> Making somebody crash in a dumb car is pretty hard

That's not true even allowing for your next constraints, one of which I find to be quite absurd.

In the advanced technological case, you have https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/21/9009213/chrysler-uconnect...

In the non-advanced technological case, you can drop caltrops behind your vehicle as you drive and no one would know it was you.

"But that only happens in cartoons" - Yes, because most people are not cartoon villains. And yet, look, kids throwing rocks, no AI necessary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Interstate_75_rock-throwi...

> with minor to no risk to ... anybody else

Ah, yes, the ethical murderer who only wants to fuck up just that one car but who sincerely worries about the other drivers on the road. That's the demographic you're concerned about? So how does indiscriminately trying to trick generally available systems specifically target only one person without risking other drivers?

If you're interested in replying in a condescending manner and attacking strawmen arguments I never made, be my guest, but I have no desire to further discuss this with you.

> I have no desire to further discuss this with you

I'll just talk to myself then, because, while I understand you feeling hurt by my comment, I did not attack a strawman.

> Making somebody crash in a dumb car is pretty hard...

Not true. (I gave examples.)

> ...if you want to do it in an undetectable manner...

Still not true. (Same examples.)

> ...with minor to no risk to yourself...

Still not true. (Same examples.)

> ...or anybody else.

Still not true. (This is absurd. Also the same examples still apply.)