Please read the whole thread, this is going completely off-topic from the original discussion in the start of these comments.
The original claim was that vehicles should never be connected to any network because of unspecified online attacks that could actuate brakes or steering. I explained why this was unfounded.
Adversarial patterns against computer vision based ADAS are only a real issue for system which are not sufficiently redundant . Autonomous systems in particular should also apply a degree of sensor fusion between multiple sources of data such as optical computer vision, radar, long range ultrasound and LIDAR (once it becomes cost effective). If any of those systems provides erroneous data the remaining ones can negate that and allow for a fail-safe behaviour.
If you want my opinion, as someone who has moved away from automotive R&D a few years ago, Tesla's decision of depending too heavily in computer vision systems without addtional sensor redundancy seems like an architectural defect that has already cost lives. Either they are not integrating other sensor data sources or their voting weight appears underestimated.
I really wish people on HN would stop with the "I disagree, so you must have not read everything" comments. I keep seeing these recently, but they are unconstructive, and they are insulting to other participants in the discussion. You might like to consider the alternative possibilities that you weren't clear in your earlier comments and people are responding to what you actually wrote and not what you thought you wrote, or that you might not be fully informed and someone who disagrees with you might simply know something you don't.
The original claim was that vehicles should never be connected to any network because of unspecified online attacks that could actuate brakes or steering. I explained why this was unfounded.
Actually, what you have repeatedly said is that you aren't aware of any vehicles (except the infamous Jeep case) that don't fully isolate infotainment from safety critical systems, which is not the same thing at all.
You also said that the Jeep case was due to a poor architecture that came from the 90s. Even if this is true, the exploit using it to trigger multiple dangerous behaviours remotely was demonstrated in 2015, so apparently the manufacturer was a bit slow on the uptake of what you think they should have been doing for the last 20 years.
Moreover, at least one well-known auto manufacturer is (in)famous for performing OTA updates that can change fundamental car behaviour, so evidently there are still networked vehicles where safety-critical functions and remote communications can not be fully isolated. It doesn't take a genius to extrapolate from this to the not-so-distant future when auto manufacturers are pushing ever more autonomous functionality combined with OTA updates, either.
Then we have all the cars that now have remote controls that do more than just unlock the vehicle, affecting things like environmental controls, or even summoning a driverless vehicle over a short distance (in theory, at least) with some of the newer developments.
Next we have the security systems providing remote access, such as OnStar's Stolen Vehicle Assistance system that someone else already mentioned, which can in some cases interfere with speed or ignition systems remotely.
I think by this point it's safe to say that whatever explanation you think you gave, the evidence doesn't support a conclusion that modern network-connected vehicles are safe because their critical safety-related systems are fully isolated from external influence, which is what really matters here.
Adversarial patterns against computer vision based ADAS are only a real issue for system which are not sufficiently redundant.
And yet not so long ago I read this, which if you're interested in the field you've surely seen as well:
So again, evidently there are systems out there in production that are "not sufficiently redundant". You might have some personal opinions on what should be happening, but that doesn't mean what actually is happening respects your view.
The original claim was that vehicles should never be connected to any network because of unspecified online attacks that could actuate brakes or steering. I explained why this was unfounded.
Adversarial patterns against computer vision based ADAS are only a real issue for system which are not sufficiently redundant . Autonomous systems in particular should also apply a degree of sensor fusion between multiple sources of data such as optical computer vision, radar, long range ultrasound and LIDAR (once it becomes cost effective). If any of those systems provides erroneous data the remaining ones can negate that and allow for a fail-safe behaviour.
If you want my opinion, as someone who has moved away from automotive R&D a few years ago, Tesla's decision of depending too heavily in computer vision systems without addtional sensor redundancy seems like an architectural defect that has already cost lives. Either they are not integrating other sensor data sources or their voting weight appears underestimated.