"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
360 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
64937 readers
4983 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- 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 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...
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.
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.
how would that even work, if there's no indication that driving too fast was the reason for the red light?
do these actually include some sort of screen that tells the driver they were too fast and that's why the light turned red?
I'd imagine that this "feature" would only result in more frustration, and thus more speeding, instead of less.
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.
And next year the congestion will be the same as before, except with even more cars and even more emissions.
This is equivalent to building another lane on a highway to increase throughput and decrease traffic jams. In the beginning, emissions will be reduced since traffic jams occur less frequently. And then, through induced demand, there's congestion again.
Improving car throughput directly leads to increased emissions with a small delay.
From the paper:
Increased speeds from adaptive signals may induce additional travel, as people opt to drive more or travel farther, potentially offsetting some congestion benefits. Our models do not fully capture induced demand due to data limitations, but adaptive signaling generally supports higher traffic volumes and smoother flows.
Doesn't go against my comment at all.
Like they said, it could lead to more people driving. Not only are they uncertain, is it likely to be by an amount that would be more than the emissions saved?
Let's look at this from another angle. What do you think we should do? Every government on Earth suddenly decides to destroy every car on the planet within the next few months?
Like I said, cars will continue to exist for a while. It makes no sense to put your hands up and say "well, cars are bad. But if they can't be eliminated completely then we shouldn't attempt to reduce vehicle emissions at all".
This change is a good one. I've said it already, but you're letting perfect be the enemy of good.
load more comments
(2 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.
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
The article mentions specific deterministic algorithms so I don’t think it’s AI in the way youre thinking.
Honestly I've seen round abouts in the US and while I totally think their more efficient and causes less wrecks statistically. People are fucking idiots. Everyone complains and thinks their worse and hate them to hell and back. No amount of facts or convincing will change their minds. It's insanity. People are so resistant to change it'd incredible the mountain out if a mole hill they will make it out to be.
It doesn't help that we use them poorly. We have one between a stoplight and a shopping area, and it always gets backed up. They're never in high traffic areas, so drivers never get used to them. I want to replace highway intersections with traffic circles instead of putting them in random neighborhoods.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›