- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
“big data” is not generative AI. They’re different things. Just in case anyone read that as “AI fixes things”.
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.
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
It’s infuriating when a light turns red while only a few of the cars have gone though, makes sense a more inte to 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…
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.
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.
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?
Wait until it learns that lanes can be turned into dedicated tram corridors.
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.
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…
Doesn’t China emit like half the amount of carbon per capita compared to the US?
China has a very large capita.
One issue with that is China is still a heavily bike and moped driven country. The issue is when more of their population is able to afford cars. So they could still “catch up”.
Yes, and they are by far the best in green energy
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-surge-of-clean-energy-in-2024-halts-chinas-co2-rise/ And it would be even worse for the US and others if they would produce all the stuff they out now outsource to China.
It’s a typical Chinophobe ‘at what cost’ commenter.
There is literally nothing they can do right.
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.Sheesh, if I didn’t know better, I’d say I didn‘t just find a Tankie but a full blown Wumao. Talk about projecting.
You indeed really don’t know better.
Enjoy your third consecutive year of recession as a direct result from the terrorist US country blewing up Nordstream ,forcing you to pay for their fracking gas. Companies are leaving your finished shithole. OC germs keep sucking their dicks since they have to be on the wrong side of history all the time.
Tell me how that working out, LOL
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.