• tengkuizdihar@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      why focus on money? what about culture, humanity, and actual interesting interaction between humans?

      ah, I forgot humanity have devolved into beings of statistics. Leaving feelings, positive long term planning, and religion behind.

  • spacegoat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I’m looking forward to an open mesh outside the realm of government and corporate control

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 minutes ago

      Are you sure? Co-dependent symbiotic relationships evolve in nature all the time - starting at the macro scale with plants and animals.

  • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    World governments will be delighted to find that they’ve driven their populations off of the internet. As much as they’ll hate being engaged in 24/7 automated cyber warfare to stop their power plants exploding.

  • tigermountain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    15 hours ago

    People are just going to get sick of the Internet, if they haven’t already, and start to look at it like a necessary evil they have to use to do certain things instead of what it once was which was fun and exciting. It’s sad.

    • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 hours ago

      A much larger segment of people than you think are already off. You just don’t hear about them, because, well, they aren’t online. Lmao

        • cloudshouter@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Currently private users and enthusiasts. As networks grow, there will probably be universities joining. Eventually corporations will start marketing plug and play equipment while selling access to server space and long distance connections. Other businesses will join and finance their services by selling subscriptions, advertising, and user data. Various government agencies will add hardware they can also use to track traffic. Someone will inevitably bring in bots, AI models, and internet connected devices. After that someone will coin the term “dead mesh network theory” and all the nerdlings will start developing the next knitted network or something.

          • korazail@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            53 minutes ago

            The catalyst there is businesses (and to a degree governments).

            I used to pay attention to my physical mail. Then it was all “junk mail” and the signal-to-noise ratio got hard to manage.

            I migrated the important stuff to “electronic mail”, where I had a curated list of people and entities that sent me items, so I could focus on things that were important. Then my address/mailbox became common knowledge and that filled with “spam”.

            I started using SMS/text for the important stuff. But that also became a common place to send me stuff I didn’t care about, so I used specific apps on my phone that had permission to notify me when something needed attention, and now my phone gives me so many notifications I just ignore them all.

            Our attention is the prize, and it won’t matter where our attention goes: The businesses will follow.

            The same will hold true for connectivity. If the current internet becomes a wasteland and we migrate to Mesh, then it’s only a matter of time before corporate interests take that over too; then knitted, or fabric, or the glob.

            The solution will be protections for personal identity and privacy, which have been and will be fought tooth-and-nail by the companies because they want that info so they can be where our attention is so they can make profit. I think we can also fight the profit motive, but that’ll be harder than getting protections in law… so small steps.

    • motruck@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Yep. The internet is becoming what a mailbox in real life is. An abused gateway that has a narrow set of legitimate uses.

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 minutes ago

        At least we’re not burning dead dinosaurs (and plankton) to deliver dead trees.

    • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      You won’t be able to tell which of your neighbours was replaced by a metal mimic, and got shipped off to the Soylent factory.

      Peter Thiel did mention humans will end up like horses, going to the glue factory.

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 minutes ago

        In the early 1900s the Collier family made themselves a big pile of money and bought what later became Collier County, Florida. Pretty much all of it was privately owned by them, along with a collection of every type of Porsche ever made and a bunch of other “gee, what can I do with ALL this money” activities… Property taxes encouraged them to sell the land off and now what once was a private family “farm” about 100 years ago is now home to over 400,000 people.

    • NekoKoneko@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Well, if you were a billionaire who owned AI system trained to influence and extract money from humans, and there’s no humans online, what would you do?

      And so that brings us to how robots actually will become a reality…

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Last year, you’d be correct. This year, bots DO purchase things. They also download and run things. Some marketers have gotten wise and have adjusted SEO and general product advertising to appeal to bots.

      • relativelyrobin@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        That is a really good idea. I’m not gonna lie. I would love it if I could put like five bucks in a wallet and then it just takes a cent or two when I go to some article rather than having to fight through some local news site trying to get me to pay $9.99 a month to read one piece of rage bait. I’ll pay a nickel or maybe even a dime for a good one.

        I know they’re targeting AI agents, but it is only a matter of time. I say roll it out to consumers dude and I know that sounds fucked up, but like I would much rather just pay a nickel or a dime here and there than have ads making it impossible to even read the article. The people will compete on price and I bet it will stay really small for most stuff. It gets creators paid in a similar model to YouTube clicks or Spotify streams, but in a much more direct and equitable way. Google, AI has to pay for the content instead of just handing it over.

        • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          You are conflating micropayments (sufficient to pay creators) with gateway monetization, which would need to be small enough you could still use the internet (lets say thousands of pages a month) but high eough to dissuade scraper bot operators. I am not sure such a price exists. Maybe for some bot operators, but the various AI companies have more money than all regular internet users.

        • Promethiel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          I’m with you. My concern is that I haven’t yet figured out how it’s gonna be ruined for private consumers by corporate consumers yet, so can’t know how to prepare lol.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      A lot of sites wouldn’t exist without ads, because they want their stuff to be freely-accessible and don’t have any other revenue streams. It would also cut off lower income people that couldn’t afford to pay.

      The only business models that have really worked online have been:

      1. Ad-supported.
      2. You pay for the service yourself, like a monthly subscription.
      3. Someone else pays for the service for you, for example freemium services (paid users subsidize the free users), a lot of Lemmy servers (admins cover the hosting costs), etc.

      If ads go away, a lot of sites/services would have to become paid services, and smaller ones might just shut down entirely. We’d end up with even more consolidation of the market.

      • Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think donation/investment based freemium is the future of internet content once the bots kill ad viability

        • MangoCats@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah, my shareware did real well - 800 hours in development, $500 in income across the past 30 years. Oh, and it cost me $400 for the compiler tools back then - so my net profit is rolling in at $0.12 per hour invested. Warning: $440 of that $500 came from an extreme niche product you’re unlikely to find such a lucrative vein anymore. My game only netted $60 in return for 400 hours of development, but you could say I got the compiler “for free” off that niche product’s income.

          • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            That sounds like the vast majority of “app” developers.

            These things are a casino market.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’ve tried that before, but barely anyone donates. People expect the world for free.

      • TeaWithDani@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        We could live without anything that uses ads to “sustain” itself. Nobody hosting ads on their service is doing so to “maintain” themselves. They just want profit for their labour… they are entitled too, but its a business choice, never a necessity.

        And yeah if I use something, I’ll always pay for no ads. Ads cost so much more of our lifespans and contribute so fucking little to those that host them. Garbage.

        I respect your take, but I think it is wrong.

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        cut off lower income people that couldn’t afford to pay.

        There’s a shot of irony in there… Google doesn’t monetize poor people highly at all, but the poor people get “free” access with ads because some richer people also allow themselves to see the ads. What kind of communism is that?

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          It’s the same way that taxes work. Rich people contribute more than poorer people, but everyone can use things funded by public money (parks, police, fire fighters, public transport, schools, health care outside the USA, etc).

          I actually wonder if there should be more taxpayer-funded online services. Lemmy’s development was partially funded by government money (NLNet Foundation via the European Commission) for example.

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m reminded of the episode of TNG where they trapped Moriarity in a simulation so he would think he had taken over the ship.

    Maybe we can just have an internet just for billionaires where they have AI produce internet content so they can advertise useless AI products to AI bots run by other billionaires while the rest of us go on with our normal lives in the real world?

    • architect@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I mean their goal is to get us off the internet unless we are shopping or gaming. They don’t want us on here plotting against them.

    • MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Note that the computer that made that simulated world for Moriarty is itself a (usually) language-driven AI. Not making a real point here, just noting the humor in it.

    • 1984@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      We have that, it’s called social media. But the rest of us are not living our lives without it, seemingly…

      • mobyduck648@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It can be done, I just bought an e-ink phone and it’s caused my use of commercial social media to plummet. Admittedly I’m saying this on Lemmy, but I think Lemmy has more in common with the forums of yore than ‘social media’ as it’s generally understood.

  • eicker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    2 days ago

    The weirdest part won’t be bots outnumbering humans: It’ll be bots writing articles for bots, bots summarising them for other bots, bots commenting underneath, and bots measuring the engagement. … Meanwhile three actual humans are somewhere wondering why the internet suddenly feels so empty.

    • gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’ll be bots writing articles for bots, bots summarising them for other bots, bots commenting underneath, and bots measuring the engagement.

    • muffedtrims@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 days ago

      And you wonder why the mega corps want you to give your ID for accessing the internet. Then they can tie your traffic as an actual human and generate ad monies.

    • quarkquasar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m still wondering how long advertisers are going to be shoveling money into it until they realize mostly only bots are the audience, and then what the collapse after that is going to look like.

      • eicker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        That might be the real breaking point: not when bots dominate traffic, but when advertisers stop believing the traffic represents humans with wallets.

    • mrnarwall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      I know it’s unrealistic, but what would it take to return to a previous type of Internet that wasn’t so siloed and marketed, and filled with dread Internet?

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        In a way, the Lemmy layer is sort of doing that. The previous type of Internet is still out there, if you just take the effort to access it / avoid the links in to the marketed sides.

      • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        It exists but nobody wants to use it. We’re a minority. Most want to open “the app” and not spend any effort finding things.

      • tacosanonymous@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think we’d have to take money out of the equation. Without the profit, the mass farms, etc would be pointless. There’s still be trolls but it would be so much better.

      • eicker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Probably less nostalgia and more open protocols. Bring back personal websites, RSS, forums and interoperable social networks. Make switching services painless, kill algorithmic engagement as the default and stop treating every click as ad inventory.

        • EastofEdson@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          I have started going back to forums and RSS feeds when I can find them. Most of the forums though are pretty dead. I have even started using Usenet again for actual text newsgroups.

          I am hoping for a bit of a resurgence as more people move away from algorithmic social media but I won’t hold my breathe on that.

            • EastofEdson@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Usenet still exists but there isn’t much going on these days. 99.9% of groups are completely dead but there are some that hang on. Even those have low posting numbers but not zero, so I’ll take it.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      You ever see that movie, Idiocracy? They cloned a clone and it was retarded. Bots copying bots copying bots will eventually turn to shit that’s hard to decipher and obviously written by bots.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      What I wonder is: how long before “bot speak” becomes unintelligible to humans.

      Already: AI slop is so voluminous, redundantly repetitive, thoroughly complete that it defies complete comprehension due to soporific effects.

      LLM agents are writing English (or Spanish, or Chinese, Hindi, whatever… and I wonder which they’re “best” at) documents, ostensibly for human review and consumption, but 90%+ of what I have my LLM agents write is exclusively consumed by other agents, and I’m constantly encouraging them to make their writings more easily comprehended and accessed by other agents - it seems like the English translation is pretty useless for that layer - what would a token stream look like instead?

      • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        The tokens ARE language. They’re just words or parts of words.

        If you’re using a western LLM, English IS its strongest language. Otherwise it might be Chinese or English.

        There’s no “LLM native language” to convert to for efficiency. Maybe pseudocode or actual code for things where you need to disambiguate.

        • MangoCats@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          There’s no “LLM native language” to convert to for efficiency.

          Yet. With 1000x as much bot-content being generated on the web as human generated content, the “bot spoken” training set will grow rather quickly, and I see no reason for it not to evolve in a similar way to how human spoken languages evolve.

          • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            What’s the point in coming up with an entire new language for them if they can just write English and humans will also understand it?

            Kinda pointless to have LLMs optimised to produce garbage humans can’t understand because at the end, your goal is still to produce something humans will consume.

      • Logi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        LLM agents are writing English (…) documents, ostensibly for human review and consumption, but 90%+ of what I have my LLM agents write is exclusively consumed by other agents, … and accessed by other agents - it seems like the English translation is pretty useless for that layer …

        But remember, the LLM is trained on human language. It doesn’t understand what it is talking about, it just simulates humans talking about it. I don’t think there is a more fundamental token stream there to be uncovered.

      • eicker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Humans may end up seeing a translated audit layer while the actual machine conversation looks more like APIs than language.

      • gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        “bot speak” becomes unintelligible to humans.

        at some point we will give a name of this phenomenon of internet users who are completely undecipherable for normal people … and call it autism (/hj)

        • MangoCats@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Example of something I had to lookup to understand: (/hj)

          Back when I was in school, Autism was a 1/10,000 Dx. 20 years ago it was crashing down from 1/100 to 1/50, checking now… 1/31 today. They’ve lumped so much into the Autism diagnosis that it’s meaningless anymore; it covers so many varied conditions and severities, and the stereotypes don’t fit most recipients of the Dx anymore.

  • NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Well yeah. Of course it would, given the examples they are talking about.

    It makes sense right? You have a computer, you can program it to do things. I have programmed mine to scrape data or examine websites, and even in some cases to pull entire directories down.

    Now we have an agent do that. In other words a programmed computer tool that is acting on someones behalf using natural language as the question. Note the example given is an AI is looking across as many websites as it can for a review. Or maybe instructions to put something together. Or maybe a list of the highest peaks in the world with the least snowfall. Who knows, but that is endless.

    So this “traffic” is still human driven. Its just using a computer to do the work. I think that changes the perspective a little bit. It is all human intention driven.

    Also, all traffic by http plus every other request is still human, so that is a bit misleading.

    Interestingly, its not like we havent been here before if you look at traffic. The syncing of usenet for a period of time was the largest user of all traffic. So all computer connections, much, much less humans.

    Most traffic today is video, then gaming, than music, financial, screen sharing, p2p, and AI makes up a tiny portion. It just is making a huge number of requests for HTTP, but it is growing, and fast.

    This is neither pro AI, nor anti AI. I am just trying to examine the landscape instead of the over simplistic headline that really is about Cloudflares business model.

    • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      You could say anything is human driven if you follow the thread far enough. I’d say if an automated process is cranking out hundreds of requests per minute then even though someone turned it on it still falls under a bot process. There is no human actually monitoring each request or interacting with it.

    • Jiral@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s not the point. Let’s put aside that an LLM driven agent is not deterministic ie, not always doing what the user intended, just like regular text autocomplete messes up as well regularly. The point is that like with e-mails when spam became so easy to generate that it flooded the system, now more sophisticated actions on the internet get easier to do (that said, most of it was possible already before, just required more skill), at least as long as LLMs are not charged at real costs but highly subsidised.

      At some point something has to give. Either tools will be developed to somewhat reliably classify the nature of the traffic or things will start to be priced out as everyone will have to pay the bill for this new kind of spam (ie low value high volume traffic, or ill intended traffic)

      • NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        A lot of that was scraping. A huge amount. Just take everything possible. Hopefully that will slow down, or as I did, I allow requests and reponses, but scraping gets kicked.

        But it is getting hard and harder to self host. Large websites and hosts (gitlab, self labs) get slammed and even DOS. Its been rough.

        There are huge network upgrades in the works to try and deal with this 3.2T are being looked at already. But of course electricity is going to hit a hard ceiling both for the data center and the network center. Hence the costs you are talking about.

        I am more concerned with the fact that if everyone is asking AI, who is going to put the answers somewhere to get them? Who is going to self host and publish like I do today? It already is rare to see people running their own websites anymore. Lemmy is pretty amazing for that, but it too has gotta be having a huge amount of traffic at each instance.

        I guess I am saying I am aware of your concerns and I have mine too.

        • Jiral@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          It feels a bit like in Cyberpunk, where the wild Internet has become unusable or even dangerous and only big corpo controlled parts are still accessible to the masses.

          The other topic you mentioned, LLM’s are going to hit a wall and they’ll do so hard. Training will be increasingly relegated to information predating large scale use if LLMs to avoid rapid degradation of the models by training it with LLM output. That in itself creates a huge problem the more time passes. Nothing is safe btw, analog media are increasingly just as tainted.

    • Toribor@corndog.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      I had a realization recently that with driverless cars becoming more common that one day I’m going to be stuck in traffic surrounded by dozens of other cars that are completely empty. They’ll just be going to pick up a human driver somewhere or going to park and no one will care because instead of eliminating traffic we’ll just ensure humans are entertained while stuck in it.

      Why bother to fix traffic congestion if you can just play PlayStation the whole time or whatever?

      • percent@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        If most cars are autonomous, and capable of coordinating with each other (via mesh network, for example), then traffic congestion might become much easier to prevent reduce and solve mitigate. (Edit: Based on responses, I may have chosen my words poorly)

        You’re probably not wrong though. I imagine it’ll get worse before it gets better.

        • group_hug@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Ha ha. Traffic will move to let billionaires through quickly.

          Regular folks will be stuck in endless traffic trapped in driverless cars that charge them $5 a minute for the privilege all while playing the same loud and obnoxious audio video ads on repeat for hours on end.

          • percent@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            This should be used in some sort of dystopia-themed movie or Black Mirror episode or something, if it hasn’t been done yet

        • patatahooligan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I don’t believe we will ever get coordinated autonomous vehicles. You will never be able to absolutely trust the information you are getting, whether it’s because wireless sucks, auto manufacturers couldn’t agree to or properly implement a universal standard, software bugs, or malicious behavior. If we want it to be safe, then the cars will have to drive cautiously and be prepared for behavior that was not properly communicated. This will not be a form of driving that is fundamentally different to what we have now.

          And even if you could implement perfect coordination between autonomous vehicles, how would you be able to take advantage of it in the real world? Ban all human drivers? What about pedestrians and bikes? You still need crossings and traffic lights for an area to be livable by humans. You still need to drive slowly next to a pavement where someone could eg trip and fall onto the road.

          • percent@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Ban all human drivers?

            No.

            What about pedestrians and bikes?

            Continue avoiding them – that should never change.

            You still need crossings and traffic lights for an area to be livable by humans. You still need to drive slowly next to a pavement where someone could eg trip and fall onto the road.

            Agreed.

            All those examples seem like they’re in response to a goal of eliminating 100% of all congestion. I actually edited my comment to clarify that that’s not what I’m talking about, but that edit was many hours before your response. Is it still unclear?

            Since we’re talking examples, maybe I can offer one to clarify:

            Ever been in a traffic jam after someone ran a red light or stop sign and caused a wreck? If fewer (because zero is unrealistic) of those incidents happen, then there are fewer traffic jams caused by them, right? And when they do happen, it would be easier to reroute traffic early on – which might also make it easier/faster for emergency vehicles to get to the scene.


            Or for an example that is completely unrelated to traffic: Condoms and vaccines are pretty effective. Maybe not 100%, but still enough to be useful. There are some areas in real life where absolutism is just unproductive.

        • EddoWagt@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Traffic congestion will always be a thing. The real world is too unpredictable. You can’t pack a highway full of cars and expect them to drive highway speeds. One animal jumping on the road and you’ll have a massive accident because nobody can avoid anyone

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Traffic congestion doesn’t happen because of lack of coordination. Coordination prevents collisions. Our success rate could be a lot better but the system does pretty well with coordination limited to blinking lights, a noise that says “fuck off”, the mutual knowledge that we all got the same training and the private knowledge that everyone else on the road is a suicidal idiot who slept through the training.

          Congestion is a physical property of the road network. There’s a physical limit to the number of cars you can push through a road in a given time period. Drive the cars too fast and they fly off the road when it bends, or cars slam into each other when a deer tries to commit suicide.

          Traffic is well modeled as an incompressible slightly non-newtownian fluid, like runny oobleck. If you apply more pressure/increase vehicle volume the fluid starts to bind up as it becomes harder for the cars to maneuver without collision, regardless of coordination.

          You reduce traffic by taking cars off the road, or scheduling utilization. Self driving cars won’t help, and we can do both of those without them. Long term they’re likely to make collisions worse because humans don’t know what they’re going to do, so the primary mode we have of coordination, “the theory of mind” will break down. Right now they’re so uncommon that you assume any car is a human who reacts and prioritizes like you.

          Tear down the freeways and replace them with trains.

          • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            In other words - car usage expands to the limit because human nature is to use the resource until it gets inconvenient. The gas expands to fill the container.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              I won’t disagree with what you said, but I’ll disagree that it’s the same point I was making.

              My point was that there isn’t a technical solution to traffic congestion. You need less fluid or a bigger pipe. What you correctly mention is why a bigger pipe won’t work for humans when it does for water.

              And out of pure pedantry, I’d disagree purely because my analogy said “non-newtownian liquid” - those don’t expand. :P it’s more like a hyperactive toddler manically jamming silly putty into a PVC pipe.

      • eleitl@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        One day when you’re stuck in traffic, it will be all horsecarts. Which are also capable of bringing a drunk driver home.

      • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Definitely a possibility but i would push against the likelihood of it – it could also solve a lot of our traffic issues because humans get emotional and cause traffic jams by doing easily avoidable things like clogging up the left lane with a train of tailgating cars, etc.