alt Hacker NewsWhat 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
Given the number of cctv cameras that operate in the UK, and their continued growth, I am surprised that the rail operator did not have access to a direct view of the bridge. I am also a bit surprised that there isn't technology to detect rail damage, especially the power lines that runs over the track.
Where I live it is not uncommon for rail to have detection for people walking on the rail, and bridges to have extra protection against jumpers. I wouldn't be that surprised if the same system can be used to verify damage.
Great comment and very true in this AI world. In 2030 it will be even easier to make even more realistic images much quicker...
Reminds me of the attacker vs defender dilemma in cybersecurity - attackers just need one attack to succeed while a defender must spend resources considering and defending against all the different possibilities.
I also think not a hope, check Brandolini's law[1]: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
It is cheap to have live monitoring of key infrastructure these days, and in the case of rail infrastructure it would also save time and money in general. Perhaps this hoax will push this higher up the todo list.
Not a hope.
Most economic value arises from distinguishing signal from noise. All of science is distinguishing signal from noise.
Its valuable, because it is hard. It is also slow - the only way to verify something is often to have reports from someone who IS there.
The conflict arises not from verifying the easy things - searching under the illumination of street lights. Its verifying if you have a weird disease, or if people are alive in a disaster, or what is actually going on in a distant zone.
Verification is laborious. In essence, the universe is not going to open up its secrets to us, unless the effort is put in.
Content generation on the other hand, is story telling. It serves other utility functions to consumers - fulfilling emotional needs for example.
As the ratio of content to information keeps growing, or the ratio of content to verification capacity grows - we will grow increasingly overwhelmed by the situation.
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.
an AI sees the image on social media, deploys a drone to quickly go there, looks at the live video feed, and declares all is good
Sir, this is AI prose. Wendy's doesn't allow AI prose.
Would calling and saying, "Hey, the bridge is destroyed!" without an image not have also triggered a delay? I question the safety standards of the railway if they would just ignore such a call after an earthquake. Generative AI doesn't change the situation at all. An image shouldn't be treated as carrying more weight than a statement, but the statement without the image would be the same in this situation. This has really been an issue since the popularization of the telephone, which made it sufficiently easy to communicate a lie from far away that someone might choose to do so for fun.