Most active commenters
  • jillyboel(5)

←back to thread

Niantic plans a “Large Geospatial Model” trained on Pokémon Go player data

(nianticlabs.com)
430 points bookstore-romeo | 12 comments | 19 Nov 24 20:02 UTC | HN request time: 1.685s | source | bottom
Show context
relyks ◴[20 Nov 24 22:26 UTC] No.42198768[source]▶
This is pretty cool, but I feel as a pokehunter (Pokemon Go player), I have been tricked into working to contribute training data so that they can profit off my labor. How? They consistently incentivize you to scan pokestops (physical locations) through "research tasks" and give you some useful items as rewards. The effort is usually much more significant than what you get in return, so I have stopped doing it. It's not very convenient to take a video around the object or location in question. If they release the model and weights, though, I will feel I contributed to the greater good.
replies(29): >>42198776 #>>42198820 #>>42198904 #>>42199196 #>>42199360 #>>42199714 #>>42199738 #>>42199845 #>>42199898 #>>42200034 #>>42200093 #>>42200216 #>>42200311 #>>42200440 #>>42200507 #>>42200518 #>>42200537 #>>42200846 #>>42200895 #>>42201047 #>>42201144 #>>42201168 #>>42201185 #>>42201467 #>>42201486 #>>42201579 #>>42201792 #>>42202093 #>>42202186 #
fragmede ◴[20 Nov 24 22:31 UTC] No.42198820[source]▶
You've also been tricked into making your comment, which will undoubtedly be fed into an LLM's training corpus, and someone will be profiting off that, along with my comment as well. What a future we live in!
replies(5): >>42198830 #>>42198850 #>>42198879 #>>42200660 #>>42201608 #
jillyboel[dead post] ◴[20 Nov 24 22:39 UTC] No.42198879[source]▶
[flagged]
chottocharaii ◴[20 Nov 24 22:44 UTC] No.42198915[source]▶
I don't understand this perspective. Why should I resent the creation of value from behaviours that I would be doing anyway.
replies(3): >>42198958 #>>42198979 #>>42199378 #
1. jillyboel ◴[20 Nov 24 22:50 UTC] No.42198958[source]▶
Because the goal is to replace you with a machine and to widen the poverty gap. Also because I do not consent to it.

Are you also fine with taking pictures of pretty women on the street (hey, they'd be walking there anyway) and posting them online and farming ad revenue? Or training a model on their likeness for porn?

replies(4): >>42199103 #>>42199258 #>>42199479 #>>42199670 #
2. nh23423fefe ◴[20 Nov 24 23:09 UTC] No.42199103[source]▶
I don't like bad arguments like this.
replies(3): >>42199171 #>>42199389 #>>42204515 #
3. spencerflem ◴[20 Nov 24 23:20 UTC] No.42199171[source]▶
tbh I don't think its a bad argument. There's plenty of things I'd do to be nice to a fellow person that I would Not do for the benefit of a large company.

What they're doing is (IMO) evil and anti-human and I do not want to be part of it

4. whamlastxmas ◴[20 Nov 24 23:30 UTC] No.42199258[source]▶
Women on the street didn’t agree to a terms of service and didn’t choose to put content online.

The better metaphor is a woman posting her photos online and then those photos were used by a painter who then sold an abstract painting of her.

replies(1): >>42203789 #
5. UltraSane ◴[20 Nov 24 23:45 UTC] No.42199389[source]▶
It is exactly the conclusion that capitalism and maximizing shareholder value leads to.
6. fragmede ◴[20 Nov 24 23:57 UTC] No.42199479[source]▶
https://www.earthcam.com/cams/newyork/timessquare/?cam=tsrob...

is a webcam of Times Square, and they've got ads on the page, and they're making money off pictures of pretty men and women on that street. I don't know how okay or not I am with it, but it's the world we live in.

7. alwa ◴[21 Nov 24 00:21 UTC] No.42199670[source]▶
Didn’t beloved New York Times photographer Bill Cunningham make a storied career out of doing exactly that?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/01/style/bill-cunningham-boo...

replies(1): >>42204835 #
8. jillyboel ◴[21 Nov 24 12:43 UTC] No.42203789[source]▶
As if these ai bros give a fuck? No terms of services mentioned AI but they scraped everything and built their fortunes from it.

Also are you sure that the TOS of the major websites specify "we allow anyone that runs a scraper to use your data however they wish"

Because I can guarantee you they don't. And yet, that's what the AI bros have done / are still doing.

Sure, these despicable companies realize they hold value and are now also selling our data, but that's only one side of this disgusting coin.

replies(1): >>42213450 #
9. jillyboel ◴[21 Nov 24 14:16 UTC] No.42204515[source]▶
I don't like bad comments like this.
10. jillyboel ◴[21 Nov 24 14:52 UTC] No.42204835[source]▶
All I'm seeing is a paywall. Of course I'm not going to pay for access to some american news paper, since I'm not an american.

Anyway if he didn't ask them for permission then that is very gross, yes.

11. whamlastxmas ◴[22 Nov 24 12:57 UTC] No.42213450{3}[source]▶
Every major website including Reddit and Imgur have TOS language saying they can do basically anything they want with content you add to their platforms, including AI training
replies(1): >>42213942 #
12. jillyboel ◴[22 Nov 24 14:09 UTC] No.42213942{4}[source]▶
Sure, what does that have to do with third parties scraping shit and training their models on it? Which is exactly how these ai bros started their empire? These terms of services were updated after the genie was out of the bottle. Claiming otherwise is revisionist.