> 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 a

> 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?