3 ms·

Well, that analogy doesn’t hold. In this case the exploit is introducing something to your visual field that looks like an obstacle. Both humans and robots mimi

by jiofih 7y ago

Well, that analogy doesn’t hold. In this case the exploit is introducing something to your visual field that looks like an obstacle. Both humans and robots mimicking human vision will be susceptible to it. If you look at the video in the article, they don’t just show line markings, but project a life-sized person on the road in the correct perspective for the driver eye height. Of course brightness is off, it has no volume, but I bet a horse 90% of drivers would stop if that projection showed up in front of them. In fact, it would be so easy to test this, that one wonders why they didn’t do just that in the study. A lot of people would even fall for the fake markings. The real interesting bit in the study is the reaction time, which is only shown at the end of the video. Humans will not react to a stop sign that blinks in and out of existence, while for the computer it was there for long enough. Sounds totally fixable in software by introducing some kind of persistence parameters. And in the end, it only makes it harder to detect, but is fundamentally still the same attack as drawing STOP in chalk. https://www.nassiben.com/phantoms https://www.nassiben.com/phantoms

close04 7y ago
> Both humans and robots mimicking human vision will be susceptible to it. Obviously but the bar is much lower for tricking cars than it is humans. And I think that is the problem being highlighted by this. Not that you can trick the computer but that you can do it with something that would never work with a human. Self driving systems and driver assists are always marketed as systems that improve some things humans can already do and the expectation is that recognizing lane markers or signs on the side of the road are some of those things. We adjusted all the infrastructure around driving to fit humans. The height or appearance of a stop sign accounts for this. It's possible that we'll have to tweak this to be more suited for cars now which would come with a different set of design rules: shapes, colors, materials used, etc. to better fit computer vision + lidar/radar. But as it stands today it's far easier to trick a car than it is to trick a human and I think that's an important thing to be aware of, not just find excuses for why it happens because of brand affinity or anything like that.

by jiofih 7y ago

close04 7y ago

> Both humans and robots mimicking human vision will be susceptible to it. Obviously but the bar is much lower for tricking cars than it is humans. And I think that is the problem being highlighted by this. Not that you can trick the computer but that you can do it with something that would never work with a human. Self driving systems and driver assists are always marketed as systems that improve some things humans can already do and the expectation is that recognizing lane markers or signs on the side of the road are some of those things. We adjusted all the infrastructure around driving to fit humans. The height or appearance of a stop sign accounts for this. It's possible that we'll have to tweak this to be more suited for cars now which would come with a different set of design rules: shapes, colors, materials used, etc. to better fit computer vision + lidar/radar. But as it stands today it's far easier to trick a car than it is to trick a human and I think that's an important thing to be aware of, not just find excuses for why it happens because of brand affinity or anything like that.