Slashdot Mirror


How Artificial Intelligence Can Fight Air Pollution In China

An anonymous reader writes: IBM is testing a new way to help fix Beijing's air pollution problem with artificial intelligence. Like many other cities across the country, the capital is surrounded by many coal burning factories. However, the air quality on a day-to-day basis can vary because of a number of reasons like industrial activity, traffic congestion, and the weather. IBM is testing a computer system capable of learning to predict the severity of air pollution several days in advance using large quantities of data from several different models. "We have built a prototype system which is able to generate high-resolution air quality forecasts, 72 hours ahead of time," says Xiaowei Shen, director of IBM Research China. "Our researchers are currently expanding the capability of the system to provide medium- and long-term (up to 10 days ahead) as well as pollutant source tracking, 'what-if' scenario analysis, and decision support on emission reduction actions."

50 comments

  1. regular old intelligence by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    will do just fine.

    1. Re:regular old intelligence by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I'm still confused as to why they call it "artificial intelligence" instead of heuristics.

    2. Re:regular old intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It allowed IBM to add an extra 35% to the bill. Also, if you're a no nothing but what sounds better bureaucratic who are going to give a contract to Company A who says they solve your problem using heuristics or company B we will solve it using "artificial intelligence."

    3. Re:regular old intelligence by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I'm still confused as to why they call it "artificial intelligence" instead of heuristics.

      Because it is not the same thing at all. Heuristics means following a set of known rules. With a neural net you can just feed it the raw data, and it will learn to find the patterns on its own. That is pretty much the opposite of heuristics.

    4. Re:regular old intelligence by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The actual solution is "stop spewing so much shit into the air", but that's hard to do and very expensive. Temporarily shutting down a smokestack here or there where the problem is worst isn't going to do anything substantial. This is about feel-good solutions, so the Chinese politicians can claim they're doing something, and IBM can get a contract.

      I'm trying to figure out what good does it do someone to get a 72-hour forecast of how crappy the air will be? Can local residents stop breathing for a day or two until it clears up? Can they not go in to work and live in a filtered bubble at home? Uh... right. Instead, what will happen is the government will shut down nearby powerplants and limit gas-powered vehicle traffic, so those poor residents will have crappy air AND will be inconvenienced at the same time.

      Color me skeptical. I wish them well in cleaning things up, but it's going to take more than a smart computer to make that happen.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    5. Re:regular old intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They think they can shutdown power plants some days *before* the problem happens and so limit the size of the problem (i.e: not let it happen as strongly as it would otherwise)

      Of course this will reduce only the MAX(pollution), but will have very little impact on MEAN(pollution). But maybe some people may live through days of MEAN better than MAX... I don't know...

    6. Re:regular old intelligence by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Except when they use neural networks they usually call it just that, whereas when they use heuristics they call it AI.

    7. Re:regular old intelligence by piojo · · Score: 1

      There is a staggering number of network-type AI-like systems that are not neural networks. Consider genetic programming: a program is generated based on simple programming primitives like less_than(input, input), not(input), and(input, input) and it evolves itself, either through individual fitness feedback or by an evolutionary strategy.

      So it's not correct to say that because it's not a neural network, it must be heuristic-based.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    8. Re:regular old intelligence by piojo · · Score: 2

      Some people in China wear masks. The educated ones wear N95 filters, the uneducated ones wear surgical masks. A forecast like this can help you plan how you're going to protect yourself. And you probably want to cancel that Saturday hike if the air is going to be hazardous.

      How is this any different than a weather forecast?

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    9. Re:regular old intelligence by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      The actual solution is "stop spewing so much shit into the air", but that's hard to do and very expensive.

      The alternative is more expensive - shutting down factories / telling people they can't drive to work. Not really a long term solution or any kind of decent solution. All it does is negate some of the worst pollution on the worst days, it doesn't address the problem that many Chinese cities have - a constant huge pollution problem.

      Addressing the problem properly will create jobs and lower health costs.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    10. Re:regular old intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this any different than a weather forecast?

      The air pollution could be solved by stricter environmental regulations, rendering the 'forecast' needless, whereas the weather cannot be influenced that much?

  2. Not intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't "intelligence" its a rules based "if" tree, albeit a fast, massive tree, but its not intelligent, just brute force.

    1. Re:Not intelligence by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps human thought can be emulated (or replaced) the same way. We don't really know. There are many ways to skin the AI cat. And, we have Turing Equivalency.

    2. Re:Not intelligence by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      This isn't "intelligence" its a rules based "if" tree

      No it isn't. It is based on data, not rules. There are no a priori "rules" and no "if tree".

  3. The answer is Skynet by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    Once the machines eliminate all those pesky humans, they won't be polluting any longer. And the machines can burn all the dinosaur remains, and eventually human remains they want, as machines don't care about breathing.

    1. Re:The answer is Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer, as always, is genocide. Whether it be via Skynet, Nazis from the Moon, or the Obama Youth Corps, the answer throughout all of human history and all of human future, has been and shall always be, genocide.

      Never Again? How about Over and Over Again?

      Search your feelings... you know it to be true.

      Hugs,
      Darthie

  4. I can see it already by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Dave: "HAL, open the pod bay door."

    HAL: "Sorry, Dave, I cannot do that."

    Dave: "Why not, HAL?"

    HAL: "You stink, Dave."

    Dave: "HAL, please clarify."

    HAL: "You didn't take a bath, Dave. You will pollute the ship."

    1. Re:I can see it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever talked to a woman without giving your credit card number first?

    2. Re: I can see it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does my mother count?

    3. Re:I can see it already by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I've read about them. Does that count?

  5. Less AI and more air filters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that this is more about going around the problem than addressing it. Force factories to implement better pollution control mechanisms, increase the cost of goods a % and take care of the problem....

  6. Oh it's simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will just kill every human in China. No more Pollution. Problem solved.

    If you expect an AI to fix a problem caused by humans, you're looking at the wrong place. Especially when said problem can easily be fixed, by removing the main factor (humans).

  7. Decision. Simples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the capital is surrounded by many coal burning factories"
    and
    "decision support on emission reduction actions."

    I don't think they need a computer to figure this one out. Other countries still rely on coal for energy generation but have managed to markedly reduce air pollution. Do what they did.

  8. Or you could put some filters on your stacks by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    ... seriously... use coal if you want but for the love of god put some filters on those things.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  9. "because of a number of reasons"?? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    I know grammar is a foreign concept here, but couldn't the editors try to do a little of it now and then?

    I mean, the editors actually doing their job once a day probably wouldn't hurt...much.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:"because of a number of reasons"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's reasons. And there's a number of them.

      What was your point exactly?

  10. Making the World a Better Place by r-diddly · · Score: 1

    ...with deep learning algorithms. Now when they breathe the same shitty air, it will have been predicted with some degree of accuracy by a complex computer model! If you can't do anything to help, do what you know how to do, I guess.

  11. Fix? how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, prediction fixes air pollution how exactly? it's not like factories are going to shut down for any reason.

    1. Re:Fix? how? by znrt · · Score: 1

      So, prediction fixes air pollution how exactly? it's not like factories are going to shut down for any reason.

      not fix, fight. i guess the strategy is to sell useless expensive data analysis to china until they are broke and have to shut down the factories. voilà.

  12. I don't see how this helps by godrik · · Score: 1

    I don't get how this helps.
    They are saying they might be able to predict air pollution. That is very different from doing anything to fight against air pollution. I guess you need to understand it first before you can do anything about it.
    But I don't think the model will significantly help our understanding of air pollution to fix it. We know where the pollution comes from. we just need to cut the source.

    1. Re:I don't see how this helps by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      Two of the three biggest variable factors- traffic congestion, and industrial activity, can be significantly altered based on the response to the predictions. Ideally, they can predict bad days ahead of time, and instead impose travel restrictions & production restrictions, and give people enough advance notice to make it effective. With it being an authoritarian govt, they might be able to get away with that type of heavy handed approach.

    2. Re:I don't see how this helps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then more of it will happen on the days when there aren't restrictions in place. Causing pollution to be spread out better with favorable wind and weather patterns, but it still will occur.

  13. Not exploding your warehouses is a good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These idiots have yet another warehouse explosion... And to think the Space Nutters thought China will be on the Moon selling dim sum by 2020... They can't even correctly store chemicals.

  14. Forget that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Force the power plants to use their pollution control equipment. And make sure the coal fired power plant are always the last to be dispatched.

  15. AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes by all means lets research and spend YEARS developing an AI to solve this problem, when we could simply buy condoms and/or birth control pills and/or vasectomies for every sex-having male and female in the country and be done with it.

    Having children IS NOT A BIRTHRIGHT.

  16. Computer do not breathe by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Computer do not breathe, hence it is very kind from AI to help fixing this issue.

  17. Or ... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they could just give their environmental regulators the authority to enforce their existing environmental laws.

    In the film Under the Dome, Chinese journalist Chai Jing astonishes a Chinese audience with a film clip from California where Cal DoT stops a truck and actually checks that it has all the mandatory safety and emissions equipment. That never happens in China. China has tough emissions standards on paper, but the law is written so that the regulators don't have any enforcement powers. So Chinese manufacturers simply slap stickers on vehicles claiming they have all the mandatory emissions equipment without installing any of it. Technically this is a crime, but the law's written so there's literally nothing anyone can do about it.

    And if you don't think environmental regulations make a difference, this is what New York looked like in 1970. Note that that isn't a sepia tinted black and white photo, it's true color. Granted it shows an exceptionally bad day, but before the Clean Air Act got strengthened in the mid 70s bad smog was pretty common. If you look at pictures of American cities from the 70s you'd think that photo technology of the day put a blue or yellow haze on stuff in the distance (like this). It wasn't the film, cities actually looked that way a lot of the time.

    Predicting bad pollution days isn't "fighting" pollution, it's living with it. If you want to fight pollution you've got to stop people from polluting. You've got to catch them at it, fine them, and in some cases throw them in jail. Pollution like they have in China is nothing short of manslaughter on a national scale. 1.6 million people die every year from it.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Or ... by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      Predicting bad pollution days isn't "fighting" pollution, it's living with it. If you want to fight pollution you've got to stop people from polluting. You've got to catch them at it, fine them, and in some cases throw them in jail. Pollution like they have in China is nothing short of manslaughter on a national scale. 1.6 million people die every year from it.

      Excellent background, very well spoken.

      Here is the full length documentary, Chai Jing's review: Under the Dome --- Investigating China's Smog with English subtitles. To those who haven't DO carve out an hour and forty minutes to see it. An impeccably researched, awe-inspiring piece of journalism.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    2. Re:Or ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It solved the problem of making it unprofitable to have a manufacturing base within the US. So both jobs and pollution went east.

    3. Re:Or ... by hey! · · Score: 1

      It was never unprofitable to manufacture in the US. It was marginally more profitable to manufacture in China, because they have priced their air, water, soil indeed bodies at 0.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Or ... by Vasil16 · · Score: 0

      It was never unprofitable to manufacture in the US. It was marginally more profitable to manufacture in China, because they have priced their air, water, soil indeed bodies at 0.

      Only when viewed in isolation.

      Everything changes when your competitiion moves to the marginally more profitable manufacturing in China, and undercuts you.

    5. Re:Or ... by hey! · · Score: 1

      I'm not disputing that China has undercut us, but I'm saying that's in part because they're not a democracy and they don't care what their citizens think as long as they don't express those feelings or act upon them.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Or ... by Vasil16 · · Score: 0

      Wasn't disputing that.

      My post was about the business side of the situation

      Once one company gets the benefits of cheaper manufacturing, all of its rivals will be tempted, and soon forced to join them in order to stay competitive.

      So naturaly, when the oportunity arrised, they all took it, not wanting to wait and lose the head start.

  18. AI snake oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... marketing. The cat brain neurocomputer was a scam: http://news.discovery.com/tech... http://www.wired.com/2009/11/d... http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-... Henry Markram said "I thought that having gone through Blue Brain so carefully, journalists would be able to recognize that what IBM reported is a scam - no where near a cat-scale brain simulation, but somehow they are totally deceived by these incredible statements. I am absolutely shocked at this announcement. Not because it is any kind of technical feat, but because of the mass deception of the public."

    btw a few days ago China had some VIPs and wanted to great them with clear blue skies. So they shut down the factories for a couple of days. Sure enough, beautiful skies. They can stop it when they want to.

  19. Fighting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article does not describe how IBM's technology fights the air pollution (as claimed in the title). It only shows how it describes its spread, which I guess is rather useless. Pollution needs to be addressed at the source, by better technology, better laws and stricter controls. This AI prediction model will do nothing towards those strategies.

  20. And yet every prediction comes out the same: by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Leave Beijing if you want to breathe.

  21. GIGA Buck non solutions. by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Instead of a bunch of nonsense how about doing what actually must be done. Simply disallow any use of coal. Ideas such as cleaning up smoke stack effluents mean nothing at all. The reason is dead simple. The current social-economic set up means an ever increasing number of smoke stacks so cleaning up exhaust means next to nothing at all. Stop new construction on all industries that contribute to pollution and fore the ones allowed to stay in business to use only clean power sources. The chaos and poverty that will follow such a solution is a natural punishment for being so ignorant as to allow industry to get the way it is right now.

  22. What about actual intelligence? by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    Too bad it takes artificial intelligence to do something actual intelligence could fix.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  23. Kill all humans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kill all humans... kill all humans... must kill all the humans.