I think it's static inasmuch as it isn't an inherently adversarial problem. The world isn't bent on thwarting self-driving cars. Bot authors are bent on subverting detection.

That’s fair. I was looking at it more from a reliability engineering perspective. Namely, that many real-world hardware/software interfaces have so many variables that they are required to be modeled as long tailed random events.

From that sense, they aren’t static and well defined because we can’t create a deterministic physical model (and often have to settle with wide levels of uncertainty).

> The world isn't bent on thwarting self-driving cars.

Oh, that'll come.

That’s fair, but I don’t think it explains the “well defined” part of the claim.

They problem is so ill defined that it sometimes has to be modeled as random events instead of a deterministic physical process.

What I mean to convey by "well defined" is that even though the problem space of self driving cars is enormous, the success criteria of teaching a car to self drive is probably going to look pretty similar in 10 years to what it looks like now.

Bots on the other hand changes constantly - what is the definition of an abusive bot? What is the definition of spam? The adversaries on Twitter adapt not only their tactics but also their goals.