Newer vehicles pretty much being computers on wheels, I'm not surprised it would come to this... On that topic, this device is just crazy.
Car Hacking
2,193 Views | 31 Replies
At 3/27/15 10:15 AM, IsaacIsBlind wrote: Welcome to the future my man
Where people can be assholes from the comfort of their own homes.
At 3/27/15 10:31 AM, Monster-64 wrote:
And eat tons of fried chicken while they cyberbully people from thousands of miles/kilometers away.
Oh come on. When does that ever happen? Get real!
Hahaha! Ha. Mmm.
At 3/27/15 10:37 AM, injexen wrote:At 3/27/15 10:31 AM, Monster-64 wrote:Oh come on. When does that ever happen? Get real!
And eat tons of fried chicken while they cyberbully people from thousands of miles/kilometers away.
Hahaha! Ha. Mmm.
Yeah! They eat seasoned tortilla chips rather than fried chicken.
At 3/27/15 10:39 AM, killerjeff wrote:
Yeah! They eat seasoned tortilla chips rather than fried chicken.
Dat Queso sauce tho.
At 3/27/15 10:46 AM, injexen wrote:At 3/27/15 10:39 AM, killerjeff wrote:Dat Queso sauce tho.
Yeah! They eat seasoned tortilla chips rather than fried chicken.
Don't even think about deluding the cheesy seasoned flavory goodness with that fundamentalist imitation cheese sauce!
You sir are no intellectual! Away with thee!
At 3/27/15 10:49 AM, killerjeff wrote:
Don't even think about deluding the cheesy seasoned flavory goodness with that fundamentalist imitation cheese sauce!
You sir are no intellectual! Away with thee!
Well the hell with you then. I'll use cheese whiz then.
Thank God my car is old as fuck. If I ever crash that one, it's my fault and mine alone.
On that note, computers should never think for us. Rather, it should be the other way around, that they do as we tell them. But no, in this world nobody wants to accept responsibility for their fuckups any more, so they think up stuff like this.
Teacher, goth, communist, cynic, alcoholic, master swordsman, king of shitpoasts.
It's better to die together than to live alone.
Sig by Decky
At 3/27/15 11:21 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: Thank God my car is old as fuck. If I ever crash that one, it's my fault and mine alone.
On that note, computers should never think for us. Rather, it should be the other way around, that they do as we tell them. But no, in this world nobody wants to accept responsibility for their fuckups any more, so they think up stuff like this.
Do you consider the EU plans to implement Remote Stop in vehicles one of those things? Scary as hell, nonetheless.
At 3/27/15 11:26 AM, injexen wrote: Do you consider the EU plans to implement Remote Stop in vehicles one of those things? Scary as hell, nonetheless.
Yes, I do. That shit is fucking terrible. I just want to operate my own vehicle, so I can control what I do. But as it seems I might have to join an oldtimer club for that.
Teacher, goth, communist, cynic, alcoholic, master swordsman, king of shitpoasts.
It's better to die together than to live alone.
Sig by Decky
Neat. Now I can destroy my transmission by reversing the shift points and changing the last gear to park.
It's shit like this that makes me fear buying a newer car when my current one kicks the bucket. I don't want someone hacking my car so it'll do stuff i don't want it doing. Also it'll be worse when we have self driving cars.
At 3/27/15 11:46 AM, Bit wrote: Neat. Now I can destroy my transmission by reversing the shift points and changing the last gear to park.
If that's gonna happen I'd be the one to do it. Not even on purpose.
At 3/27/15 10:53 AM, injexen wrote:At 3/27/15 10:49 AM, killerjeff wrote:Well the hell with you then. I'll use cheese whiz then.
Don't even think about deluding the cheesy seasoned flavory goodness with that fundamentalist imitation cheese sauce!
You sir are no intellectual! Away with thee!
Much better.
winner of the first annual NG Hunger games
life is just a trek, a quest to obtain knowledge, power, perhaps domination. maybe someone will win the race someday
At 3/27/15 03:21 PM, NewgroundsNation wrote: I miss when it was just the days of car jacking
Or, if nothing else, they stole your damn radio!
That's right I like guns and ponies. NO NEW GUN CONTROL.
Politically correct is anything that leftists believe.Politically incorrect is anything common sense.
At 3/27/15 11:21 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: Thank God my car is old as fuck. If I ever crash that one, it's my fault and mine alone.
On that note, computers should never think for us. Rather, it should be the other way around, that they do as we tell them. But no, in this world nobody wants to accept responsibility for their fuckups any more, so they think up stuff like this.
Nah. It's only idiots that want computers to think for them and think things like "computer is always right". Also anyone who truly believes AI can ever become truly intelligent is, in my mind, either an unintelligent person or has an ulterior motive (for example they stand to gain $$ or some other benefit if they get people to believe that BS)
But there is no shortage of idiots in the world. A machine is a machine. Any intelligence is the intelligence of the people who built that machine or programmed it. Nothing more and nothing less. It cannot think for itself no matter how "convincing" it might be to the naive.
At 3/28/15 02:39 AM, NeonSpider wrote: But there is no shortage of idiots in the world.
What do you think I'm worried about?
Teacher, goth, communist, cynic, alcoholic, master swordsman, king of shitpoasts.
It's better to die together than to live alone.
Sig by Decky
At 3/28/15 01:21 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote:At 3/28/15 02:39 AM, NeonSpider wrote: Also anyone who truly believes AI can ever become truly intelligent is, in my mind, either an unintelligent person or has an ulterior motive (for example they stand to gain $$ or some other benefit if they get people to believe that BS)well you're half-right. i do have an ulterior motive to push to make it possible. i havent decided what that motive is though..
also, if it were bs and they werent an unintelligent person, just greedy, they wouldnt "truly believe ai could ever become truly intelligent".
AI could have the appearance of "being truly intelligent", but it wouldn't ever *be* truly intelligent. But it could possibly appear as such to the naive or those without understanding of how AI works. Anyone who understands how AI works knows any intelligence it appears to possess is that of its creators, and not its own. It cannot and can never truly "think" but can only give the illusion of such. But it is an illusion, just like you're watching a magic show, and there is a man behind the curtains pulling strings.
Majority of AI researchers agree with me on this point. The minority who disagree have ulterior motives or are delusional. Those who disagree but are not AI researchers are naive and lack the knowledge to make a proper call on the point. So perhaps I shouldn't have said unintelligent, as much as lacking knowledge on the subject and believing lies of those with ulterior motives. But in any case misled. I'm sorry movies have lied to you. They aren't good sources of information.
At 3/28/15 10:39 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote:At 3/28/15 02:39 AM, NeonSpider wrote: But there is no shortage of idiots in the world.What do you think I'm worried about?
Fair point, but what can be done?
At 3/29/15 01:16 AM, mysticvortex13 wrote: this is more akin to you and me trying to play a game of 20 questions with a trained parrot than it having an actual learning process, but it's close enough..
there's still quite a bit of work to go to achieve proper intelligence... but i believe it's possible.
It's not possible. You were on the right track with your comparison to the game of 20 questions though. The very best that can be done is a simulation, or approximation.
I'm not sure where you get the idea "no serious research has been done" though. Tons of research has been done and continues to be done in the field of AI. And I am well aware how things work. I've done work in the AI field myself. I know some of the better stuff may be convincing to some people, or even a lot of people, but any perceived intelligence is a clever illusion. It has no intentionality and while it can have self-modifying code or rulesets (in fact, this is frequently how decent AI is done), it still has no awareness of anything it does and the intelligence contained therein is solely that of those who worked on the various AI projects in question.
AI is typically implemented with various rulesets and filters. While an initial ruleset is supplied, the rulesets are quickly modified as they pass or fail various tests set up by the filters, as well as some randomness thrown in there, and some fine-tuning here or there. But it's still the intelligence of the programmers and not the AI programs. It's like a hyper-effective calculator that can do stuff really fast but it has no idea what it's actually doing. Without intentionality it cannot have intelligence.
If this is making sense, great! If not, you'll just have to trust me that it's perhaps a really great illusion, but it's as real as the magic stage magicians perform, and if you could but see it from the point of view of the stage hands you'd know there were wires and mirrors and etc and it wasn't real.
At 3/29/15 12:36 AM, NeonSpider wrote:At 3/28/15 10:39 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote:Fair point, but what can be done?At 3/28/15 02:39 AM, NeonSpider wrote: But there is no shortage of idiots in the world.What do you think I'm worried about?
Short of a genocide on 90% of the world's population ... nothing. The idiots have come to realize they outnumber us. We're fucked. There is no way out.
We just have to hope we can find a way to remove the computers from the cars by ourselves.
Teacher, goth, communist, cynic, alcoholic, master swordsman, king of shitpoasts.
It's better to die together than to live alone.
Sig by Decky
At 3/30/15 01:43 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote:
malware mutates to do something other than what it was initially intended by it's creator to do all the time
What? Software can only do what it's instructed to do. That is software by nature.
At 3/30/15 03:09 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote:At 3/30/15 02:48 PM, CaptainQuartz wrote:then explain how worms intended by the military to ruin foreign nuclear reactors got loose from their intended targets..At 3/30/15 01:43 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote:malware mutates to do something other than what it was initially intended by it's creator to do all the timeWhat? Software can only do what it's instructed to do. That is software by nature.
You're gonna need to provide a source for that conspiracy level stuff you just claimed. However; assuming it's true - there is a simple answer. Badly designed software. Software doesn't change and it will only do what you tell it to and nothing else, but people can design and develop software assuming it will do one thing and have it do something else entirely. This isn't the software changing or 'mutating' - this is simply the developer not correctly coding it.
He who invades the 14th chamber uninvited is despicable and must be punished, the means is irrelevant
At 3/30/15 03:23 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote:At 3/30/15 03:17 PM, CaptainQuartz wrote:You're gonna need to provide a source for that conspiracy level stuff you just claimed. However; assuming it's true - there is a simple answer. Badly designed software. Software doesn't change and it will only do what you tell it to and nothing else, but people can design and develop software assuming it will do one thing and have it do something else entirely. This isn't the software changing or 'mutating' - this is simply the developer not correctly coding it.i got my information thirdhand. cracked uses it in their articles, i run with it. i tried looking for it but google and yahoo arent cooperating with me..
anyhow.. assuming malware variants arent that drastically different from the original, i'm fine with this statement.
software designed to change itself can change itself in a way that wasnt intended was my point however.
You are correct - to an extent. There are what's called 'self-learning' softwares out there. For example, the Youtube video I have linked. I honestly don't know the exact method it works, but from my knowledge I would say that the software doesn't necessarily "change" itself but instead probably keeps a record or database somewhere that retains what it has learned then the software is constantly tied to that database and updates that as it learns stuff.
At 3/30/15 01:43 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote: malware mutates to do something other than what it was initially intended by it's creator to do all the time if you're implying that a program cant defy the will or intentions of the programmer..
Nah. It really doesn't. Or if it does it's only because the programmer was shitty and didn't understand what they were doing. But a program does exactly what it was instructed to do. No more. And no less. Throwing code around one does not understand (particularly via copy-paste method) is only something a shitty programmer would do (but then again they're not the author of that code -- someone else is -- and that someone else understands it). Bugs in code are indeed exactly what the programmer instructed and usually constitute logic flaws in the programmer's own thinking. These then must be corrected, which results in programmers having greater logic abilities than most people since it has to be perfect or it just flat-out doesn't work in a lot of cases. (One learns to be more careful so as to have fewer flaws in the first place when one has to correct literally every minor flaw).
At 3/31/15 01:24 AM, mysticvortex13 wrote: no matter how many angles you destroy, i'll always come up with a new one neon.. you cant prove a negative in this manner. i need demonstrations, as i said.. while i dont believe it's possible for you to give one, i'm not ruling that out.. i've got at least somewhat an open mind...
How can one demonstrate an impossibility? But in any case you can't exactly separate a program from the mind of the person who created it. It is an extension of their own mind and means of thinking. In a way, a program doesn't do anything for itself but everything for its creator. How can you separate the two?
All a computer can do is calculate really fast. The creative work must be done by humans. In the event of an intelligent-seeming AI the intelligence is entirely that of the people who built the AI. All the AI can do is calculate really fast and evolve according to the rules set out by its creators. But it is really no more than a thoughtform of its creators.
At what point could any AI possibly achieve sentience? Because that is absolutely required before it can have intelligence. How can it possibly "think for itself" and not be a mere extension of the thoughts of its creators?
I don't think it's possible for a human-created AI to meet these requirements.
Stephen Hawking seems pretty convinced that AI could end Humanity.
