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.
