←back to thread

Trains cancelled over fake bridge collapse image

(www.bbc.com)
263 points josephcsible | 5 comments | 07 Dec 25 00:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.231s | source
Show context
mr_windfrog ◴[07 Dec 25 03:12 UTC] No.46178827[source]▶
What this incident really shows is the growing gap between how easy it is to create a convincing warning and how costly it is to verify what's actually happening. Hoaxes aren't new, but generative tools make fabrication almost free and massively increase the volume.

The rail operator didn't do anything wrong. After an earthquake and a realistic-looking image, the only responsible action is to treat it as potentially real and inspect the track.

This wasn't catastrophic, but it's a preview of a world where a single person can cheaply trigger high-cost responses. The systems we build will have to adapt, not by ignoring social media reports, but by developing faster, more resilient ways to distinguish signal from noise.

replies(9): >>46178848 #>>46178936 #>>46179699 #>>46180135 #>>46180154 #>>46180642 #>>46180686 #>>46181129 #>>46185243 #
1. foxglacier ◴[07 Dec 25 03:36 UTC] No.46178936[source]▶
You don't need AI for this kind of disruption. People have been making fake bomb threats for years. You just have to say it, either directly to the railway/etc. or publicly enough that somebody else will believe it and forward it to them. The difference might be of intent - if you say you planted a bomb on the bridge, you're probably committing a crime, but if you just post a piece of art without context, it's more plausibly deniable.

It's also pretty common in the UK for trains to be delayed just because some passenger accidentally left their bag on the platform. Not even any malicious intent. I was on a train that stopped in a tunnel for that reason once. They're just very vulnerable to any hint of danger.

replies(1): >>46179155 #
2. array_key_first ◴[07 Dec 25 04:32 UTC] No.46179155[source]▶
AI definitely makes it easier and it will happen more often.

You don't need anything for anything. You can do war with long sticks. Turns out guns, planes, and firebombs work better.

replies(2): >>46180145 #>>46186682 #
3. j_maffe ◴[07 Dec 25 08:33 UTC] No.46180145[source]▶
Exactly. More is different.
4. foxglacier ◴[07 Dec 25 23:54 UTC] No.46186682[source]▶
AI image generation is already freely available to everyone. Why is it not already happening very often? This is the first case I've even heard of. Seems like you're already proven wrong, unless you're counting on some future change that isn't here yet?
replies(1): >>46196605 #
5. array_key_first ◴[08 Dec 25 19:36 UTC] No.46196605{3}[source]▶
> Why is it not already happening very often?

It is, and it will increase as it becomes more accessible.

> This is the first case I've even heard of.

That's because you're both not paying much attention and this is under-reported.

I would wager maybe a quarter of all content on the internet is bot generated. I'm not the first to propose this.

> Seems like you're already proven wrong, unless you're counting on some future change that isn't here yet?

I kind of am, notably AI both becoming better and more accessible. You're right, it might not.