Well fundamentally, they can be breached. Since the self-driving AI system can be updated (afaik), then vehicle control can certainly be remotely altered. I gu

Well fundamentally, they can be breached. Since the self-driving AI system can be updated (afaik), then vehicle control can certainly be remotely altered. I guess those risks are a bit like nuclear launch risks. Someone, somewhere (that controls the right key) could unleash an enormous accident. You just hope the system as a whole has enough redundancy for it to be sufficiently unlikely. In nuclear arms technology we have multiple authorizations required for launches. Then of course the underlying system has to be robust enough so none of those measures can be bypassed. There is no fundamental barrier that I can see -- we know how to build incredibly robust systems using methods like formal verification of software and just thorough quality assurance and testing. In a way, much of the world is already exposed to those kinds of risks: most individuals's phones, laptops and even industrial computers can be remotely updated and incapacitated, exposing a risk of generalized trouble. The adequate amount of resources to be allocated on those risky but extremely remote scenarios is what's important. I think there needs to be oversight guaranteeing every system is getting verification, testing and attention proportional to risk for society. The usual punitive incentives don't work very well for those cases. I don't think we have any agencies with this wide of an outlook currently.