cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/5292633
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/science by /u/calliope_kekule on 2025-03-01 05:53:17+00:00.
“big data” is not generative AI. They’re different things. Just in case anyone read that as “AI fixes things”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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…
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.
But they already have sensors. That‘s not what China differentiates from the rest here.
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.
Of course there has to be a sore loser China bad commenter with some made up BS
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.
I expect nothing better from someone who uses the word tankie and parrots western propaganda.
I bet you also use “+100 social credits” and been told about this imaginary spying system. Show me proof of this “Orwellian surveillance state”.I know the land Orwell comes from has the most survaillance ameras in the world per capita and nice facial recognition vans driving around and parked in front of stations.
and if you’re a germ you shouldn’t really be talking.
Always on the wrong side of history.
Try protesting genocide and see if you won’t get violently beat up.
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.
See, this is a reasonable use of horrible dystopian technology.
It doesn’t excuse the rest of it, though.
What’s horrible about traffic signal optimization algorithms? This isn’t GenAI, just an algorithm that looks at traffic patterns and optimizes signals to improve flow. There’s nothing dystopian about that.
The horrible and dystopian part for the comment above yours is the fact that it happens in China, which is ontologically bad and oppressive