"big data" is not generative AI. They're different things. Just in case anyone read that as "AI fixes things".
this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
342 points (96.2% liked)
Technology
71585 readers
3389 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
load more comments
(7 replies)
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.
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.
I think it's often the opposite, a traffic circle is much less intelligent but quite effective at increasing traffic flow. We can't put them everywhere, but we should put them in more places.
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.
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.
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.
That was a bit tongue in cheek, but my point is that we're ignoring an obvious solution due to inertia. Here's a short video by John Stossel interviewing the mayor of Carmel, Indiana, which converted to roundabouts, and here's a longer CNBC video about them as well. That second video is interesting because it shows that roundabouts started here in the US, but fell out of favor when salespeople pitched signals as cities electrified.
Here's a video that's a bit more critical, and the main argument against roundabouts is they're expensive and disruptive to put in. That's true, but it doesn't explain why new signal-based intersections are put in.
Politicians will take the lowest fiction solution to keep their positions. Switching to roundabouts is a large political risk, even if it's backed by science. People hate change, and roundabouts are annoying to get used to.
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.
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.
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!
Oh God no
They will truly do anything not to admit the problem is cars
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.
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.
Yes, and such intelligent systems can also optimize for pedestrian traffic,
In the US, these types of "intelligent" systems almost always degrade pedestrian traffic quite severely.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Exactly all this does is create more road capacity which will inevitably lead to more cars and then increased congestion.
This is the big data equivalent of “one more lane”.
China has more public transit of every type than the rest of the world combined at this point, and most of their cities are quite pedestrian centric.
Cars are a luxury outside the rural areas, and they're a problem, but this is unrelated to that.
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.
Which human right does this strip away?
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.
Your take is that changing traffic management is a violation of human rights?
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.
Point systems that prevent you from air travel or entering other provinces because you dared criticize the almighty government
That's... just not real... Your understanding of Chinese policy comes from curated western sources with vested interests in putting a dystopian and totalitarian understanding of China and its government in our countries' people (we're both westerners). There are systems in place to prevent certain convicted criminals from freely moving around there country, but that has little to do with criticising the party.
Regardless, big data on traffic doesn't imply knowledge about the particular vehicles and drivers inside said vehicles. You're just going ahead and assuming "dystopian control of people" because it's China.
Wait until it learns that lanes can be turned into dedicated tram corridors.
Wait until they run the numbers on carbon emissions of stop signs vs. sensible yielding laws.
Yup. Most European countries barely use stop signs as opposed to the US.
Maybe they could just try a roundabout? Or even better... Ditching the dead end of car dependency for free public transport?
Because phony "AI" is here to save capital, not the planet.
In Switzerland we have sensors in the streets at most crossings. And behind it I assume, is a determinate algorithm whoch decides who has green for how long. This mainly is done to avoid the backing up of one crossing into another.
In my little Southern US town the lights seems to work logically and traffic flows nicely, noticeably so. I'm never sitting at a light screaming, "Oh FFS turn!" or "Why did that light change and there are no cars?!"
Traffic only gets a bit thick on the main road in late afternoons. Not much to be done there, it's a major east-west thoroughfare connecting several towns.
Have no idea how they're doing this. Sensors I'm guessing? Seems like we're too poor for fancy civil engineering like that and I'm sure we can't afford what the article talks about.
Anyone know how that might work?
Sensors are cheap and have been around for a long time, but I'm going to guess the number one reason is the small part. Fewer cars = less traffic.
I've actually watched a city I visit regularly grow over about 20 years and it went from them having zero traffic to Los Angeles style traffic jams. This is despite their best efforts like making extra wide roads, using roundabouts, etc.
Look for a square or an X (or a square with an X in it) right Infront of the stop line for the lights. If it's there, that detects a car waiting.
There may be more of them further up the road to detect more cars waiting/arriving.
They are basically using big loops of wire to detect cars through magmatism.
They tend not to detect cyclists, so I often have to move to the side and wave cars forward so lights on side streets will change.
Sensors on a main road and well set timers after a few months of data can do wonders and be extremely low cost, but it requires some upfront spending and enough public will to put up with bad traffic until everything is tuned.
view more: next ›