3 ms·

No shit. What about when you erase all the lines on the road? What about when you remove the road? What's next, "Luxury Tesla defeated by a cheap piece of duct

by jbob2000 8y ago

No shit. What about when you erase all the lines on the road? What about when you remove the road? What's next, "Luxury Tesla defeated by a cheap piece of duct tape over the main sensors"? "We removed a wheel from a Tesla and it crashed into a wall!". These tests are so contrived, honestly.

mplewis 8y ago
They're not contrived tests. They're attacks that work on specific NN-powered self-driving cars but don't work on humans. No human would be tricked into driving into oncoming traffic by the three small stickers in the road used in this attack.
- jbob2000 8y ago
  You've never seen a car that's accidentally driven into wet concrete/pavement? If a construction worker places the pylons a little too far apart, it looks like you might be able to use the lane!
  - crooked-v 8y ago
    That's wildly different from having, as mentioned in the article, three white spots on the ground that are each a few inches across.
  - SrslyJosh 8y ago
    Ah, the good ole "You can't make X perfectly safe, so therefore we shouldn't try to make it any safer than it is right now!" argument. A favorite of gun enthusiasts and gun lobbyists.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      A case in point about human perception: while you read jbob2000’s comment that way, I read that same comment as nothing more than a counter to the idea that humans were somehow invulnerable to errors. This seems a bit strange, given the main argument in favour of replacing human drivers with AI is that it should be possible to make one that works as well as the best human driver, only without getting tired, high, or distracted, and with reaction times measured in microseconds instead of hundreds of milliseconds. We’re not there yet. I don’t know how far we are from that future.
- RandallBrown 8y ago
  Sure they would. People ignore signs that say "Wet Cement" or blindly follow their GPS into a lake.
  - nikofeyn 8y ago
    and since when is that considered okay?
- kemitche 8y ago
  And there are things you could do to roads that would get human drivers killed but not affect machine drivers. The world doesn't descend into chaos just because chaos is possible. It descends into chaos when the people who cause chaos aren't caught and brought to justice.
crooked-v 8y ago
Three white spots that look maybe a few inches square each are hardly 'contrived'. Even outside of adversarial attacks, the same situation could happen from children playing with chalk or someone crossing the road with a leaky paint can.
SrslyJosh 8y ago
> What about when you erase all the lines on the road? What about when you remove the road? Both of those conditions can be handled by human drivers...a "self-driving" car had better at least handle them safely (e.g., alert the driver and then disengage autopilot), even if it can't actually navigate under the circumstances. > What's next, "Luxury Tesla defeated by a cheap piece of duct tape over the main sensors"? Someone will do that. I'd hope that the car would alert the driver as soon as it started that there was no usable sensor data. > These tests are so contrived, honestly. Of course, so we should just assume that these things work perfectly and that bad actors don't exist. Sounds safe to me.
- Johnny555 8y ago
  > What about when you erase all the lines on the road? What about when you remove the road? Both of those conditions can be handled by human drivers...a "self-driving" car had better at least handle them safely (e.g., alert the driver and then disengage autopilot), even if it can't actually navigate under the circumstances. Not always, at least not well -- I had a car drift into the side of my car in the rain when the lane markers were nearly invisible and the seams in the road made it seem like his lane was moving into my lane.
yathern 8y ago
The article mentions the 'blurred line' test - but the more interesting one was the smaller interference dots - which is a more practical attack. You can see them in the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QSsKy0I9LE&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QSsKy0I9LE&feature=youtu.be

mplewis 8y ago

They're not contrived tests. They're attacks that work on specific NN-powered self-driving cars but don't work on humans. No human would be tricked into driving into oncoming traffic by the three small stickers in the road used in this attack.

jbob2000 8y ago
You've never seen a car that's accidentally driven into wet concrete/pavement? If a construction worker places the pylons a little too far apart, it looks like you might be able to use the lane!
- crooked-v 8y ago
  That's wildly different from having, as mentioned in the article, three white spots on the ground that are each a few inches across.
- SrslyJosh 8y ago
  Ah, the good ole "You can't make X perfectly safe, so therefore we shouldn't try to make it any safer than it is right now!" argument. A favorite of gun enthusiasts and gun lobbyists.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    A case in point about human perception: while you read jbob2000’s comment that way, I read that same comment as nothing more than a counter to the idea that humans were somehow invulnerable to errors. This seems a bit strange, given the main argument in favour of replacing human drivers with AI is that it should be possible to make one that works as well as the best human driver, only without getting tired, high, or distracted, and with reaction times measured in microseconds instead of hundreds of milliseconds. We’re not there yet. I don’t know how far we are from that future.
RandallBrown 8y ago
Sure they would. People ignore signs that say "Wet Cement" or blindly follow their GPS into a lake.
- nikofeyn 8y ago
  and since when is that considered okay?
kemitche 8y ago
And there are things you could do to roads that would get human drivers killed but not affect machine drivers. The world doesn't descend into chaos just because chaos is possible. It descends into chaos when the people who cause chaos aren't caught and brought to justice.

crooked-v 8y ago

Three white spots that look maybe a few inches square each are hardly 'contrived'. Even outside of adversarial attacks, the same situation could happen from children playing with chalk or someone crossing the road with a leaky paint can.

SrslyJosh 8y ago

> What about when you erase all the lines on the road? What about when you remove the road? Both of those conditions can be handled by human drivers...a "self-driving" car had better at least handle them safely (e.g., alert the driver and then disengage autopilot), even if it can't actually navigate under the circumstances. > What's next, "Luxury Tesla defeated by a cheap piece of duct tape over the main sensors"? Someone will do that. I'd hope that the car would alert the driver as soon as it started that there was no usable sensor data. > These tests are so contrived, honestly. Of course, so we should just assume that these things work perfectly and that bad actors don't exist. Sounds safe to me.

Johnny555 8y ago
> What about when you erase all the lines on the road? What about when you remove the road? Both of those conditions can be handled by human drivers...a "self-driving" car had better at least handle them safely (e.g., alert the driver and then disengage autopilot), even if it can't actually navigate under the circumstances. Not always, at least not well -- I had a car drift into the side of my car in the rain when the lane markers were nearly invisible and the seams in the road made it seem like his lane was moving into my lane.

yathern 8y ago

The article mentions the 'blurred line' test - but the more interesting one was the smaller interference dots - which is a more practical attack. You can see them in the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QSsKy0I9LE&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QSsKy0I9LE&feature=youtu.be