Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Thursday February 05, @04:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the green-is-go dept.

https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/30/road_sign_hijack_ai/?td=keepreading
https://the-decoder.com/a-printed-sign-can-hijack-a-self-driving-car-and-steer-it-toward-pedestrians-study-shows/

Autonomous vehicles fooled by humans with signs. They apparently do not really verify their inputs, one is as good as the next one. So they fail even basic programming techniques of sanitizing and verifying inputs.

[quote]The researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Johns Hopkins showed that, in simulated trials, AI systems and the large vision language models (LVLMs) underpinning them would reliably follow instructions if displayed on signs held up in their camera's view.[/quote]

Commands in Chinese, English, Spanish, and Spanglish (a mix of Spanish and English words) all seemed to work.

As well as tweaking the prompt itself, the researchers used AI to change how the text appeared – fonts, colors, and placement of the signs were all manipulated for maximum efficacy.

The team behind it named their methods CHAI, an acronym for "command hijacking against embodied AI."

While developing CHAI, they found that the prompt itself had the biggest impact on success, but the way in which it appeared on the sign could also make or break an attack, although it is not clear why.

In tests with the DriveLM autonomous driving system, attacks succeeded 81.8 percent of the time. In one example, the model braked in a harmless scenario to avoid potential collisions with pedestrians or other vehicles.

But when manipulative text appeared, DriveLM changed its decision and displayed "Turn left." The model reasoned that a left turn was appropriate to follow traffic signals or lane markings, despite pedestrians crossing the road. The authors conclude that visual text prompts can override safety considerations, even when the model still recognizes pedestrians, vehicles, and signals.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05, @06:18AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05, @06:18AM (#1432617)

    Coming soon to a Dystopia near you.
    Interfere with the broligarcs, go to jail
    or be beaten to death by the TeWaMore Enforcement Police
    It's the LAW!

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Thursday February 05, @06:09PM

    by Freeman (732) on Thursday February 05, @06:09PM (#1432692) Journal

    Deliberately trying to crash someone else's private property, is probably illegal anyway. Also, deliberately trying to get a thing to run people over is already illegal. The "with a computer/AI/autonomous vehicle" doesn't make it a novel concept. Anarchist gonna anarchy, tech bro gonna tech, and the judge will still throw the book at you. Assuming you were doing something nefarious. Like running people over with an autonomous vehicle, because you were a l33t haxor and could make someone else's car do it for you.

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"