3 ms·

> The idea that bad people (be it trolls, criminals or spooks) could force deliberate malfunctioning of/misclassifications in AIs and thus cause crashes I wish

by ebg13 7y ago

> The idea that bad people (be it trolls, criminals or spooks) could force deliberate malfunctioning of/misclassifications in AIs and thus cause crashes I wish people would stop trotting this one out. Bad actors can deliberately cause humans to crash just as easily if not moreso. If they don't, it's only because such behavior is punishable.

rndgermandude 7y ago
Making somebody crash in a dumb car is pretty hard if you want to do it in an undetectable manner with minor to no risk to yourself or anybody else. Glitching an AI on the other hand e.g. by holding up a sign is less risky for yourself, and less detectable.
- ebg13 7y ago
  > Making somebody crash in a dumb car is pretty hard That's not true even allowing for your next constraints, one of which I find to be quite absurd. In the advanced technological case, you have https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/21/9009213/chrysler-uconnect-vulnerability-car-hijack https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/21/9009213/chrysler-uconnect... In the non-advanced technological case, you can drop caltrops behind your vehicle as you drive and no one would know it was you. "But that only happens in cartoons" - Yes, because most people are not cartoon villains. And yet, look, kids throwing rocks, no AI necessary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Interstate_75_rock-throwing_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Interstate_75_rock-throwi... > with minor to no risk to ... anybody else Ah, yes, the ethical murderer who only wants to fuck up just that one car but who sincerely worries about the other drivers on the road. That's the demographic you're concerned about? So how does indiscriminately trying to trick generally available systems specifically target only one person without risking other drivers?
  - rndgermandude 7y ago
    If you're interested in replying in a condescending manner and attacking strawmen arguments I never made, be my guest, but I have no desire to further discuss this with you.
    - ebg13 7y ago
      > I have no desire to further discuss this with you I'll just talk to myself then, because, while I understand you feeling hurt by my comment, I did not attack a strawman. > Making somebody crash in a dumb car is pretty hard... Not true. (I gave examples.) > ...if you want to do it in an undetectable manner... Still not true. (Same examples.) > ...with minor to no risk to yourself... Still not true. (Same examples.) > ...or anybody else. Still not true. (This is absurd. Also the same examples still apply.)

by ebg13 7y ago

rndgermandude 7y ago

Making somebody crash in a dumb car is pretty hard if you want to do it in an undetectable manner with minor to no risk to yourself or anybody else. Glitching an AI on the other hand e.g. by holding up a sign is less risky for yourself, and less detectable.

ebg13 7y ago
> Making somebody crash in a dumb car is pretty hard That's not true even allowing for your next constraints, one of which I find to be quite absurd. In the advanced technological case, you have https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/21/9009213/chrysler-uconnect-vulnerability-car-hijack https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/21/9009213/chrysler-uconnect... In the non-advanced technological case, you can drop caltrops behind your vehicle as you drive and no one would know it was you. "But that only happens in cartoons" - Yes, because most people are not cartoon villains. And yet, look, kids throwing rocks, no AI necessary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Interstate_75_rock-throwing_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Interstate_75_rock-throwi... > with minor to no risk to ... anybody else Ah, yes, the ethical murderer who only wants to fuck up just that one car but who sincerely worries about the other drivers on the road. That's the demographic you're concerned about? So how does indiscriminately trying to trick generally available systems specifically target only one person without risking other drivers?
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  If you're interested in replying in a condescending manner and attacking strawmen arguments I never made, be my guest, but I have no desire to further discuss this with you.
  - ebg13 7y ago
    > I have no desire to further discuss this with you I'll just talk to myself then, because, while I understand you feeling hurt by my comment, I did not attack a strawman. > Making somebody crash in a dumb car is pretty hard... Not true. (I gave examples.) > ...if you want to do it in an undetectable manner... Still not true. (Same examples.) > ...with minor to no risk to yourself... Still not true. (Same examples.) > ...or anybody else. Still not true. (This is absurd. Also the same examples still apply.)