• Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    “big data” is not generative AI. They’re different things. Just in case anyone read that as “AI fixes things”.

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      It’s weird cause technically adaptive traffic patterns are trained using tools like reinforcement learning, which is technically AI, however it’s the broad term AI and not GenAI.

    • Xanza@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      It’s a confusing situation, because big data is what it sounds like. Large amounts of data on actual events. But it doesn’t mean they didn’t use AI to help interpret the data, or to come up with the adaptive traffic signaling.

    • Artyom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      I mean, this is also an area where neural networks will improve things. Neural networks are excellent for optimizing data with an extremely large amount of input variables, as is the case here. You don’t need language models, you don’t need to steal all the content on the internet for training. You have analysis tools that will easily validate any solution, so you’re not going to deal with mystery hallucinations.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        It’s not an extremely large amount of data at all, you can get perfect efficiency by having lights act on completely local, real-time, sensor data, as in “how many cars are in which direction”. AI is useful to recognise who wants to use the light but that’s the end of it. You don’t need to predict traffic patters as you don’t need them to see what’s the state of the streets right now, worse, such predictions are a source of BS. Lots of patterns happen all the time that have no precedence as construction sites shift, sportsball games get cancelled or not, whatnot.

        • 9bananas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          I’m extremely sceptical about local data being enough to properly guide traffic…

          the problem is that intersections are connected.

          one intersection influences others down the line, wether that is by keeping back too much traffic, thereby unnecessarily restricting flow, or by letting too much traffic flow, thus creating blockages.

          you need a big picture approach, and you need historical data to estimate flow on any given day.

          neither can be done with local data.

          could you (slightly) improve traffic by using local traffic flow to determine signals? probably, sure.

          but in large systems, on metropolitan scales, that will inevitably lead to unforseen consequences that will probably probe impossible to solve with local solutions or will need to be handles by hard coded rules (think something like “on friday this light needs to be green for 30 sec and red for 15 sec, from 8-17h, except on holidays”) which just introduces insane amounts of maintenance…

          source: i used to do analysis on factory shop-floor-planning, which involves simulation of mathematically identical problems.

          things like assembly of parts that are dependant on other parts, all of which have different assembly speeds and locations, thus travel times, throughout the process. it gets incredibly complex, incredibly quickly, but it’s a lot of fun to solve, despite being math heavy! one exercise we did at uni, was re-creating the master’s thesis of my professor, which was about finding the optimal locations for snow plow depots containing road salt for an entire province, so, yeah, traffic analysis is largely the same thing math-wise, with a bit of added complexity due to human behavior.

          i can say, with certainty, that the data of just the local situation at any given node is not sufficient to optimize the entire system.

          you are right about real-time data being important to account for things like construction. that is actually a problem, but has little to do with the local data approach you suggested and can’t be solved by that local data approach either… it’s actually (probably) easier to solve with the big data approach!

  • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    Why does it often seem like only China is using modern tech to make real quality of life improvements? It’s the opposite of the US. Seems like that same modern tech is making everything a bit worse day after day.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      More and more countries are using mass surveillance to control the population so China might not be the only ones using it to deal with traffic at all.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      They have more catch-up to do. The US already does things like traffic control, but they have a different goal: they want drivers to feel like they’re making progress instead of actually improving things.

      For example, we put traffic signals everywhere instead of teaching people to use traffic circles. Why? Drivers like to drive fast and would rather stop than slow down. Traffic circles improve flow, but they do reduce average speed, whereas traffic lights decrease flow and increase average speed. It’s stupid, but we’re entitled jerks who like to show off at signals.

      • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        but they have a different goal: they want drivers to feel like they’re making progress instead of actually improving things.

        Sorry but I want a source for that claim.

    • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Take a look at the USA government right now. 😜

      But ya you’re right, anyone could have been doing this for a long time. I guess it’s just politics.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        You wanna reduce traffic times with these better lights? Think of all the billions of dollars lost to advertisers since people won’t be forced to look at their ads now while waiting!

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    Oh so I don‘t have to worry about China‘s increasing emissions output because they use unhinged mass surveillance and terror against the people to put a band-aid on it. Cool…

    • realitista@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      I would be happy for sensors at traffic lights that detect whether cars are there or not. I don’t consider that to be meaningful surveillance.

      • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        But they already have sensors. That‘s not what China differentiates from the rest here.

        • realitista@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Did you read the article? Standard traffic cameras or sensors are all you need to implement this. And yes, most places have the technology already in place to do most of it. You just need to add the part to network them and control the lights.

      • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        I am used to tankies on Lemmy but man, if you say China isn‘t an Orwellian surveillance state you‘re just lying through your teeth.

  • Eiri@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    They will truly do anything not to admit the problem is cars

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      It‘s even worse. You need mass surveillance and strip away human rights to do it the way China does it. And I am sorry, but that‘s not worth it. There are countless better ways to deal with climate change because in the end of the day it‘s still a self serving mission for the most part.

        • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Privacy obviously. They collect everything about their citizens and use it in every system. They‘re not some super advanced country that simply does tech better than everyone else, they just hoard more data than anyone and use it carelessly everywhere.

        • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          Your bad faith argument aside, they absolutely do use technology that violates human rights and integrate it in this system. Think about why smart cities are controversial and amp it up to 11. That‘s China managing their population. Point systems that prevent you from air travel or entering other provinces because you dared criticize the almighty government do violate the basic human right of free speech and control traffic at the same time.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      No they aren’t. They’re saying smarter traffic systems are an improvement over what we have now. I’ve looked in the article and nowhere do they say cars aren’t a problem, or that emissions is down to traffic lights not cars.

      I see so many examples on here and on Reddit of people letting perfect be the enemy of good.

      Whether we like it or not, cars will be around for a while. It makes no sense to put zero effort into improving efficiency in the meantime. You don’t have to be so all-or-nothing.

      • deltamental@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        Yes, and such intelligent systems can also optimize for pedestrian traffic, reducing the time waiting for a walk light, monitor bike lane usage, track dangerous intersections, improve emergency response times, prioritize buses and trams, etc. It’s good for people to be gathering this data and trying to make things better.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    It’s infuriating when a light turns red while only a few of the cars have gone though, makes sense a more intelligent algorithm would be more efficient.

    • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      I pass like 15 lights on my commute and the amount of time standing still for NO REASON is absolutely infuriating. How much could it possibly cost to add a simple sensor? No cars coming from the sides? Light stays green! But no, it’s all just dumb timers instead…

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        Interestingly, some lights are set up to deliberately slow down speeders. If you are above the speed limit, they turn red, just to slow things back down. Unfortunately, most of the people involved never put cause and effect together.

        • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          What annoys me is the road to work in the morning actually seems to do the opposite. It’s a 35 or 40mph road, but if you do 40 you’re not gonna make it through without stopping. But if you do 50-60? No stops.

          Once again though people don’t pick up on this.