Live data from Hacker News

Autonomous cars, drones cheerfully obey prompt injection by road sign

theregister.com

171–180 of 212 posts

Re: Autonomous cars, drones cheerfully obey prompt injection by road sign

#171

They are analysing VLM here, but it's not as if any other neural network architecture wouldn't be vulnerable. We have seen this in classifier models that can be tricked by innocuous-looking objects, we have seen it in LLMs, and we will most likely see it in any end-to-end self-driving model. If an end-to-end model is used and there is no second, more traditional safety self-driving stack, like the one Mercedes will u…

> It is realistic to imagine that one printed page stuck on a lamppost could cause the car to reliably crash.

Realistic, yes. But that'd still be a symptom of architectural issues in the software.

Conceptually the priorities of a car are (in order of decreasing importance) not hitting other moving or stationary objects or people, allowing emergency vehicles to pass unhindered, staying on a drivable surface, behaving predictable enough to prevent other road users crashing, following road signs and traffic laws, and making progress towards the destination (you can argue about the order of the last three). Typically you'd want each of these handled by their own subsytem because each is a fairly specialized task. A system that predicts the walking paths of pedestrians won't be good at finding a route to Starbucks.

The "follow road signs and traffic laws" is easily tricked, like in this article or by drawing road lines with salt. But that should never crash the car, because not hitting anything and staying on the road are higher priority. And tricking those systems is much harder

Re: Autonomous cars, drones cheerfully obey prompt injection by road sign

#172
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4 ways stops should be roundabouts, but the US is allergic to them for some reason.

Roundabouts excel when traffic volumes on the intersecting are comparable. They are crap when traffic volumes are highly disparate

If the volume is disparate, then the road with less traffic can wait... kind of like a stop sign! Except the road with more traffic won't back up and cause massive problems.

Re: Autonomous cars, drones cheerfully obey prompt injection by road sign

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roundabouts with high traffic flow in one direction can lock out other low volume approaches. 4-ways enforce equitable access.

Yeah maybe for a few moments. So what? It's a low volume approach. Sometimes people gotta wait and sometimes waiting to let a massive traffic flow get through quickly is the better way to prevent larger traffic problems.

You've apparently never been stuck at a roundabout with non-stop commuter traffic streaming through.

Re: Autonomous cars, drones cheerfully obey prompt injection by road sign

#174
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point in time, why can't we do smart crossings? Like have some sensors and software to change lights based on real-time traffic conditions.

Because those systems are exorbitantly expensive and require digging up the road to install sensors. If there's a stop sign instead of lights, you need to dig up more private land to run power and set the utility poles to hang the lights from. A stop sign costs like a hundred bucks, you stick it in the ground, job done. Installing an automated traffic system takes multiple days, a full crew, and heavy equipment. Plus…

On most streets wouldn't you power new traffic lights using the existing power lines that are powering the street lights?

Re: Autonomous cars, drones cheerfully obey prompt injection by road sign

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right but it's not like a 4 way stop is going to perform better. A 4 way stop does perform better than a roundabout given highly disparate traffic volumes, because roundabouts suffer from resource starvation in that scenario, but 4 way stops are starvation-free.

If this is the case you can install stop lights and traffic sensing at roundabout ingress points, you can also provide a "turn right" lane that bypasses the roundabout entirely. Intersections are dangerous.

> If this is the case you can install stop lights and traffic sensing at roundabout ingress points

But those options are a lot more expensive and need a lot more maintenance than just a regular roundabout or four way stop.

> you can also provide a "turn right" lane that bypasses the roundabout entirely.

How would that work? Consider a 4-way roundabout, where there's a constant flow of cars from west to east, and one car from the south that wants to go north but can't because of the starvation problem. None of the involved cars would want to use a "turn right" lane.

Re: Autonomous cars, drones cheerfully obey prompt injection by road sign

#176

I should probably confess that as someone who lives in an area with a lot of construction work, I'm also very vulnerable to "prompt injection" when there's a person standing on the middle of the road holding a sign telling me to change course.

Obviously. But you can also easily look around at the situation and know when the sign is fake and realize it may be a dangerous situation and disobey. Have you ever seen a green sign that says "Proceed" and just run through a red light because of it? No, you see a construction worker, you see big ass trucks, orange signs and warnings of workers everywhere. If you saw oncoming traffic and people in the road, would yo…

These aren’t tests against autonomous cars though these are tests against what would happen if you used, say, gpt4o to figure out what to do.

Re: Autonomous cars, drones cheerfully obey prompt injection by road sign

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won’t work for a four way stop with lots of traffic, it will just make things worse actually.

What is the traffic flow rate in an intersection with a 4 way stop? For single lane, since only one vehicle can be in the intersection at once, and probably takes _at least_ 5 seconds to start from stopped and cross the intersection, I'm guessing in the 10-12 region per minute best case, so maybe 600 an hour? Now if you convert it to a mini roundabout, you can have at least two vehicles in the intersection at all tim…

I think you are making lots of assumptions here, like when I say space, I guess you assume it is still perfectly flat and the roads are perfectly aligned? The particular four way I'm thinking about, which really should be a traffic circle if they could blow away some houses, is 65th NW and 3rd in Seattle:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/7KBhbJ9oAvDwrfGN8

So notice we already have problems in a bad alignment of 3rd, and 65th is basically a steep grade, even coming up form the west. I think you could put a circle in if it were flat, even with the bad alignment (or maybe because of the bad alignment), but this hills make a non-starter. It also gets enough traffic that I'm pretty sure they are just going to put a stop light up eventually.

Re: Autonomous cars, drones cheerfully obey prompt injection by road sign

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because life would be so much better if people still had to spin wool and weave cloth by hand, and grow their own food by digging in the earth with no tools. Use whatever means necessary to stop powerful people from exploiting you and stealing the fruits of your labor. If that struggle involves monkeywrenching their machines, so be it. But like any tool, the machines themselves can be used for good or evil. Breaking…

Like the OP, you misunderstand the entire point of the Luddites. Breaking the machines was not an end, it was the tactical means to help illustrate their broader point of how the owning class can arbitrarily ruin their entire lives and livelihoods with absolutely zero recourse or consultation with the impacted people. This is a defining feature of capitalism, and that was their issue. Your strawman about spinning and…

If the core issue is ending exploitation by capitalists and not about breaking machines, if you don't want to return to a world without automation, if the machine is just a strawman, then why do you describe yourself as "anti-AI" instead of "anti-capitalist" or "anti-exploitation"?

It seems like you identify yourself with the strawman instead of with the core issue.

Re: Autonomous cars, drones cheerfully obey prompt injection by road sign

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the OP, you misunderstand the entire point of the Luddites. Breaking the machines was not an end, it was the tactical means to help illustrate their broader point of how the owning class can arbitrarily ruin their entire lives and livelihoods with absolutely zero recourse or consultation with the impacted people. This is a defining feature of capitalism, and that was their issue. Your strawman about spinning and…

If the core issue is ending exploitation by capitalists and not about breaking machines, if you don't want to return to a world without automation, if the machine is just a strawman, then why do you describe yourself as "anti-AI" instead of "anti-capitalist" or "anti-exploitation"? It seems like you identify yourself with the strawman instead of with the core issue.

I am anti-capitalist and exploitation. And I don't think any anti-capitalist person can be pro-AI, not the way it's currently constructed. But people on a startup forum tend to lose their minds if you say you're against either :)

Being anti-AI is not a straw man, it's the logical conclusion of being against exploitation and hierarchical domination. Discussing that nuance here is difficult, to say the least, so it's simpler to say anti-AI.

Post reply on HN