It depends on the species
I don't know
No — leave nature alone
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns
The High Court of England and Wales says lawyers need to take stronger steps to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in their work. In a ruling tying together two recent cases, Judge Victoria Sharp wrote that generative AI tools like ChatGPT 'are not capable of conducting reliable legal research." 'Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect,' Judge Sharp wrote. 'The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue.' That doesn't mean lawyers cannot use AI in their research, but she said they have a professional duty 'to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.' Judge Sharp suggested that the growing number of cases where lawyers (including, on the U.S. side, lawyers representing major AI platforms) have cited what appear to be AI-generated falsehoods suggests that 'more needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court,' and she said her ruling will be forwarded to professional bodies including the Bar Council and the Law Society. In one of the cases in question, a lawyer representing a man seeking damages against two banks submitted a filing with 45 citations — 18 of those cases did not exist, while many others 'did not contain the quotations that were attributed to them, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and did not have any relevance to the subject matter of the application,' Judge Sharp said. In the other, a lawyer representing a man who had been evicted from his London home wrote a court filing citing five cases that did not appear to exist. (The lawyer denied using AI, though she said the citations may have come from AI-generated summaries that appeared in 'Google or Safari.') Judge Sharp said that while the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings, that is 'not a precedent.' 'Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction,' she added. Both lawyers were either referred or referred themselves to professional regulators. Judge Sharp noted that when lawyers do not meet their duties to the court, the court's powers range from 'public admonition' to the imposition of costs, contempt proceedings, or even 'referral to the police.' This article originally appeared on TechCrunch at Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns
The High Court of England and Wales says lawyers need to take stronger steps to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in their work. In a ruling tying together two recent cases, Judge Victoria Sharp wrote that generative AI tools like ChatGPT 'are not capable of conducting reliable legal research." 'Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect,' Judge Sharp wrote. 'The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue.' That doesn't mean lawyers cannot use AI in their research, but she said they have a professional duty 'to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.' Judge Sharp suggested that the growing number of cases where lawyers (including, on the U.S. side, lawyers representing major AI platforms) have cited what appear to be AI-generated falsehoods suggests that 'more needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court,' and she said her ruling will be forwarded to professional bodies including the Bar Council and the Law Society. In one of the cases in question, a lawyer representing a man seeking damages against two banks submitted a filing with 45 citations — 18 of those cases did not exist, while many others 'did not contain the quotations that were attributed to them, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and did not have any relevance to the subject matter of the application,' Judge Sharp said. In the other, a lawyer representing a man who had been evicted from his London home wrote a court filing citing five cases that did not appear to exist. (The lawyer denied using AI, though she said the citations may have come from AI-generated summaries that appeared in 'Google or Safari.') Judge Sharp said that while the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings, that is 'not a precedent.' 'Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction,' she added. Both lawyers were either referred or referred themselves to professional regulators. Judge Sharp noted that when lawyers do not meet their duties to the court, the court's powers range from 'public admonition' to the imposition of costs, contempt proceedings, or even 'referral to the police.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
TechCrunch
11 hours ago
- TechCrunch
Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns
The High Court of England and Wales says lawyers need to take stronger steps to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in their work. In a ruling tying together two recent cases, Judge Victoria Sharp wrote that generative AI tools like ChatGPT 'are not capable of conducting reliable legal research.' 'Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect,' Judge Sharp wrote. 'The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue.' That doesn't mean lawyers cannot use AI in their research, but she said they have a professional duty 'to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.' Judge Sharp suggested that the growing number of cases where lawyers (including, on the U.S. side, lawyers representing major AI platforms) have cited what appear to be AI-generated falsehoods suggests that 'more needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court,' and she said her ruling will be forwarded to professional bodies including the Bar Council and the Law Society. In one of the cases in question, a lawyer representing a man seeking damages against two banks submitted a filing with 45 citations — 18 of those cases did not exist, while many others 'did not contain the quotations that were attributed to them, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and did not have any relevance to the subject matter of the application,' Judge Sharp said. In the other, a lawyer representing a man who had been evicted from his London home wrote a court filing citing five cases that did not appear to exist. (The lawyer denied using AI, though she said the citations may have come from AI-generated summaries that appeared in 'Google or Safari.') Judge Sharp said that while the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings, that is 'not a precedent.' Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW 'Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction,' she added. Both lawyers were either referred or referred themselves to professional regulators. Judge Sharp noted that when lawyers do not meet their duties to the court, the court's powers range from 'public admonition' to the imposition of costs, contempt proceedings, or even 'referral to the police.'
