3 ms·

Imagine not so long in the future if self-driving cars were forced to reveal their code because of the right-to-repair bill, 1. who without a vast depth of know

by soheil 10y ago

Imagine not so long in the future if self-driving cars were forced to reveal their code because of the right-to-repair bill, 1. who without a vast depth of knowledge in C++, etc. would be able to go anywhere near it? 2. even if they did is it in their best interest or anyone else's if they tinker with the code and made the car take undesirable actions? Maybe buying a tractor should be replaced with leasing tractors, if they never want you to fully own everything in it. I think very soon there will be more and more of a need for a new way to determine what products are allowed to be sold partially with a secret OEM key.

simplytoofast 10y ago
Well, modification of certain software systems could be easily regulated. Even now you can't just modify all the mechanical parts of your car. For example, if you remove or bypass your catalytic converter, you can be fined $2,500-200,000 and charged with a felony. There's also a provision for any citizen to sue you into compliance if they know you've done it. Doubt that happens much, but if you ever became someone the gov't doesn't like, they can probably just go see if your muffler is up to code. Or any of the million other felonies you might be unknowingly committing due to the expansion of federal regulations.
kodfodrasz 10y ago
They lock down the software in their well understood interests: - vendor lock in (this is not good for customers) - safety (testing this stuff is expesive and lengthy. Every change forces a re-test. They are liable for this stuff) - defending the brand value (if there is an accident because of modified software non-hackers will blame the manufacturer for making it possible) This all weill get worse with neural networks: Imagine people poking around bits in the matrix representing the neural network of the sel-driving AI. They will not have the slightest clue what they are doing, but they don't want their System to be locked down. They download "steering optimizers" and similar stuff from sites and overwrite the neural network. Who will be to blame for the accident because of this? With neural networks even the manufacturer cannot completely understand every nauron's effect on the complete system, as opposed to traditional software. Manufacturers have huge responsibility, and curently only locking software down is their only way to defend themselves.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  You are arguing for accepting lockdowns on tractors so that john deere can screw their customers harder based on the safety of systems that don't exist yet. Drivers who cause accidents will end up liable just as they are now.
  - kodfodrasz 10y ago
    Except for self driving stuff I was arguing about. We are not yet sure who will be liable for them. Also there is pretty much self driving in some agricultural machines, for use on the fields. But seeing this topic I'd make it possible for farmers to mod their machinery, with a complete loss of warranty. Imagine a modded component accidentally sending false or misleading data on the CAN bus, or not yielding the bus, or simply being incompatible with a component. These scenarios can cause serious troubles. These stuff are not JS frameworks, a page reload does not undo a bad trial and error round. Also the supporting tools are expensive not only for farmers and machine shos, but also for vendors. I remember the price tags for calibrated instruments from my time in automotive industry...
    - michaelmrose 10y ago
      You can't void the warranty unless the modification/repair results in the damage we already made a law for this even.
michaelmrose 10y ago
Your car is full of things only an expert could reasonably be expected to tinker with because it is somewhat open a wide range of such people are available to fix it. If they screw it up your massive chunk of rolling death may roll over someones baby. The circumstances are in no way new and don't merit new rules or expectations. What is actually new is increasing legal and technical roadblocks to self repair that enable manufacturers to design hardware that is worse for nearly everyone and better for their bottom line. These markets are full of entrenched players who all have an financial incentive to make anti consumer choices so expecting a free market fix is probably laughable. The only real solution is the hated "regulation" where we seek individuals who are subject matter experts without financial incentives to dictate that people must do what is best for everyone rather than their bonus.
stordoff 10y ago
There's already plenty of hardware components A) that non-domain experts would have no idea how to repair and B) with would it be potentially hazardous to meddle (e.g. a botched brake repair). I'm not really sure how software presents a substantially different risk. There's also a reasonable middle ground: vehicles will run unsigned code, but running software not signed by the manufacturer transfers all liability to the vehicle owner in case of bugs and/or malfunction. Third-party maintainers can provide signed builds and contractually agree to cover the same (allowing repair/maintenance even if the original manufacturer stops providing it).

by soheil 10y ago

simplytoofast 10y ago

Well, modification of certain software systems could be easily regulated. Even now you can't just modify all the mechanical parts of your car. For example, if you remove or bypass your catalytic converter, you can be fined $2,500-200,000 and charged with a felony. There's also a provision for any citizen to sue you into compliance if they know you've done it. Doubt that happens much, but if you ever became someone the gov't doesn't like, they can probably just go see if your muffler is up to code. Or any of the million other felonies you might be unknowingly committing due to the expansion of federal regulations.

kodfodrasz 10y ago

They lock down the software in their well understood interests: - vendor lock in (this is not good for customers) - safety (testing this stuff is expesive and lengthy. Every change forces a re-test. They are liable for this stuff) - defending the brand value (if there is an accident because of modified software non-hackers will blame the manufacturer for making it possible) This all weill get worse with neural networks: Imagine people poking around bits in the matrix representing the neural network of the sel-driving AI. They will not have the slightest clue what they are doing, but they don't want their System to be locked down. They download "steering optimizers" and similar stuff from sites and overwrite the neural network. Who will be to blame for the accident because of this? With neural networks even the manufacturer cannot completely understand every nauron's effect on the complete system, as opposed to traditional software. Manufacturers have huge responsibility, and curently only locking software down is their only way to defend themselves.

michaelmrose 10y ago
You are arguing for accepting lockdowns on tractors so that john deere can screw their customers harder based on the safety of systems that don't exist yet. Drivers who cause accidents will end up liable just as they are now.
- kodfodrasz 10y ago
  Except for self driving stuff I was arguing about. We are not yet sure who will be liable for them. Also there is pretty much self driving in some agricultural machines, for use on the fields. But seeing this topic I'd make it possible for farmers to mod their machinery, with a complete loss of warranty. Imagine a modded component accidentally sending false or misleading data on the CAN bus, or not yielding the bus, or simply being incompatible with a component. These scenarios can cause serious troubles. These stuff are not JS frameworks, a page reload does not undo a bad trial and error round. Also the supporting tools are expensive not only for farmers and machine shos, but also for vendors. I remember the price tags for calibrated instruments from my time in automotive industry...
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
    You can't void the warranty unless the modification/repair results in the damage we already made a law for this even.

michaelmrose 10y ago

Your car is full of things only an expert could reasonably be expected to tinker with because it is somewhat open a wide range of such people are available to fix it. If they screw it up your massive chunk of rolling death may roll over someones baby. The circumstances are in no way new and don't merit new rules or expectations. What is actually new is increasing legal and technical roadblocks to self repair that enable manufacturers to design hardware that is worse for nearly everyone and better for their bottom line. These markets are full of entrenched players who all have an financial incentive to make anti consumer choices so expecting a free market fix is probably laughable. The only real solution is the hated "regulation" where we seek individuals who are subject matter experts without financial incentives to dictate that people must do what is best for everyone rather than their bonus.

stordoff 10y ago

There's already plenty of hardware components A) that non-domain experts would have no idea how to repair and B) with would it be potentially hazardous to meddle (e.g. a botched brake repair). I'm not really sure how software presents a substantially different risk. There's also a reasonable middle ground: vehicles will run unsigned code, but running software not signed by the manufacturer transfers all liability to the vehicle owner in case of bugs and/or malfunction. Third-party maintainers can provide signed builds and contractually agree to cover the same (allowing repair/maintenance even if the original manufacturer stops providing it).