<story><title>Tesla is building its own AI chips for self-driving cars</title><url>https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/01/tesla-is-building-its-own-ai-chips-for-self-driving-cars/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>27182818284</author><text>Has a flight ever been brought down through a cyberattack? I&amp;#x27;ve heard a lot of concern over that over the years, but (thank goodness) I don&amp;#x27;t recall any news of an actual flight being brought down.</text></item><item><author>mhneu</author><text>YES. Security compromise is the huge achilles heel of self-driving cars - and anything that is algorithmically controlled.&lt;p&gt;When you have 100,000 self-driving cars on the road, and someone figures out how to hack them, and drive them simultaneously into crowds, that will be a BIG BIG problem.&lt;p&gt;And this problem isn&amp;#x27;t just about self-driving cars.  It is a fundamental issue with all algorithms.  It&amp;#x27;s a lot harder to hack humans to do bad things (although it can be done with sustained messaging and propaganda).  But algorithms can be compromised and exploited.</text></item><item><author>3pt14159</author><text>I worry less about software &amp;#x2F; hardware crashes leading to death and more about cyberattack. I&amp;#x27;ve written about it before[0]: We need regulations &lt;i&gt;before&lt;/i&gt; a mass breach of autonomous systems happens. Not after. This whole bullshit where corporations claim all sorts of things about their security then get owned trivially has happened for every OS and device out there. The supposedly secure QNX was installed into countless tanks, nuclear power plants, and autonomous devices before getting owned in 2017[1]. I don&amp;#x27;t buy this &amp;quot;just trust us&amp;quot; attitude from automotive and other autonomous manufacturers. One of them is going to fuck up at some point.&lt;p&gt;[0] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.zachaysan.com&amp;#x2F;cars&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.zachaysan.com&amp;#x2F;cars&lt;/a&gt; and apologies for the length; it was a very stressful time in my life.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;support.blackberry.com&amp;#x2F;kb&amp;#x2F;articleDetail?articleNumber=000046674&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;support.blackberry.com&amp;#x2F;kb&amp;#x2F;articleDetail?articleNumber...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>titzer</author><text>This is pretty bad from a hardware&amp;#x2F;software verification perspective. People who care about correctness can just go home, I guess. It&amp;#x27;s amazing that we&amp;#x27;re gonna let these things on the streets. When you weigh almost 2 tons and can go &amp;gt;100mph, it doesn&amp;#x27;t matter if you have a gun mounted on you or not, you are a &lt;i&gt;weapon&lt;/i&gt;.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>3pt14159</author><text>There are multiple safeguards for planes that don&amp;#x27;t work for self-driving cars.&lt;p&gt;First, they&amp;#x27;re not physically inspectable by every Tom, Dick, and Harry. This means it&amp;#x27;s easier to obscure interfaces and other potential areas of attack. Not state-actor proof, but probably ISIS-proof. Second, they only get software updates while parked at an airport, so it makes MITM attacks harder (though not impossible). Third, they&amp;#x27;re in the air where death isn&amp;#x27;t a sudden movement away. Pilots can override the system and fly it manually. Fourth, they&amp;#x27;re heavily monitored with errant flightpaths reported to militaries around the world (to stop another 9&amp;#x2F;11).&lt;p&gt;We have none of these safeguards for self-driving cars and there are going to be hundreds of millions of them.</text></comment>
<story><title>Tesla is building its own AI chips for self-driving cars</title><url>https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/01/tesla-is-building-its-own-ai-chips-for-self-driving-cars/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>27182818284</author><text>Has a flight ever been brought down through a cyberattack? I&amp;#x27;ve heard a lot of concern over that over the years, but (thank goodness) I don&amp;#x27;t recall any news of an actual flight being brought down.</text></item><item><author>mhneu</author><text>YES. Security compromise is the huge achilles heel of self-driving cars - and anything that is algorithmically controlled.&lt;p&gt;When you have 100,000 self-driving cars on the road, and someone figures out how to hack them, and drive them simultaneously into crowds, that will be a BIG BIG problem.&lt;p&gt;And this problem isn&amp;#x27;t just about self-driving cars.  It is a fundamental issue with all algorithms.  It&amp;#x27;s a lot harder to hack humans to do bad things (although it can be done with sustained messaging and propaganda).  But algorithms can be compromised and exploited.</text></item><item><author>3pt14159</author><text>I worry less about software &amp;#x2F; hardware crashes leading to death and more about cyberattack. I&amp;#x27;ve written about it before[0]: We need regulations &lt;i&gt;before&lt;/i&gt; a mass breach of autonomous systems happens. Not after. This whole bullshit where corporations claim all sorts of things about their security then get owned trivially has happened for every OS and device out there. The supposedly secure QNX was installed into countless tanks, nuclear power plants, and autonomous devices before getting owned in 2017[1]. I don&amp;#x27;t buy this &amp;quot;just trust us&amp;quot; attitude from automotive and other autonomous manufacturers. One of them is going to fuck up at some point.&lt;p&gt;[0] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.zachaysan.com&amp;#x2F;cars&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.zachaysan.com&amp;#x2F;cars&lt;/a&gt; and apologies for the length; it was a very stressful time in my life.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;support.blackberry.com&amp;#x2F;kb&amp;#x2F;articleDetail?articleNumber=000046674&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;support.blackberry.com&amp;#x2F;kb&amp;#x2F;articleDetail?articleNumber...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>titzer</author><text>This is pretty bad from a hardware&amp;#x2F;software verification perspective. People who care about correctness can just go home, I guess. It&amp;#x27;s amazing that we&amp;#x27;re gonna let these things on the streets. When you weigh almost 2 tons and can go &amp;gt;100mph, it doesn&amp;#x27;t matter if you have a gun mounted on you or not, you are a &lt;i&gt;weapon&lt;/i&gt;.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tjoff</author><text>It has already been demonstrated non-self-driving cars.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.bbc.com&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;technology-33650491&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.bbc.com&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;technology-33650491&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>