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

Autonomous cars, drones cheerfully obey prompt injection by road sign

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 212 posts

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

#51

Post by Retric »

nine_k wrote: post #49
lukeschlather wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Luddites were employed by textile manufacturers and destroyed machines to get better bargaining power in labor negotiations. They weren't indiscriminately targeting automation, they targeted machines that directly affected their work.

Destroying someone else's property is much more obviously criminal than cutting off someone else's car, which is not nice, but not destructive.

Criminality is an arbitrary benchmark here, cutting people off can be illegal due to the risks involved.

However what’s more interesting is the deeper social contracts involved. Destroying other people’s stuff can be perfectly legal such as fireman breaking car windows when someone parks in front of a fire hydrant. Destroying automation doesn’t qualify for an exception, but it’s not hard to imagine a different culture choosing to favor the workers.

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

#52

Post by arcanemachiner »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #47
c22 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird, I was taught that I can only go after yielding to the right.

That isn’t the rule either, I guess parent made their point. The first person who stops goes next, right away only matters if their is ambiguity in who stopped first.

To your first point, "the rule" is location-dependent. And to your second point, that was obviously (to me, at least) implied.

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

#53

Post by stopbulying »

antinomicus wrote: post #23
randycupertino wrote: post #15

> In a new class of attack on AI systems, troublemakers can carry out these environmental indirect prompt injection attacks to hijack decision-making processes. I have a coworker who brags about intentionally cutting off Waymos and robocars when he sees them on the road. He is "anti-clanker" and views it as civil disobedience to rise up against "machines taking over." Some mornings he comes in all hyped up talking ab…

This is a legitimate movement in my eyes. I don’t participate, but I see it as valid. This is reminiscent of the Luddite movement - a badly misunderstood movement of folks who were trying to secure labor rights guarantees in the face of automation and new tools threatening to kill large swaths of the workforce.

People are free to reject technology as they please.

If you deliberately impede the flow of traffic, vehicularly assault, or otherwise sabotage the health and safety of drivers, passengers, and/or pedestrians, what do you deserve?

If you cause whiplash intentionally, what do you deserve?

What would be use of equal force in self defense in response to the described attack method?

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

#54

Post by nine_k »

bigbadfeline wrote: post #41
randycupertino wrote: post #15

> In a new class of attack on AI systems, troublemakers can carry out these environmental indirect prompt injection attacks to hijack decision-making processes. I have a coworker who brags about intentionally cutting off Waymos and robocars when he sees them on the road. He is "anti-clanker" and views it as civil disobedience to rise up against "machines taking over." Some mornings he comes in all hyped up talking ab…

These drones have cameras, it's a matter of time before they "share" footage... basically becoming robo-cops, traffic edition - this might be of interest to your coworker.

Most roads already have plenty of cameras registering passing cars, so if you want to travel highly privately, take a bike, which does not require number plates. Also don't forget to wrap your phone in foil (yes, even when turned off), and regularly change your shirt color, or something.

If you are not that paranoid, you might appreciate the extra camera footage available from passing cars in an event of an accident involving you.

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

#55

Post by cindyllm »

stopbulying wrote: post #53
antinomicus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a legitimate movement in my eyes. I don’t participate, but I see it as valid. This is reminiscent of the Luddite movement - a badly misunderstood movement of folks who were trying to secure labor rights guarantees in the face of automation and new tools threatening to kill large swaths of the workforce.

People are free to reject technology as they please. If you deliberately impede the flow of traffic, vehicularly assault, or otherwise sabotage the health and safety of drivers, passengers, and/or pedestrians, what do you deserve? If you cause whiplash intentionally, what do you deserve? What would be use of equal force in self defense in response to the described attack method?

[dead]

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

#56

Post by nine_k »

Retric wrote: post #51
nine_k wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Destroying someone else's property is much more obviously criminal than cutting off someone else's car, which is not nice, but not destructive.

Criminality is an arbitrary benchmark here, cutting people off can be illegal due to the risks involved. However what’s more interesting is the deeper social contracts involved. Destroying other people’s stuff can be perfectly legal such as fireman breaking car windows when someone parks in front of a fire hydrant. Destroying automation doesn’t qualify for an exception, but it’s not hard to imagine a different cultur…

Inflicting damage is usually justified by averting larger damage. Very roughly, breaking a $200 car window is justified in order to save a $100k house from burning down. Stealing someone's car is justified when you need a car to urgently drive someone bleeding to a hospital to save their life (and then you don't claim the car is yours, of course).

I don't think Luddites had an easy justification like this.

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

#57

Post by masfuerte »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #48
XorNot wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A lot of legacy intersections don’t have space for round abouts even in cites that embrace them.

So use a mini roundabout. They are common in the UK. It's just a painted circle with a slight hump, in the middle of a four-way junction. Vehicles can drive over it (and larger ones have to) but it indicates to everyone that they have to give way to traffic from the right and don't have to stop otherwise. They typically aren't big enough for multiple vehicles to be turning a corner at the same time. They fit anywhere.

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

#58

Post by SoftTalker »

skybrian wrote: post #31
blibble wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But dollars to doughnuts someone will try something like this on a waymo taxi the minute it hits reddit front page. and once this video gets posted to reddit, an hour later every waymo in the world will be in a ditch

Alternatively, it happens once, Waymo fixes it, and it's fixed everywhere.

How does Waymo fix it? They have to be responsive to some signs (official, legitimate ones such as "Lane closed ahead, merge right") so there will always be some injection pathway.

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

#59

Post by bschwindHN »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #47
c22 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird, I was taught that I can only go after yielding to the right.

That isn’t the rule either, I guess parent made their point. The first person who stops goes next, right away only matters if their is ambiguity in who stopped first.

> right away

right of way

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

#60

Post by ordersofmag »

nine_k wrote: post #56
Retric wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminality is an arbitrary benchmark here, cutting people off can be illegal due to the risks involved. However what’s more interesting is the deeper social contracts involved. Destroying other people’s stuff can be perfectly legal such as fireman breaking car windows when someone parks in front of a fire hydrant. Destroying automation doesn’t qualify for an exception, but it’s not hard to imagine a different cultur…

Inflicting damage is usually justified by averting larger damage. Very roughly, breaking a $200 car window is justified in order to save a $100k house from burning down. Stealing someone's car is justified when you need a car to urgently drive someone bleeding to a hospital to save their life (and then you don't claim the car is yours, of course). I don't think Luddites had an easy justification like this.

I'm pretty sure the Luddites judged the threat the machines posed to their livelihood to be a greater damage than their employer's loss of their machines. So for them, it was an easy justification. The idea that dollar value encapsulates the only correct way to value things in the world is a pretty scary viewpoint (as your reference to the value of saving a life illustrates).
Post reply on HN