Niantic plans a “Large Geospatial Model” trained on Pokémon Go player data
nianticlabs.com
nianticlabs.com
This is a vision document, presumably intended to position Niantic as an AI company (and thus worthy of being showered with funding), instead of a mobile gaming company, mainly on the merit of the data they've collected rather than their prowess at training large models.
I didn't realize this. I used to submit so many "portals" to ingress T_T
Neural mapping. Taking 5 minutes to build a scene in space.
Relocalization estimating camera pose from a single image.
https://nianticlabs.com/news/largegeospatialmodel?hl=en
It looks pretty cool. I imagine it could be a game changer in wearable devices that want to use position like AR.
Intelligence gathering is also another one. Being able to tell where someone is based on a Picture is a huge one. Not just limited to outdoors but presumably indoors as well. Crazy stuff
What is different is that they are proposing to make a large ML model to do all of the matching, rather than having a database and some matching algorithm.
Will it work? probably, will it scale? I'm not that hopeful, but then I was wrong about LLMs.
Over the past five years, Niantic has focused on building our Visual Positioning System (VPS), which uses a single image from a phone to determine its position and orientation using a 3D map built from people scanning interesting locations in our games and Scaniverse.
Just for clarity on this comment and a separate one, Niantic is a Google spin out company and appears to still be majority shareholder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niantic,_Inc.#As_an_independen...
which is totally unfair, every niantic player should have access to all the stuff because they collectively made it
All of which I've directly contributed to and never (directly) recieved anything in return
To be fair, you received a service for free that you may have otherwise had to pay for. I'm not saying it's just, but to say you didn't get anything in return is disingenuous.
Not saying you are saying this but it amused me how many people believe(d) that Apple wasn’t mining and hoarding location data either because well, they’re Apple and they love you. All those traffic statuses in Apple Maps on minor side streets with no monitoring came from the … traffic fairy, perhaps.
I don't understand this perspective. While all players may have collectively made this model possible, no individual player could make a model like it based on their contributions alone.
Since no single player could replicate this outcome based on only their data, does it not imply that there's value created from collecting (and incentivizing collection of) the data, and subsequently processing it to create something?
It actually seems more unfair to demand the collective result for yourself, when your own individual input is itself insufficient to have created it in the first place.
I don't think producers of data are inherently entitled to all products produced from said data.
Is a farmer entitled to the entirety of your work output because you ate a vegetable grown on their farm?
Bad analogy. I pay a farmer (directly or indirectly) for the vegetable. It’s a simple, understood, transaction. These players were generally unaware that they were gathering data for Niantic in this way.
If data is crowdsourced it should belong to the crowd.
The farmers you buy the vegetables from are also generally unaware of how you use them, too!
I fail to see how you're differentiating the analogy from the original example.
Additionally, many people can contribute to make something greater that benefits everyone (see open source). So the argument of “you couldn’t have done this on your own” also doesn’t hold any water.
The only thing that protects niantic is just a shitty ToS like the rest of the games that nobody pays attention to. There is nothing fundamentally “right” about what they did.
Sure, copying it is approximately free. But using it provides value, and sharing the model dilutes the value of its usage. The fact that it's free to copy doesn't mean it's free to share. The value of the copy that Niantic uses will be diluted by every copy they make and share with someone else.
> Additionally, many people can contribute to make something greater that benefits everyone (see open source). So the argument of “you couldn’t have done this on your own” also doesn’t hold any water.
Your second sentence does not logically follow from the first. In fact, your first sentence is an excellent example of the point I was making: many people contribute to open-source projects, and the value of the vast majority of those contributions on their own do not amount to the sum total value of the projects they've contributed to. This is what I meant by "your own individual input is itself insufficient to have created it in the first place". Sure, many people contribute to open source projects to make them what they are, but in the vast majority of cases, any individual contributor on their own would be unable to create those same projects.
To rephrase your first sentence: the value of the whole is greater than the value of the parts. There is value in putting all the pieces together in the right way, and that value should rightfully be allocated to those who did the synthesis, not to those who contributed the parts.
Is a canvas-maker entitled to every painting produced on one of their canvasses? Without the canvas the painting would not exist--but merely producing the canvas does not make it into a painting. The value is added by the artist, not the canvas-maker--therefore the value for the produced art should mostly go to the artist, not the canvas-maker. The canvas maker is compensated for the value of the canvas itself (which isn't much), and is entitled to nothing beyond.
> The only thing that protects niantic is just a shitty ToS like the rest of the games that nobody pays attention to. There is nothing fundamentally “right” about what they did.
There's also nothing fundamentally wrong about it, either, which was my point. Well, my point was actually that it's even more shitty to demand the sum total of the output when you only contributed a tiny slice of the input.
You using that as some kind of support for Niantic’s actions doesn’t make any sense.
> There's also nothing fundamentally wrong about it, either, which was my point.
What you’re ignoring is the reality of people getting angry when they contribute something under a premise and then it gets used for something else. When I contribute to a charity that is supposed to build water supply systems and they decide to build pipe bombs instead, I’m gonna be pretty pissed off.
> Well, my point was actually that it's even more shitty to demand the sum total of the output when you only contributed a tiny slice of the input.
The collective that produced literally all of the input can ask for the model and then easily copy it to each member. If a single person produced all of the input and then requested this, how much does your argument change? Because these scenarios are equivalent when the product isn’t rivalrous.
More generally, you’re still not grokking non-rivalrous goods. A good isn’t non-rivalrous just because artificially constraining it and selling access to it can make it profitable. This confusion has led you multiple times to comparing this model to physical goods.
I really don't think I'm getting confused here. This is what you said: "Additionally, many people can contribute to make something greater that benefits everyone (see open source)". That sounds to me like "many people contribute to make a thing whose value is greater than the value of the inputs" aka "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".
Regardless, your second sentence was still unsupported by that, because I can point to literally any open-source project and prove that no one contributor to that project could have created the project that exists today. Sure, there are projects where 80-90% of the project is written by one person, and even the rare case where an entire project is written by a single individual, but those are rare cases, and not the norm. The statement that "no one individual could recreate these projects on their own" is still accurate far more often than it's not. Finding a single counter-example doesn't prove the point, because your counterexample is the vast minority case.
We know for a fact in the case of Niantic's data gathering that no one individual could have made this model. There are many reasons, but the easiest to illustrate is the number of man-hours required to collect the input data.
> What you’re ignoring is the reality of people getting angry when they contribute something under a premise and then it gets used for something else. When I contribute to a charity that is supposed to build water supply systems and they decide to build pipe bombs instead, I’m gonna be pretty pissed off.
I'm not ignoring that reality, I'm just saying those people aren't justified in their anger. They can be angry all they want, but anger does not justify feeling entitled to something to which you really aren't. In the case of Niantic's data collection, they opted into this and agreed to collect the data on behalf of Niantic, without even asking what the data was to be used for. When it turns out that it's in purpose of something to make Niantic money (you know, to make up for the fact that you're playing their game for free), they really have no standing. To be clear, they're free to be angry and free to feel "cheated" in some way, but a) they haven't been cheated, and b) their ignorance is their fault and no one else's.
> The collective that produced literally all of the input can ask for the model and then easily copy it to each member. If a single person produced all of the input and then requested this, how much does your argument change? Because these scenarios are equivalent when the product isn’t rivalrous.
If a single person produced all the input and then requested it, I'd probably say they deserve a copy. However, no single individual can have produced all the input here, so the point is moot. There also is no "collective that produced literally all of the input", so that point is moot, as well. You would never be able to get every person's explicit consent to demand a copy of the model on behalf of "everyone", if not for the simple fact that the vast majority of those people simply don't give a shit. They'd never use the model or do anything constructive with it, so why bother with having a copy?
Neither of these examples are realistic, and so my argument doesn't change. I try to keep my arguments grounded in reality, not in hypotheticals.
And again, giving a copy to each member isn't free, even though copying it might be. I'll just quote myself again:
> Sure, copying it is approximately free. But using it provides value, and sharing the model dilutes the value of its usage. The fact that it's free to copy doesn't mean it's free to share. The value of the copy that Niantic uses will be diluted by every copy they make and share with someone else. [...] There is value in putting all the pieces together in the right way, and that value should rightfully be allocated to those who did the synthesis, not to those who contributed the parts.
-
> More generally, you’re still not grokking non-rivalrous goods. A good isn’t non-rivalrous just because artificially constraining it and selling access to it can make it profitable. This confusion has led you multiple times to comparing this model to physical goods.
No, I grok non-rivalrous goods pretty well. I just think they're largely imaginary and only apply to a very small slice of non-physical goods. Niantic is building this model to make money from it. This means they believe the model will provide value to other users, who will pay them for the use of that model. Anyone else who obtains a copy of this model could use it in the same way, and obtain some of that market share for themselves. This means providing services built on this model is inherently rivalrous, which removes the entire basis of your argument. Even if this leads to lower prices for the end users (the ideal case), there is still direct competition (i.e. rivalry!) between all owners of the model.
This is more like paying the farmhands.
If we're looking at my work output, eh, everyone that works on a copyrighted thing gets a personal license to it? That sounds like it would work out okay.
> I don't think producers of data are inherently entitled to all products produced from said data.
It depends on how directly the data is tied to the output. This seems pretty direct.
This is also wildly antisocial behavior, and if everyone behaved like this, the world would be a really shit place. I know many people have a genuine "fuck you, I got mine" attitude, but if everyone had it, the world would be infinitely worse off.
If you don't like the terms of the game, don't play it? Why does dislike of the terms merit what essentially amounts to cheating (under the spirit of the rules, if not the letter)? This attitude makes even less sense than the one I was originally critiquing
(And I don't even mean only that it complies with the exact wording of the fine print that nobody reads anyway, but also that everyone expects the terms-and-conditions to say that the company owns all the data. So no surprises to anyone.)
The connection is a ship, built in Connecticut, which brought gold rushers to San Francisco and was run aground and converted to a hotel there: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niantic_(whaling_vessel)
The company was named after the ship.
But I think your point, if I understand it correctly, is that the in-game rewards kind of "hacked your brain" to do it, which is the part you're objecting to?
Like when captchas were for making old books readable it felt a lot more friendly than now where its all driverless car nonsense
Nitpicking aside, I agree with you.
Magic schoolbus!
Yea, take that llm model maker
Note to future digital me, do as I did 2007-2014. I approve.
I don't think I've done any in PoGo (so I know it's very optional), but I've done plenty in Ingress, and I honestly don't see how it's possible to be surprised that it was contributing to something like this? It is hardly an intuitively native standalone gameplay mechanic in either game.
I recall having a conversation circa 2004/5 with a colleague that Google was an AI company, not a search company.
The goalposts of what counts as AI are constantly moving further and further away. Simple algorithms like A* once counted as part of AI.
That was fairly obvious at the time. And people used more or less exactly the same language to describe the world back then, too.
> These kinds of comments are extraordinarily disingenuous sounding, particularly when anyone can spend 3 seconds and figure out their primary market is literal children.
Poke Mongo was popular with people of all age groups, and (most) children have parents or other guardians to help them with these decisions.
Were you tricked, or were you just poorly compensated for your time?
https://research.nianticlabs.com/mapfree-reloc-benchmark
This was linked the news post (search for "data that we released").
"You used me... for LAND DEVELOPMENT! ...That wasn't very nice."
You were playing a game without paying for it. How did you imagine they were making money without pimping your data?
Unsarcastically, a lot of people believe user data belongs to users, and that they should have a say in how it's used. Here, I think the point is that Niantic decided they could use the data this way and weren't transparent about it until it was already done. I'm sure I would be in the minority, but I would never have played - or never have done certain things like the research tasks - had I known I was training an AI model.
I'm sure the Po:Go EULA that no one reads has blanket grants saying "you agree that we can do whatever we want," so I can't complain too hard, but still disappointed I spent any time in that game.
I can understand that people believe this, but why do they do? Nothing in our society operates in a way that might imply this.
Off the top of my head I think GDPR in the EU might have something to say about this. I don't know if those protections exist anywhere else or not.
In the US, people get very upset about things like traffic cameras, and public surveillance in general. Those are usually data-for-punishment vs. data-for-profit (...maybe?), but people here resist things like data recorders in their cars to lower car insurance.
At least to me, being unhappy about Niantic's behavior here does not seem the least bit unusual.
People get upset about a lot of things in the US. In fact—for some unknown reason we consider it a form of political activity to get upset over things. However, there is not any political party trying to court voters by advocating for dismantling the intelligence state.
If they just keep the positional data and location information like the video gathered without linking them to a player, it’s perfectly fine.
<insert obnoxious EU-akshually>
I beg your pardon?
Consider just about any physical belonging — say, a book. When I buy a book, it belongs to me. When I read a book in my home, I expect it to be a private experience (nobody data-mining my eyeball movements, for example).
This applies to all sorts of things. Even electronic things — if I put some files on a USB stick I expect them to be "mine" and used as I please, not uploaded to the cloud behind my back, or similar.
And if we're just limiting ourselves to what we do in public (eg: collecting pokemon or whatever), it's still normal, I think, to interact relatively anonymously with the world. You don't expect people to remember you after meeting them once, for example.
In summary, I'd say that "things in our society" very much include people (and their tendency to forget or not care about you), and physical non-smart objects. Smart phones and devices that do track your every move and do remember everything are the exception, not the rule.
Perhaps this is just my own brain's degradation, but how far removed from society do you need to be to expect your purchases to not be sold to the highest bidder? This practice is certainly older than I am.
Forgive me if I cannot conceive of a consumer who has completely tuned out the last forty years of discourse about consumer protection. Hell, the credit bureaus themselves contradict the concept of consumer privacy.
It depends quite a bit on how you make your purchases.
If your purchases are on a credit card, with a loyalty ("tracking") card or App(TM) involved in the purchase? They're absolutely being sold to... well, probably not the highest bidder, but "all bidders with a valid payment account on file."
If you make a habit of paying cash for things and not using Apps or loyalty cards, and don't have your pocket beacon blaring loudly away on a range of radio frequencies when you shop, I expect a lot less data sales. It's a bit of a transition if you're used to credit cards, but once you're used to it, it's not bad at all, and involves a lot less data collection. I don't mind if the local barista or bartender knows me and my preferences, but I do mind if their POS system is uploading that data continuously.
I was just providing some counter-examples to show that there's more than nothing at play, here.
Certainly there are oodles of examples of our data being sold behind our backs, even well before 40 years ago. But there are also oodles of examples of the opposite.
Every app you open on Mac sends a "ping" to Apples servers.
https://acecilia.medium.com/apple-is-sending-a-request-to-th....
I just do not believe that. It sounds like a bug in a beta release. I'm sure I would have noticed if every ls I run took 6 seconds, and I'm sure many others would have too. Heck, I've used a Mac with the network turned off and it sure doesn't just refuse to run everything.
https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/406246/all-applica... or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959
But that's all kinda besides the point. Companies invading users privacy is pretty common, you just need to look
Credit cards and Banks sold your data to third parties for marketing purposes.
Payroll companies like ADP also shared your data with the credit agencies.
This is not a new phenomenon and has been the currency of a number of industries for a while.
The only thing that has changed is the types of data collected. Personally, I think these older forms of data collection are quite a bit more insidious than some of the data mining done by a game like Niantic for some ml model.
I have a lot more control over and less insidious consequences from these types of data collection. I can avoid the game or service if I like. There isn't much I can do to prevent a credit agency from collecting my data.
Despite what success fantasies and other self-help garbage teach people, a lot of society — most of it, actually — does not work on greed. That you can ignore thinking about it is itself a statement about deep foundations under the shallow bling.
Sure, but that disconnect between what people think and how things work is almost fully general over all subjects.
I've seen people (behave as if they) think translation is just the words, but that leads to "hydraulic ram" becoming "water sheep". People who want antibiotics for viral infections, or who refuse vaccines (covid and other) claiming they're "untested" or have "side effects" while promoting alternatives that both failed testing and have known side effects. I've seen people speak as if government taxation only exists because the guy in charge of taxes is, personally, greedy. I've heard anecdotes of people saying that you can get people to follow the rules by saying "first rule is to always follow the rules" and directly seen people talk as if banning something is sufficient to make it stop.
The idea that it's even possible to do make a model like this from the user data, is probably mind-blowing to a lot of people.
The naïve assumption most people seem to have is that computers do only what they, personally as end-users, tell them to do, and that they're as slow as the ad-riddled web front-end with needlessly slow transition animations placed there to keep user engagement high — rather than the truth, that software primarily does what the operator of the service wants it to do, and that it's absolutely possible for a home PC[0] to hold and query a database of all 8 billion people on the planet and the two trillion or so different personal relationships between them.
When GenAI images were new, some of the artists communities said "That content generated can reference hundreds, even thousands of pieces of work from other artists to create derivative images"[1], rather than millions of images, because the scale of computer performance is far beyond the comprehension of the average person. The fact that the average single image contributes so little to any given model that it can't even represent its own filename, even moreso.
And so it is with stuff like this: what can be done, cannot be comprehended by the people who, theoretically, gave consent that their data be used in that way.
[0] Of course, these days most people don't have home PCs; phone, perhaps a tablet, they may have a small low performance media server if they're fancy, but what we here would think of as a PC is to all that as a Ferrari etc. is to a Honda Civic.
> Unsarcastically, a lot of people believe user data belongs to users, and that they should have a say in how it's used.
At some point this stops being a fair complaint, though. Most of the AI-related cases IMO are such.
To put it bluntly: expecting to be compensated for anything that can be framed as one's labor is such an extreme level of greed that even Scrooge McDuck would be ashamed of. In fact, trying to capture all value one generates, is at the root of most if not all underhanded or downright immoral business practices in companies both large and small.
The way society works best, is when people stop trying to catch all the value they generate. That surplus is what others can use to contribute to the whole, and then you can use some of their uncaptured value, and so on. That's how symbiotic relationships form; that's how ecosystems work.
> I'm sure I would be in the minority, but I would never have played - or never have done certain things like the research tasks - had I known I was training an AI model.
I have a feeling you wouldn't be in minority here, at least not among people with any kind of view on this.
Still, with AI stuff, anyone's fair share is $0, because that's how much anyone's data is worth on the margin.
It's also deeply ironic that nobody cares when people's data is being used to screw them over directly - such as profiling or targeting ads; but the moment someone figures out how to monetize this data in a way that doesn't screw over the source, suddenly everyone is up in arms, because they aren't getting their "fair share".
I don't understand what this has to do with the topic at hand. Are you suggesting that people can't conceive of the sale of their data because they can conceive of whales amortizing the cost of their video games? That seems contradictory in your estimation of people's ability to grasp the world.
"How did you imagine they were making money without pimping your data?"
I imagined they were making money in the big obvious way they make money!
I can conceive of them selling user data, but it's not their core business model, and they would operate basically the same if they couldn't sell user data. It was never some obvious thing that they would do this.
Try reading the comment I was replying to
That is how monetization for free to play games have worked for a very long time now. Changing that without letting people know up front is absolutely a betrayal of trust.
I CALL BS. We paid ALL THE TIME! We pay even item's capacity so much they need to increase the limit recently[1].
Ref:
[1] https://www.facebook.com/PokemonGO/posts/1102918761192160
(I'm not saying that they shouldn't use the game data for training.)
If you enjoy the game, play the game. Don’t boycott/withhold because they figured out an additional use for data that didn’t previously exist.
Another way of viewing this: GoogleMaps is incredibly high quality mapping software with lots of extra features. It is mostly free (for the end user). If no one uses it, Google doesn’t collect the data and nobody can benefit from the analysis of the data (eg. Traffic and ETA on Google Maps)
There’s no reason to hold out for a company to pay you for your geolocation data because none of them offer that service.
I'm fairly sure, if you read the terms-and-conditions, it probably said that the company owns this data and can do what they want with it.
> There’s no reason to hold out for a company to pay you for your geolocation data because none of them offer that service.
Well, it can make perfect sense (to some people) to hold out forever in that case.
I would argue that's being legally truthful, but not practically truthful. The company knows there are ways they can ensure their consumers are aware of the truth. And they know that burying it in Ts and Cs isn't one of them.
Everybody knows, even without actually bothering to read the terms-and-conditions, that they will say that the company owns all the data. Letter and spirit agree.
In some sense reading the the T&Cs might actually be detrimental to your understanding: you might misinterpret the carefully lawyered language to conclude that there are certain limits to what the company can do with your data. But they are probably way better than you at interpreting legal terms they crafted themselves.
I wish it were that simple but I think it's reasonable to hesitate. We don't know what these models are going to be used for. If by playing you're unwittingly letting something powerful fall into the wrong hands, maybe play something else.
(Generally speaking. I'm not trying to throw stones at Niantic specifically here.)
Niantic was always open with the fact that they gather location data, particularly in places cars can't go - I remember an early blog post saying as much before they were unbundled from Google. No one was tricked, they were just not paying attention.
They were pretty up-front about it bring a technology demo for a game engine they were building. It was obvious from the start that they would build future games on the same platform.
Facebook has been around something like a decade, now? I forget the exact number, but it's been long enough that everyone should have learned their lesson at this point; if you are creating data, be it personal, geospatial or otherwise, by using a product expect that data to be used as a commodity by the makes of said product.
I can't tell you why other people wouldn't think of this concern
It's perhaps more like: some folks an Niantic wanted to make a Pokemon game, and this way they could make it financially viable?
you werent tricked - your location data doesn't belong to you when you use the game.
I don't get why people somehow feel that they are entitled to the post-facto profit/value derived from the data that at the time they're willingly giving away before they "knew of" the potential value.
(I realize you can pay, but are not required to)
Everything “free” coming from a company means they’ve found a way to monetise you in some way. The big long ToS we all casually accept without reading says so too.
Other random examples which appear free but aren’t: using a search engine, using the browser that comes with your phone, instagram, YouTube… etc.
It’s not always about data collection, sometimes it’s platform lock-in, or something else but there is always a side of it that makes sense for their profit margin.
Being somehow surprised they actually plan to do things with the data they have you gather is a bit weird.
That people suddenly wake up to the fact that they were dumb for providing labour for worthless virtual gifts doesn't magically allow them to claim it was abuse post-fact.
You can play these shenanigans with businesses, but I for one am happy such behaviour is illegal here when selling to consumers.
Anyway I’m all for outlawing the inclusion of predatory clauses in EULA but this is not one of this case.
People just want to have their cake and eat it to.
There are plenty of non-scan tasks you can do to get those rewards as well but I do think Poffins (largely useless unless you are grinding Best Buddies) are locked behind scan tasks.
Source: Me. This is the one topic I am very qualified to speak to on this website.
If you weren't aware until now and were having fun is this outcome so bad? Did you have a work contract with this company to provide labor for wages and they didn't pay you? if not, then I don't think you can be upset that they are possibly profiting from your "labor".
Every time we visit a site that is free, which means 99.9% of all websites, that website bore a cost for our visit. Sometimes they show us ads which sometimes offsets the cost of creating the content and hosting it.
I am personally very glad with this arrangement. If a site is too ad filled, I just leave immediately.
With a game that is free and fun, I would be happy that I didn't have to pay anything and that the creator figured out a way for both parties to get something out of the deal. Isn't that a win-win situation?
Also, calling your experience "labor" when you were presumably having fun (if you weren't then why were you playing without expectation for payment in return?) is disingenuous.
At some point we need to be realistic about the world in which we live. Companies provide things for free or for money. If they provide something for "free", then we can't really expect to be compensated for our "labor" playing the game and that yes, the company is probably trying to figure out how to recoup their investment.
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
My personal layman's opinion:
I'm mostly surprised that they were able to do this. When I played Pokémon GO a few years back, the AR was so slow that I rarely used it. Apparently it's so popular and common, it can be used to train an LGM?
I also feel like this is a win-win-win situation here, economically. Players get a free(mium) game, Niantic gets a profit, the rest of the world gets a cool new technology that is able to turn "AR glasses location markers" into reality. That's awesome.
The rest of the world gets an opportunity to purchase access to said new technology, you mean! It's not like they're releasing how they generated the models. It's much more difficult to get excited about paid-access to technology than it is about access to tech itself.
Though as a copyright reformist, I do believe that such models should be released as public domain after 14 years. Though the cloud thing does make these sort of obligations harder to enforce...
I'm not arguing to a legal basis but if it's crowdsourced, then the inputs came from ordinary people. Sure, they signed to T&Cs.
Philosophically, I think knowledge, facts of the world as it is, even the constructed world, should be public knowledge not an asset class in itself.
I would think there's actually a lot of epidemiology data which also should be winding up in the public domain getting locked up in medical IPR. I could make the same case. Cochrane reports rely on being able to do meta analysis over existing datasets. Thats value.
It would be nice of them though.
People are duped into thinking they’re doing some “greater good” by completing the in-app surveys and yet the data they give back is for Google’s exclusive use and, in fact, deepens their moat.
Given how expensive it is to query Google places, would love a crowdsourced open-source places API.
3D artist can create a model of a space and offer rights to the owner of the land, who in turn can choose to create his own model or use the one provided by an artist.
- We need to be the first to have a better, new generation 3D model of the world to build the future of maps on it. How can we get that data?"
+ What about gamifying it and crowd-sourcing it to the masses?
- Sure! Let's buy some Pokemon rights!
It's scary but some people do really have some long-term vision
Edit: I said inverness and meant ingress. Apologies.
Ingress and PGO share the same portals and stuffs and its what PGO got its data from.
I do think it wasn't until after Pokemon Go launched and they saw the success of it, that they shifted focus to be more of a platform for these types of experiences (see Niantic Lightship). Additionally, I think Unity offered them the opportunity to integrate with ARCore and collect much more detailed data than they would've ever been able to do on the old Ingress engine. In fact, I expect a significant chunk of ARCore functionality was added specifically thanks to Niantic and Unity (in fact, you see Unity mentioned all over the Google Developer docs for it).
I imagine the logs aren’t tied to the engine, which I suppose is the point I should have made without researching which engine the games used as opposed to which company made both games.
Its far cheaper to pay people on bikes to go round places, than it is to do what niantic did. Mind you, they make money hand over fist, so the mapping is a side quest for them.
Apart from they need it to make AR work properly.
[1] https://www.networkworld.com/article/953621/the-cia-nsa-and-...
[2] https://kotaku.com/the-creators-of-pokemon-go-mapped-the-wor...
Until pretty recently, phone telemetry data was a free-for-all, and if you’re, say, in legal trouble, a map of the location of your phone over the past… however long you’ve had your phone is immediately available.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/pokemon-go-trespassers-militar...
Colors, amount of daylight(/nightlight), weather/precipitation/heat haze, flowers and foliage, traffic patterns, how people are dressed, other human features (e.g. signage and/or decorations for Easter/Halloween/Christmas/other events/etc.)
(as the press release says: "In order to solve positioning well, the LGM has to encode rich geometrical, appearance and cultural information into scene-level features"... but then it adds "And, as noted, beyond gaming LGMs will have widespread applications, including spatial planning and design, logistics, audience engagement, and remote collaboration.") So would they predict from a trajectory (multiple photos + inferred timeline) whether you kept playing/ stopped/ went to buy refreshments?
As written it doesn't say the LGM will explicitly encode any player-specific information, but I guess it could be deanonymized (esp. infer who visited sparsely-visited locations).
(Yes obviously Niantic and data brokers already have much more detailed location/time/other data on individual user behavior, that's a given.)
I mean, in theory it could. But in practice it'll just output lat, lon and a quaternion. Its going to be hard enough to get the model to behave well enough to localize reliably, let alone do all the other things.
The dataset, yes, that'll contain all those things. but the model won't.
There are a lots of "coulds" "ifs" and "shoulds". But how do you tokenise all those extra bits? For it to function as a decent location system, it has to be "invariant" to weather/light conditions. Otherwise you'll just fall back to GPS.
At it's heart, its a photo -> camera pose (location) converter. The bigger issue is how do you stop it hallucinating the wrong location when it has high uncertainty. That's before you get into scaling issues so that a model can cope with bigger than room scale pointclouds.
the first "public" VPS was released a while ago, yet six years later we still don't see widespread adoption of visual based location, even though its much much more accurate in an urban environment.
https://www.youtube.com/live/0ZKl70Ka5sg?feature=shared&t=12...
That is true for some people, but I'm fairly sure that the majority of people would not agree that it comes naturally to them.
I describe it here during 500 Startups demo day: https://youtu.be/3oYHxdL93zE?si=cvLob-NHNEIJqYrI&t=6411
I further described it on the Planet of the Apps episode 1
Here's my patent from 2018: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10977818B2/en
So. I'm not really sure what to do here given that this was exactly and specifically what we were building and frankly had a lot of success in actually building.
Quite frustrating
> Today we have 10 million scanned locations around the world, and over 1 million of those are activated and available for use with our VPS service.
This 1 in 10 figure is about accurate, both from experience as a player and from perusing the mentioned Visual Positioning System service. Most POI never get enough scan data to 'activate'. The data from POI that are able to activate can be accessed with a free account on Niantic Lightship [1], and has been available for a while.
I'll be curious to see how Niantic plans to fill in the gaps, and gather scan data for the 9 out of 10 POI that aren't designated for scan rewards.
I expect that was also some reason behind their flickr bid back then.
https://medium.com/@dddexperiments/why-i-preserved-photosynt...
https://phototour.cs.washington.edu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynth
at least any patents regarding this will also expire about 2026.
P.S.: Also, if that's indeed what they mean, I wonder why having google street view data isn't enough for that.
This, yes, based on how the backsides of similar buildings have looked in other learned areas.
But the other missing piece of what it is seems to be relativity and scale: I do 3D model generation at our game studio right now and the biggest want/need current models can't do is scale (and, specifically, relative scale) -- we can generate 3d models for entities in our game but we still need a person in the loop to scale them to a correct size relative to other models: trees are bigger than humans, and buildings are bigger still. Current generative 3d models just create a scale-less model for output; it looks like a "geospatial" model incorporates some form of relative scale, and would (could?) incorporate that into generated models (or, more likely, maps of models rather than individual models themselves).
Training data is people taking dedicated video of locations. Only ARCore supported devices can submit data as well. So I assume along with the video they're also collecting a good chunk of other data such as depth maps, accelerometer, gyrometer, magnetometer data, GPS, and more.
It’s funny, we actually started by having people play games as well but we expressly told them it was to collect data. Brilliant to use an AR game that people actually play for fun
Has anyone done something similar with the geolocated WIFI MAC addresses, to have small model for predicting location from those.
This crowdsourced approach probably eliminates that issue.
Wait, they get a million a week but they only have a total of 10 million, ie 10 days worth? Is this a typo or am I missing something?
What is a "VPS" At its heart, Visual Positioning Systems are actually pretty simple. You build a 3d point cloud of a place, with each point being a repeatable unique feature that can be extracted from an image (see https://blog.ekbana.com/extracting-invariant-features-from-i...) Basically a "finger print"/landmark of a thing in real life that can be extracted from an image reliably.
To make that work, you need to generate a large map of these points: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sparse-point-cloud-Figur... Which basically involves taking lots of pictures with GPS tags on where they are. Google has the advantage of street view, Niantic has it's game. Others had to pay a bunch of people to go round a city with cameras.
Once you build that pointcloud (which isn't actually that easy, you can't do it all at once, and aligning point clouds is hard.) you can then use trigonometry to work out where a picture is. This is called "re-localization" which is a stupid name. The hard part is the data management. There are billions of points in the world, partitioning the database so that you can quickly locate a picture is the hard part.
Hence this approach, which is basically "train a model to do it for us" You still get a "VPS", you still need all that data, but they hope that a model will able to optimize for speed.
is it private?
No, the original system isn't private. If they've done their job properly, then nothing identifiable will be in the "map" as thats extra data you dont need. What they do with the raw photos, and the metadata that they contain is another matter.
However, I can't fully agree that generating 3d scene "on the fly" is the future of maps and many other use cases for AR.
The thing with geospatial, buildings, roads, signs, etc. objects is that they are very static, not many changes are being made to them and many changes are not relevant to the majority of use cases. For example: today your house is white and in 3 years it has stains and yellowish color due to time, but everything else is the same.
Given that storage is cheap and getting cheaper, bandwidth of 5G and local networks is getting too fast for most current use cases, while computer graphics compute is still bound by our GPU performance, I say that it would be much more useful to identify the location and the building that you are looking at and pull the accurate model from the cloud (further optimisations might be needed like to pull only the data user has access to or needs access to given the task he is doing). Most importantly users will need to have access to a small subset of 3D space on daily basis, so you can have a local cache on end devices for best performance and rendering. Or stream rendered result from the cloud like nVidia GDN is doing.
Most precise models will come from CAD files for newly built buildings, retrospectively going back to CAD files of buildings build in last 20-30 years(I would bet most of them have some soft of computer model made before) and finally going back even further - making AI look at the old 2D construction plans of the building and reconstructing it in 3D.
Once the building is reconstructed (or a concrete pole like shown in the article) you can pull its 3D model from the cloud and place it in front of the user - this will cover 95% of use cases for AR. For 5% of the tasks you might want real time recognition of the current state of surfaces for some tasks or changes in geometry (like tracking the changes in the road quality compared with the previous scans or with reference model), but these cases can be tackled separately and having precise 3D model will only help, but won't be needed to be reconstructed from scratch.
This is a good 1st step to make a 3D map, however there should be an option to go to the real location and make edits to 3D plan by the expert so that the model can be precise and not "kind of" precise.
Real-Time mapping of the environment for VR experiences with built-in semantic understanding.
Winning at geoguesser, automated doxing of anybody posting a picture of themselves.
Robotic positioning and navigation
Asset generation for video games. Think about generating an alternate New York City that's more influenced by Nepal.
I'm getting echoes of neural radiance fields as well.
Procedural generation of an alternative planet is the kind of stuff that the No Man's sky devs could only dream of.
A model trained on all data for 1m in every direction would probably be too sparse to be useful, but perhaps involving data from a different continent is costly overkill? I expect most users are only going to care about their immediate surroundings. Seems like an opportunity for optimization.
Seems like navigation is ‘solved’? There’s already a lot of technology supporting permanence of virtual objects based on spatial mapping? Better AI generated animations?
I am sure there are a ton of innovations it could unlock…
They are a bit vague on what else the model does, but it sounds like they extrapolate what the rest of the environment could look like, the same way you can make a good guess what the back side of that rock would look like. That gives autonomous robots a baseline they can use to plan actions (like how to drive/fly/crawl to the other side) that can be updated as new view points become available.
It became an independent entity in October 2015 when Google restructured under Alphabet Inc. During the spinout, Niantic announced that Google, Nintendo, and The Pokémon Company would invest up to $30 million in Series-A funding. Not sure what the current ownership is (they've raised a few more times since then), but they're seemingly still very closely tied with Google.
Niantic was a spinoff divested from Google Maps roughly a decade ago who created a game called Ingress. This used Open Street Maps data to place players in the real world and they could designate locations as points of interest (POI), which Niantic used human moderators to judge as sufficiently noteworthy. Two years after Ingress was released, Niantic purchased limited rights to use Pokemon IP and bootstrapped Pokemon Go from this POI data. Individual points of interest became Pokestops and Gyms. Players had to physically go to these locations and they could receive in-game items needed to continue playing or battle other Pokemon.
From the beginning, Pokemon Go had AR support, but it was gimmicky and not widely used. Players would post photos of the real world with Pokemon overlaid and then turn it off, as it was a significant battery drain and only slowed down your ability to farm in-game items. The game itself has always been a grind type of game. Play as much as possible to catch Pokemon, spin Pokestops, and you get rewards from doing so. Eventually, Niantic started having raids as the only way to catch legendary Pokemon. These were multiplayer in-person events that happened at prescribed times. A timer starts in the game and players have to be at the same place at the same time to play together to battle a legendary Pokemon, and if they defeat it, they'll be rewarded with a chance to catch one.
Something like a year after raids were released, Niantic released research tasks as a way to catch mythical Pokemon. These required you to complete various in-game tasks, including visiting specific places. Much later than this, these research tasks started to include visiting designated Pokestops and taking video footage, from a large enough variety of angles to satisfy the game, and then uploading that. They started doing this something like four or five years ago, and getting any usable data out of it must have required an enormous amount of human curation, which was largely volunteer effort from players themselves who moderated the uploads. The game itself would give you credit simply for having the camera on while moving around enough, and it was fairly popular to simply videotape the sidewalk and the running game had no way to tell this was not really footage of the POI.
The quality of this data has always been limited. Saying they've managed to build local models of about 1 million individual objects leaves me wondering what the rate of success is. They've had hundreds of millions of players scanning presumably hundreds of millions of POI for half a decade. But a lot of the POI no longer exist. Many of them didn't exist even when Pokemon Go was released. Players are incentivized to have as many POI near them as possible because this provides the only way to actually play, and Niantic is incentivized to leave as much as they can in the game and continually add more POI because, otherwise, nobody will play. The mechanics of the game have always made it tremendously imbalanced in that living near the center of a large city with many qualifying locations results in rich, rewarding gameplay, whereas living out in the suburbs or a rural area means you have little to do and no hope of ever gaining the points that city players can get.
This means many scans are of objects that aren't there. Near me, this includes murals that have long been painted over, monuments to confederate heroes that were removed during Black Lives Matter furors of recent years, small pieces of art like metal sculptures and a mailbox decorated to look like Spongebob that simply are not there any more for one reason or another, but the POI persist in the database anyway. Live scans will show something very different from the original photo that still shows up in-game to tell you what the POI is.
Another problem is many POI can't be scanned from all sides. They're behind fences, closed off because of construction, or otherwise obstructed.
Yet another problem is GPS drift. I live near downtown Dallas right now, but when the game started, I lived smack dab in the city center, across the street from AT&T headquarters. I started playing as something to do when walking during rehab from spine surgeries, but I was often bedridden and couldn't actually leave the apartment. No problem. I could receive sometimes upwards of 50km a day of credit for walking simply by leaving my phone turned on with the game open. As satellite line of sight is continually obstructed and then unobstructed by all the tall buildings surrounding your actual location, your position on the map will jump around. The game has a built-in speed limit meant to prevent people from playing while driving, and if you jump too fast, you won't get credit, but as long as the jumps in location are small enough to keep your average over some sampling interval below that limit, you're good to go. Positions within a city center where most of the POI actually are is very poor.
They claim here that they have images from "all times of day," which is possibly true if they literally mean daylight hours. I'm awake here writing this comment at 2:30 AM and have always been a very early riser. I stopped playing this game last summer, but when I still played, it was mostly in darkness, and one of the reason I quit was the frustration of constantly being given research tasks I could not possibly complete because the game would reject scans made in the dark.
Finally, POI in Ingress and Pokemon Go are all man-made objects. Whatever they're able to get out of this would be trained on nothing from the natural world.
Ultimately, I'm interested in how many POI the entire map actually has globally and what proportion the 1 million they've managed to build working local models of represents. Seemingly, it has to be objects that (1) still exist, (2) are sufficiently unobstructed from all sides, and (3) in a place free from GPS obstructions such that the location of players on the map is itself accurate.
That isn't nothing, but I'm enormously skeptical that they can use this to build what they're promising here, a fully generalizable model that a robot could use to navigate arbitrary locations globally, as opposed to something that can navigate fairly flat city peripheries and suburbs during daylight hours. If Meta can really get a large enough number of people to wear sunglasses with always-on cameras on them, this kind of data will eventually exist, but I highly doubt what Niantic has right now is enough.
When users scan their barcode, the preview window is zoomed in so users think its mostly barcode. We actually get quite a bit more background noise typically of a fridge, supermarket aisle, pantry etc. but it is sent across to us, stored, and trained on.
Within the next year we will have a pretty good idea of the average pantry, fridge, supermarket aisle. Who knows what is next
I'm not shocked but I'm shocked you are shocked.
That's all they need to do to cover themselves.
With this broad of a privacy policy, they can start MyFitnessPal.com/UncroppedCandidPhotos where they let people search for users by name, email, or phone and sell your photos to the highest bidder, and that still would count as a Service that uses photos to customize. You consented to it!
> This feels like the kind of flimsy reasoning that only holds so long as no one is challenging it.
No, it is written by professional lawyers to be as permissive as possible.
But you repeat myself.
OK, say they do all that, that isn't customisation (I would argue) it is a new service that was built from unconsented data scraped from users of the pre-existing services. Call that splitting hairs if you like, but this looks like a risk to me.
If this is real and not a joke, I bet some DPA will disagree if this is brought to their attention. Effective consent under GDPR requires informed consent.
Otherwise, someone is FIRED
What if it's on their desk and there are sensitive legal documents next to it? How are you safeguarding all that private data? You could well be illegally in possession of classified documents, unconsenting nudes, all kinds of stuff. And it sounds like it's not even encrypted.
I will say that the bit about showing users only the barcode but capturing photos outside that was pretty clever; it's the kind of detail that belongs in a Neal Stephenson novel. But that's exactly the kind of thing that a million startups would do right now. Yea in retrospect it's kinda stupid that someone would admit this and also be proud to get a better set of photos of refrigerators and supermarket aisles.
So, is this a grade-A 2024 version of Andy Kaufman comedy that requires just one dolt in the audience to take it seriously? Hah. I guess if so it wouldn't be funny unless someone like me took the bait. I see the humor. But if you analyze why it was funny, the primary reason would be the fact that it was so possible to take it seriously. Especially with 134 or so upvotes, the user writing had exactly the amount of cachet as someone who had interned at a sleazy startup for 2 months and was proud of something really stupid.
Hello court jurors ! I hope you're having a great day. One of the attorneys breath smells pretty bad, am I right ?
Imagine a comedian saying this on stage, how many laughs would that get?
> Do people really think MyFitnessPal is trying to build a model of the average pantry?
We’ve all seen dumber things that are real. Juicero is my personal favorite example.
That completes the circuit. It's a nice setup.
In actuality we "didn't get it" because we extended you faith and respect as an equal participant in the conversation.
Or rather, I hope they do, and receive an appropriate fine for this, if not even criminal prosecution (e.g. if the app uploaded nonconsensual pornography of someone visible only in the cropped out space).