> They should already be able to detect line breaks using old technology.

Yes. That doesn't do much to detect a stone from a parapet rolling onto the line though.

Hence the need for inspection.

> runbooks for hoax responses need to be updated, apparently.

I'd argue not - whether it's an image of a damaged bridge, a phone call from a concerned person about an obstruction on the line, or just heavy rains or an earthquake .. the line should be inspected.

If anything urban rail is in a better position today as ideally camera networks should hopefully rapidly resolve whether a bridge is really damaged as per a fake image or not.

▲

ceejayoz 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> I'd argue not - whether it's an image of a damaged bridge, a phone call from a concerned person about an obstruction on the line, or just heavy rains or an earthquake .. the line should be inspected.

Ideally? Sure.

But when someone can generate plausible disaster photos of every inch of every line of a country's rail network in mere minutes? And as soon as your inspection finishes, they do it again?

▲

hedora 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah; it’s completely a matter of frequencies and probabilities. Also, technology keeps improving.

If I were working for the train line, and bridges kept “blowing up” like this, I’d probably install a bunch of cameras and try to arrange the shots to be aesthetically pleasing, then open the network to the public.

The runbook would involve checking continuity sensors in the rail, and issuing random pan/tilt commands to the camera.

▲

defrost 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

plausibly correlated with what?

This correlated with an earthquake - this is the event that should have triggered an inspection regardless.

> But when someone can generate plausible disaster photos of every inch of every line of a country's rail network in mere minutes?

In the UK (and elsewhere) a large percentage of track is covered by cameras - inspection of over the top claims can be rapidly dismissed.

> And as soon as your inspection finishes, they do it again?

Sounds like a case for cyber crimes and public nuisance.

It's also no different to endless prank calls via phone, not a new thing.

	▲	ceejayoz 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> This correlated with an earthquake… Plenty of disasters don't. "No earthquake, no incident" obviously can't be the logic tree. > In the UK (and elsewhere) a large percentage of track is covered by cameras - inspection of over the top claims can be rapidly dismissed. "Yes. That doesn't do much to detect a stone from a parapet rolling onto the line though. Hence the need for inspection." Sounds like you now agree it's less a need? > Sounds like a case for cyber crimes and public nuisance. "Sorry, not much we can do." As is the case when elderly folks get their accounts drained over the phone today.
	▲	array_key_first 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> It's also no different to endless prank calls via phone, not a new thing. Of course it's different. If I do 5 prank calls, that takes, say, 15 minutes. In 15 minutes how many hoaxes can I generate with AI? Hundreds, maybe thousands? This is like saying nukes are basically swords because they both kill people. We've always been able to kill people, who cares about nuclear weapons?