We want healthy, liveable cities and to cut emissions to net zero. Getting more people to use bicycles instead of cars will go a long way towards achieving these goals.
No, I just think it’s silly to talk about applying AI to something that just manifestly does not need AI. It’s a dumb buzzword at best, an excuse to spend less money actually building infrastructure because more money is going to AI consultants at worst.
Like I said, if it were about filling in the little cracks once we have a really good overall network, I could maybe get behind it. But right now there’s just zero need for it, because the stuff that’s missing is so obvious and there’s so much of it. At least in Brisbane, the Council could decide to triple its spend on bike infrastructure and still take a decade before the big problems we’ve been calling for action on for years are all exhausted.
How is the government (who has to end up building the stuff) getting this AI data? They’re paying some AI company for it. Money that would be better spent directly on infrastructure we already know we need.
The better question is: without the technobro hype, what do we actually have to gain from this AI technology?
How is the government (who has to end up building the stuff) getting this AI data? They’re paying some AI company for it.
No…? The research project the article is based on is being privately funded. The data and tools will be shared with stakeholders to assist with advocacy and policy making.
First, AI is garbage at best, a shield to look busy, move money, and claim benevolence at worst.
Secondly, who is funding the AI?
If I were a company that makes more money the less people cycle or work from home, I’d rename one of my departments the AI consultant department. Then I could pay myself as much as I wanted, be able to spew buzzwords at investors/governments/naysayers, generate nothing of value (as intended), then say to all the governments and cyclists: “Sorry, we spent $X and it looks like putting more gas guzzling cars on the road is still the best solution”.
I’m not sure what you’re babbling about here. Have you actually bothered to read the article in question?
This is a research project conducted the Australian Urban Observatory, located within the Centre for Urban Research at RMIT. It is being funded by the Ian Potter Foundation, which is a philanthropic organisation. It has absolutely nothing to do with any government or AI company.
No, I just think it’s silly to talk about applying AI to something that just manifestly does not need AI. It’s a dumb buzzword at best, an excuse to spend less money actually building infrastructure because more money is going to AI consultants at worst.
Like I said, if it were about filling in the little cracks once we have a really good overall network, I could maybe get behind it. But right now there’s just zero need for it, because the stuff that’s missing is so obvious and there’s so much of it. At least in Brisbane, the Council could decide to triple its spend on bike infrastructure and still take a decade before the big problems we’ve been calling for action on for years are all exhausted.
How will using AI in a privately funded research project take money away from government funded infrastructure projects?
How is the government (who has to end up building the stuff) getting this AI data? They’re paying some AI company for it. Money that would be better spent directly on infrastructure we already know we need.
The better question is: without the technobro hype, what do we actually have to gain from this AI technology?
No…? The research project the article is based on is being privately funded. The data and tools will be shared with stakeholders to assist with advocacy and policy making.
First, AI is garbage at best, a shield to look busy, move money, and claim benevolence at worst.
Secondly, who is funding the AI?
If I were a company that makes more money the less people cycle or work from home, I’d rename one of my departments the AI consultant department. Then I could pay myself as much as I wanted, be able to spew buzzwords at investors/governments/naysayers, generate nothing of value (as intended), then say to all the governments and cyclists: “Sorry, we spent $X and it looks like putting more gas guzzling cars on the road is still the best solution”.
I’m not sure what you’re babbling about here. Have you actually bothered to read the article in question?
This is a research project conducted the Australian Urban Observatory, located within the Centre for Urban Research at RMIT. It is being funded by the Ian Potter Foundation, which is a philanthropic organisation. It has absolutely nothing to do with any government or AI company.