Is self driving car inherently unsafe?

Radio stuff

High IQ (>150) post

that thing can't crash me user

>HackRFOne
>Spoofing gps signal

wouldnt that just fuck up the map? but not the infrared sensors?

is this another ploy to up the dwindling sales of raspberrysòy pi?

>wouldnt that just fuck up the map?
Yes
Inn case you haven't noticed, "journalism" in general has kind of gone to shit.

If we go that route then we should be seeing tesla cars getting fucked inside long tunnels?

>purposefully causing a crash

What is wrong with you?

I'm sure that car would be able to safely stop if it detected a problem
>Hey, my GPS signal no longer matches the map
>Better stop to be safe

No.
For starters, autonomous cars don't solely rely on GPS for their navigation. They have cameras as well which look at things like lane markers, traffic and obstacles.

everyone should just behave themselves 100% of the time why do we even need police

Forget that, even in built up cities GPS has a hard time being accurate.
Cars would be crashing all the time in Manhattan.

>self driving cars use GPS to stay in a lane

yeah no. Is this raspberry pi cucks trying to be cool again

What if I told you you could cause car accidents for free just by pretending to jump out onto a busy road?

That's not the point, brainlet. Accept that you were wrong and move on with your life.

I am pretty sure human drivers will also drive ofcourse when you throw a big bomb looking rpi with antennas on their roof.

Your point?

this is a research paper in 2018

Attached: chinks.png (1101x339, 49K)

Human driven cares are inherently unsafe. What's your point OP?

>2018
>relying on american GPS

Not unless all forms of manual driving are eliminated. Then you could create a complex network of autonomous vehicles that are capable of communicating effectively with one another and reduce collisions down to near-zero, as well as get rid of traffic.
Really, the only thing wrong with the process of driving is humans.

>this kills the self driving car

Attached: Screenshot_2018-08-03_02-31-49.png (1104x500, 267K)

who the hell still uses GPS lol

>if you make street signs harder to see, there are going to be accidents
woah
so we just have to let the tech mature a little bit?

Attached: self_driving_issues.png (740x291, 46K)

yeah until they're all self driving and it's just a tiny beacon in the ground emitting a stop signal.

cars already can read traffic light signals and know how long before they change

Attached: Audi-Traffic-Light-Information-2004.jpg (1800x1200, 448K)

Do human drivers even read stop sign?

Surely snow could have the same effect, like it sticks to the front of unheated traffic lights.

>Self driving cars using GPS data directly instead of a AHRS like on any half decent airplane
worrying.

Attached: Block-diagram-of-GPS-INS-for-position-velocity-and-heading[1].jpg (600x217, 23K)

They're more accurate than to 10 metres. That is all.

We need to ban Raspberry Pis to protect ourselves from hackers

SSL encrypted broadcasting towers at every corner and junction.

Thank me later.

Attached: narukami.jpg (1920x1080, 584K)

>$225 to build
>has to be in or underneath vehicle
>drone possible but flight time

>Randomly selecting 600 real-world taxi trips in Manhattan and Boston, the researchers were able to divert, on average, 40 percent of them 1,600 feet. They were able to send 85 percent of New York taxis and 98 percent of Boston taxis into time-delaying loops.

>researchers themselves say in their paper that just having the car read street signs and match it up is enough to beat it

115 off ali

>*deliberately interferes with the car causing it to crash*
>gets caught in 99% of cases and prosecuted
hmm that looks like safe
>*deliberately interferes with the car causing it to crash*
>get away with it because radio monitoring cannot detect a wearable low power emitter retroactively
wow dude this is really unsafe

Anyone that is okay with the botnet had it coming.

>Is self driving car inherently unsafe?
No. The only problem we have with self driving cars is that humans still can interact with them. Humans to nothing but causing problems.
I am not even kidding. Even Audi, etc say this.
There was a presentation at my uni and they said a few times that the human and the law is the only problem holding us back.
Autonomus driving is possible since yesterday

Attached: konrad.jpg (376x485, 30K)

But, my friend, if we kill all humans why should cars even have to exists?

Also ofc car captcha

Well they can sit in them. We just have to take away the steering capabilities.
It is already done that way on some airplanes. I can't remember which airline it was, but on some airline the pilots have no control

>Civilian GPS accuracy is like 10 metres.
>GPS
Civilian Galileo accuracy is 1 meter.
Commercial Galileo accuracy is 1 centimeter.

theres like 10 gps satellites pointed in my third world country
i imagine theres 20+ in muttland. so theres no question of accuracy

That's why you can use a combination of GPS, Galileo, BeiDou and GLONASS
Most modern personal surveillance devices ("smart phones") support at least 3 of the 4
Americans are not allowed to use Galileo because the Land of the Free™ government has not "authorized" the reception of its signals

>ridding a "self-driving" car in the same roads of non-self-driving cars
L M A O

Humans will always be retards. There is literally no way to develop a program that can account for all of the possible retarded things a human could do at any given moment on or near a road.

even in it's current experimental state it's already safer than human driven cars

>has to be in or underneath vehicle
Or just on the side of the road. You just have to emit a signal with higher intensity than the satellites at the car's receiver. Feed your signal into an amplifier and a decent antenna and that's a piece of cake, you could probably get 100m. Course the FCC would likely notice your antics in no time at all.

I thought the cars registered stop signs from like, a map in its database and just knew when to stop cuz the map says there's a stop sign there.

Do you ever drive in Taxi/Uber/Bus?

It's basically the same principle with self-driving cars. You give your trust to a driver you do not know, but believe to be trained to do the job correctly.

All it takes now is for autopilots to be safer than taxi/uber/bus drivers, which i wouldn't expect to be a difficult task atm.

Nothing you said was wrong, but you're autistic and I just wanted to make sure you knew.

Dual frequency L1/L5 GPS is easily capable of sub meter accuracy while moving
>L5 signal is in an international aviation frequency band and designated safety-of-life
Feds will royally asspound you if you try jamming that.

>Nothing you said was wrong, but you're autistic and I just wanted to make sure you knew.
I've undergone psychological evaluation twice and they did not diagnose autism.

Why did you go through that, out of curiosity?

>no training data for when a woman crosses suddenly into your lane
>car continues to drive like nothing happened
youtube.com/watch?v=hthyTh_fopo

The problem is that they turned off the emergency features in the first place.

turned off safety features in a self-driving car??
Id really like to see proofs

Draft evasion

>Is self driving car inherently unsafe?
You could do this with any modern car

wow so you tricked a car for 100m?

if you make it do drastic changes the driver knows so no uturns and even then it just recovers

phones don't have the same accuracy as other gps devices

theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/9/25/16362296/gps-accuracy-improving-one-foot-broadcom

new chips coming sometime but not all the satellites use them

Except the car would not drive itself into the fake GPS coordinates

Bullshit

They don't just use GPS? They use an array of sensors. An issue with GPS will not sent it across lines/lanes into oncoming traffic.

ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180524.aspx
>According to Uber emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior. The vehicle operator is relied on to intervene and take action. The system is not designed to alert the operator.

yes. Less than humans on the long run though

lol wang

Nobody is stupid enough to think the car is driving with GPS with a few car length precision, right? RIGHT?
GPS is for navigation. Na-vi-ga-tion.

it's a cheap and easy to exploit attack surface that's being introduced that didn't exist before. also much harder to find the culprit.

Are we talking about GPS jamming or spoofing? First one is simple enough but latter is rather bitching to do
INS is fucking shit and only good for airplanes because inaccuracy of 1 mile is enough for you to find an airport + the system uses GPS updates
Military GPS is as accurate as civilian GPS, it just uses more frequencies for anti-jamming purposes

>Military GPS is as accurate as civilian GPS, it just uses more frequencies for anti-jamming purposes

yeah if you believe the thing clinton signed

it only applied to current sats, anything new or launched does not have the same rules applied. You honestly believe US military is using up to 10m accuracy

true, but you could hack into any modern car and run it off the road, all modern cars also have backdoors for this shit

you better behave goy your you'll get hastingsed

Self driving car doesn”t actually use GPS to properly navigate... it uses an array of sensors and local programming to react to nearby cars.

Interfering with the GPS of an autonomous car doesn’t send them barreling into oncoming traffic. At most it makes them turn onto a one-way, to which the program will nope the fuck right out of that lane the moment one of the cameras picks up the Do Not Enter sign.

The difference between reality and passive aggressive xkcd comic #819 being that while the self-driving car can be fooled into dangerous malfunction by something like , an actual human driver looks at that and still sees a fucking stop sign. But, you know, whatever makes for a smug webcomic.

Attached: 1521306044110.gif (576x811, 81K)

>new chips coming sometime but not all the satellites use them
You don't communicate with the satellites, the satellites broadcast.

and only 30 of them work on the new standard for the chips

A car shouldn't crash cause of false GPS signals.
Information collected by the car's sensors should always override external information.

Yeah, that sign really just showed an oversight in the detection algorithm.
Stop and Give Way signs in particular tend to have fairly unique shapes to go along with the text to make them stand out. The detection algorithm obviously relied too much on the text recognition which fucked it up.
Obviously that has since been rectified. The fact that we have such a vibrant community of hackers working to trip up self driving systems makes me hopeful for when autonomous vehicles hit the mainstream because everyone is trying their hardest to break them now, and it's relatively easy for malicious Joe to test his bright idea on a system.

And all the chips support the old standards.

still better than all the drunks and teen texters out there, 1.2 million accidents a year, even with hackers and shit software, I doubt the most fucked up PC can do as bad as most humans.

I wouldn’t use it
Imagine handing your life over to the botnet
That is what you’re doing with self driving cars

My point was that people deface traffic signs all the time. Fuck, I can't remember the last time I didn't see a stop sign without either "don't" written in sloppy spray paint at the top or some random local band's shitty sticker/flyer taped to it. People aren't going to stop defacing traffic signs just because self-driving cars are becoming a thing. They're probably not even aware that such defacement could even cause an accident. They're used to a human being still seeing a stop sign regardless of what they plaster onto it.

*The problem is that they relied on the driver in the first place.
fixed it for you

this will obviously be fixed at some point.
Im actually amazed that they have AI driving in the real world that hasnt been trained extensively on "dirty" examples.

Yeah, and because people didn't really think about it the detection algorithm wasn't robust enough.
Some road map software also has things like Stop signs so there is also the possibility of using a combination of map data and visual sensors to identify a Stop intersection.
And then there's the driving software, how it reacts to things like a blind corner that isn't controlled by a Stop sign (or doesn't seem to be controlled by a Stop sign).

>traffic signs exist when it's all self driving cars

Cars are inherently dangerous. Self-driving cars just means you're trusting a lousy AI to control a death machine for you. It's a tragedy waiting to happen.

Honestly, I'm siding with the car on this one. That recognition issue seems more like an oversight that can be fixed than a fundamental flaw in the underlying systems, not to mention the fact that the self-driving car has access to maps of the area, which would include those sorts of details. Assuming up to date map data it doesn't matter if the sign is legible or even physically present.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply crash into a self-driving car by buying a cheap $100 junk car and ramming it?

>You honestly believe US military is using up to 10m accuracy
sooo... you are talking entirely out of your ass?

bump

>If you're close enough to a manually operated vehicle, you can apparently throw the vehicle off course using a laser pointer to blind the driver.

Human driving car is inherently unsafe

Attached: potofgrinning.png (1000x1000, 996K)