Hackers could hijack a missile and kill a lot of people too.

This is why we have security. And honestly modern cars are so computerized already I think your argument applies to them as much as autonomous cars.

“We’re already doomed” isn’t a good reason to not be concerned about new ways to be doomed.

Yes, we have security. Yes, cars can (probably) already be hacked, perhaps even en-mass rather than in targeted ways.

But: one the big advantages of machine learning in cars is that every car can learn from the experiences of every other car. That makes them monocultures. Monocultures are fragile. You find the weakness of one, you find the weakness of all.

I want the benefits of the former without the risks of the latter. I don’t know if that’s even possible.

> I want the benefits of the former without the risks of the latter. I don’t know if that’s even possible.

That's where competition comes in. Just like AMD vs. Intel or OSX vs. Windows. If you find a weakness in one, you don't necessarily find a weakness in the other.

Hence, finding a weakness in Tesla doesn't mean it will work against Waymo or Uber.

To the extent that there is competition, there is an identical loss of opportunity to learn from each other’s mistakes.

I am sorry, what? Which missile system can be hacked and launched remotely? This is a ridiculous claim.

Cars are already getting hacked. The whole point of the post is to highlight how car manufacturers have no concern or competence for security, is will be like the boeing scandal but much worse.

At best, youre conflating two vastly different things - Boeing engineers and car manufacturers.

At worst, youre a troll. Cars are no where being hacked at the scale or magnitude that affected the numbers involved in the Boeing fumble. No where near. Not even remotely close.

I'll bite. Aside from Tesla owners, I do not know anyone in my life today whose vehicle connects to the Internet. Of course, I mean to say I don't see how your comparison to present day is accurate.

>Aside from Tesla owners, I do not know anyone in my life today whose vehicle connects to the Internet

When did the whole OnStar botnet start? I think it's earlier than 2010.

I wasn't aware of that. I suppose that would count as the car, but doesn't most car hacking occur when the component has access to i.e the CAM bus?

Why do you think OnStar doesn't have access to the can bus https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10008228

pretty much all cars with modern head units connect to the internet for things like traffic data and software updates.

as of 2017 it is no longer legal to sell a car with no backup camera, and 99.9% of cars implement that with a digitized head unit that, wait for it, connects to the internet.

thus, very new-manufacture cars in 2020 do not connect to the internet, bluetooth, sometimes wifi, etc.

There was the Jeep a few years ago... https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-hig...

My 2017 Ford connects to wifi.

Come on, you know missiles are locked down with way more security than consumer vehicles.

> Hackers could hijack a missile and kill a lot of people too.

That's a sunken cost fallacy. Only because other things are hackable as well doesn't mean there is no danger.

> And honestly modern cars are so computerized already I think your argument applies to them as much as autonomous cars.

I've said that in my comment above as well, but it was in an edit before you replied so I guess you didn't refresh before submitting the comment.

> That's a sunken cost fallacy. Only because other things are hackable as well doesn't mean there is no danger.

It's really not a sunken cost fallacy. It's good evidence that the "think of the terrorists" angle is overblown. There are plenty of other problems with self-driving cars, but not that one.

And plenty of other problems with missiles before that one too. As the news dramatically reminded us recently, the number one cause of non accidental casualties in plane is being shot down by the military, by a very large margin before terrorism. Similarly it is not hard to guess that car related casualties due to terrorism is never going to be significant compared to others. Terrorism overall is not a big issue, despite we like to think that our main problems are caused by a few malignant individuals.

I think what they meant by "tricking" the cars is to paint roads in a deceiving way to make cars meander into lakes or something like that, not hacking everyone's cars.

It doesn't even have to be malicious. I was driving through Germany recently and some roadworks on a highway meant we were using temporary contraflow lanes, and even with my big fancy human brain, I was sometimes struggling to decide which of the layers of permanent/temporary lane markings I should observe.

Sounds like a great case for computers. They can communicate with each other and all make the same decisions. Even if it's "wrong", it'll be safer if they all make the same wrong decision than a bunch of people coming to different conclusions and demonstrating it only by putting 3,000 pounds of steel where they think it should go.

But cars will recognize that something changed and validate it.

This presumes a car with logical abilities that would negate the need for infrastructure to "meet it halfway."

Like a lot of technologies. Nuclear plants still happened.