Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adversarial image attacks are no joke

unite.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–196 of 196 posts

Re: Adversarial image attacks are no joke

#191

Post by boomboomsubban »

brokenmachine wrote: post #190
boomboomsubban wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Of course it shouldn't be allowed on a public road, and it shouldn't be allowed to be sold because it is unsafe I agree with this, that's separate from what I'm discussing. If you made a computer that exploded when someone typed a word into it, and then I knew about this and told someone else to type that word in, we would both be culpable.

>and told someone else to type that word in, we would both be culpable. Perhaps as some technicality but in reality who is (much) more culpable? Who would think a computer would be made so poorly that it fails dangerously if the wrong word is typed in? One could say they didn't believe it would be true because it sounds too implausible. Same with a car that drives off the road if it sees the wrong thing on a t-shirt.…

>Perhaps as some technicality but in reality who is (much) more culpable?

The person who both knew that the computer was dangerous and directly caused someone to perform that dangerous act. Without them, it's possible no one gets injured.

>I don't think it's fine for a company to just make products that are super dangerous if some slight edge case is met.

As I keep telling you, neither do I.

I really don't understand your point of view. Of course companies shouldn't make unsafe products, but just because an unsafe product exists doesn't justify someone using that product to hurt someone. Just because the danger sounds implausible doesn't forgive the situation. It sounds implausible that touching a bit of metal would kill someone but if I made you touch a live wire I'd be at fault.

Re: Adversarial image attacks are no joke

#192

Post by hermitdev »

ummonk wrote: post #123
hermitdev wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some are. Some are not. Last week, I was nearly in two accidents on maybe a 1 mile trip to the store from my house. Both times were people pulling out of traffic, ignoring right of way. I prevented the accidents that would have resulted from these two separate idiots. I have also been in over 20 accidents in my 25 years of driving, the vast majority of those having been rear-ended and none were my fault. In my experi…

> I have also been in over 20 accidents in my 25 years of driving, the vast majority of those having been rear-ended and none were my fault. Do you just drive a lot or do you brake too late / too hard? Because an accident rate that high is rather unusual.

No, I don't drive that much. Most of my driving is in bumper to bumper traffic on 3-4 lane roads, though and people do tail gate a lot. None of the accidents have been because I've braked too hard. Of the most recent accidents, two were due to people not checking their blind spots while changing lanes. One, I was waiting at a stop light and the car behind rolled into me. And the fourth, a neighbor backed into me. Most of the accidents I've been in are after having been stopped at lights for nearly the entire duration before the accident occurs. The worst, I got hit by a guy speeding in a 45 mph zone while stopped at a light. He totaled his car. I've also had several hit and runs while I wasn't even in the car.

As I stated in my post, most of them are due to people being inattentive and not following the basics like keeping a reasonable distance checking blind spots. Others I suspect phone use, but can't prove it.

Re: Adversarial image attacks are no joke

#193

Post by p2p_astroturf »

mgraczyk wrote: post #128
p2p_astroturf wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analysis does not break out of the well known box that is the classical ways of analyzing the security of a computer system (it actually creeps into DRM/TPM territory which is known insecure despite governments with guns). Thus the security of "AI" algorithms remains as insecure as it already was, and should not be used for anything that needs to be secure. If anything, the people who make critical infrastructur…

No, I'm asking you to go to jail if you intentionally try to cause somebody to die.

No, you're asking me to not communicate to other security resarchers about the problems with security systems (for example, publishing a PoC):

> 2. People who create and distribute these stickers knowing their purpose should go to prison.

... and you're asking the entire world to change to make your vehicle work:

> 4. Roads should be modified over time to make it more difficult to do this attack.

10 years ago when AI cars were getting memed into existence I would get dogpiled on for naysaying. Now you same people want laws to stop people from breaking what was already easily breakable and which you argued was unbreakable.

Also, your poison analogy is invalid. Poison is not uncommon because of law, it's uncommon because it's uncommon. In the future, crazy people will be poisoning random stuff in the grocer because they don't like the demographic that shops there.

Re: Adversarial image attacks are no joke

#194

Post by mgraczyk »

p2p_astroturf wrote: post #193
mgraczyk wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm asking you to go to jail if you intentionally try to cause somebody to die.

No, you're asking me to not communicate to other security resarchers about the problems with security systems (for example, publishing a PoC): > 2. People who create and distribute these stickers knowing their purpose should go to prison. ... and you're asking the entire world to change to make your vehicle work: > 4. Roads should be modified over time to make it more difficult to do this attack. 10 years ago when AI…

Do you work in security? Are you familiar with "responsible disclosure"?

Poison is not uncommon. Without 10 feet I have enough poison to kill dozens of people. Most people do.

Re: Adversarial image attacks are no joke

#195

Post by brokenmachine »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #191
brokenmachine wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and told someone else to type that word in, we would both be culpable. Perhaps as some technicality but in reality who is (much) more culpable? Who would think a computer would be made so poorly that it fails dangerously if the wrong word is typed in? One could say they didn't believe it would be true because it sounds too implausible. Same with a car that drives off the road if it sees the wrong thing on a t-shirt.…

>Perhaps as some technicality but in reality who is (much) more culpable? The person who both knew that the computer was dangerous and directly caused someone to perform that dangerous act. Without them, it's possible no one gets injured. >I don't think it's fine for a company to just make products that are super dangerous if some slight edge case is met. As I keep telling you, neither do I. I really don't understand…

My point of view is that I support people's right to wear any shirt they want.

I don't think if people want to wear any shirt, even one specifically designed to fool garbage AI, that it is their fault that a car suddenly decides to kill people. If you want to sell a car it must be smart and safe enough to ignore any T-Shirt, poster or painting in it's vicinity, just like my old, non-garbage non-AI car.

If you can't do that, then you can't sell cars without being sued into oblivion. And that's the way it should be. Messing with street signs is already illegal. But wearing a shirt, no matter what it has on it, is not.

Re: Adversarial image attacks are no joke

#196

Post by [deleted] »

brokenmachine wrote: post #195
boomboomsubban wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Perhaps as some technicality but in reality who is (much) more culpable? The person who both knew that the computer was dangerous and directly caused someone to perform that dangerous act. Without them, it's possible no one gets injured. >I don't think it's fine for a company to just make products that are super dangerous if some slight edge case is met. As I keep telling you, neither do I. I really don't understand…

My point of view is that I support people's right to wear any shirt they want. I don't think if people want to wear any shirt, even one specifically designed to fool garbage AI, that it is their fault that a car suddenly decides to kill people. If you want to sell a car it must be smart and safe enough to ignore any T-Shirt, poster or painting in it's vicinity, just like my old, non-garbage non-AI car. If you can't d…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN