AI Wildfire Detection Bill Gets Initial Approval in Colorado (apnews.com) 15
A year after the most destructive wildfire in the state's history scorched nearly 1,100 homes, Colorado lawmakers are considering joining other Western states by adopting artificial intelligence in the hopes of detecting blazes before they burn out of control. From a report: A Colorado Senate committee on Thursday unanimously voted to move forward a bill to create a $2 million pilot program that would station cameras on mountaintops, and use artificial intelligence to monitor the footage and help detect early signs of a wildfire. The bill will move to the state Senate Appropriations Committee next.
"It can detect just a wisp of smoke and it's that type of situation in remote areas that could save forests and homes and properties and lives," Democratic state Sen. Joann Ginal, one of the bill's sponsors, said in the hearing. The deployment of AI is part of an ongoing effort by firefighters to use new technology to become smarter about how they prepare and better position their resources. Fire lookout towers once staffed by humans have largely been replaced by cameras in remote areas, many of them in high-definition and armed with artificial intelligence to discern a smoke plume from morning fog.
"It can detect just a wisp of smoke and it's that type of situation in remote areas that could save forests and homes and properties and lives," Democratic state Sen. Joann Ginal, one of the bill's sponsors, said in the hearing. The deployment of AI is part of an ongoing effort by firefighters to use new technology to become smarter about how they prepare and better position their resources. Fire lookout towers once staffed by humans have largely been replaced by cameras in remote areas, many of them in high-definition and armed with artificial intelligence to discern a smoke plume from morning fog.
AI? (Score:2)
Re:AI? (Score:4, Insightful)
Would that be as quick to spot as machine vision identifying smoke rising from the forest canopy? Keep in mind that it's probably that each device will have to cover a *large* area of land.
This is one of the scenarios where "AI as we know it" actually could be useful. Taking image data and labeling smoke and sending off alerts for 'if smoke detected' condition. For all the overhype and mis-application and misplaced expectations, this idea should actually be very highly workable.
Re: (Score:2)
What if you have a thing that can see a small hot spot and detect it as one that will turn into a large one?
If you train a neural network with satellite data, you probably can make it detect the fire before it turns into something obvious.
And even if it has some false positives, this is a case where catching all the real ones and some fakes would be much better (and cheaper) than having to deal with a bunch of fires that are already being a disaster.
Don't forget proper forest management. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to reply to a troll, but CA and other forested western states have been aware of this since the 70's. Still, people will build where people will build. I guess there should have been laws back then to tell people to quit building stuff in the forests.
Dedicated satellite (Score:2)
For the very high cost of damage caused by wildfires in the past several years, billions upon billions of dollars, I have thought that a dedicated satellite to Western states would make sense. Even just California. Heck, they've got the know-how: JPL, Berkely/Stanford/Cal Poly, freakin SpaceX. etc. Focus dedicated cameras to pick up hot spots and then scramble a civilian RQ4 drone to the site. If there is a fire, drone drops it's 3000'bs of water or retardant on the fire, second drone is scrambled, a
NOAA satellite GOES-18 (Score:2)
Yeah, if only some agency had a dedicated geosynchronous satellite designed to monitor wildfires, smoke, and lightning strikes.
NOAA GOES 18 satellite [youtu.be]
Pity they're solving the wrong problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't forest fires killing people and burning for days or weeks. The problem is that they keep putting out forest fires. This keeps the deadfalls and underbrush available for the next fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
While this problem has been generally recognized since the 70's, people still build where people will build. Reviewing last year's big fires, I remember miles and miles of fireline being monitored (so, underbrush being cleared), yet resources provided only when necessary to save a town or whatever.
I don't have time right now to check out the vid that you link to, but will do so, though I expect I will be reinforcing known lessons and not learning new ones, as did a couple of YT commenters.
Jared Haas
4 years ago
I'm glad this is being talked about but surprised it's being talked about as a new idea. I've been hearing this for decades now.
Julia Weber
1 year ago
I agree
Post date was in 2
Re: (Score:2)
The fire that prompted this bill, the most destructive in Colorado history, was not a forest fire at all but a grass fire. So underbrush is not the only problem (but certainly it is one and we obviously need to start raking the forest more).
Make a law for using AI to spot wildfires... (Score:3)
How did forest fires ever stop before humans? (Score:2)
Without humans to build firebreaks, the world must have been constantly ablaze. No tree was safe. /s
Honestly, use AI to detect forest fires if you want, but I personally think we're better off letting most wildfires run their course. Trying to preempt the natural burn cycle is just going to allow a glut of fuel to manifest over time, making the next fire much much worse.
Just use it to alert the morons (er, forest area homeowners) that they should pack their shit and leave, because the fire that takes their
Misread (Score:3)
First parsed as "Al Wildfire Detection Bill Gates ", and was wondering why Microsoft's founder changed his name.