I still feel like this is a perfect example of why we should be asking for our data to be disclosed to the public. If I take a picture of some public point of interest, they end up tagging it with their metadata and selling it, well, that's what I agreed to by not reading 20 pages of T&C's right?

But the value in that data is in the liveliness right, so at some point, would it not make sense for that data to be considered a public asset?

Why do we not demand this data be released regularly (given that the inverse tech could be developed using this as well)? If it can be used to train things used for war, could it not equally be used to train better lifesaving tech (in which case, the data should be made available to the public)?

▲

johannes1234321 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's quite obvious that data is what pays the game. A lot of data about the players )daily routine, commute to work/school, social circles to other players, etc. which allows to derive Job, wealth, etc.), data about surroundings (where do people actually walk, drive, ... etc.)

The story here however I'm not too sure about: Isn't the game mostly played in dense urban areas? - by the time you need military drones there the area will have changed a lot (destruction, fortification, ... and overall be outdated) where I think the civilian drones (delivery, cars, ....) benefit more. While the technology certainly is dual use.

▲

emperorxanu an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I had assumed the purpose of the data was more in generalising across variegated input sources to better allow the drones to fly on their own in urban settings, aka, adapt more readily to randomness? Better datasets for multimodal training etc.

I am not joking though, I really would consider any data generated on public assets to be considered "releasable" to the public. How many people should get killed by self-driving cars because the company making the cars didn't have enough data to train proper models?

	▲	johannes1234321 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I am all for public code. But mind: the whole point of Pokemon go is to collect data. If they have to publish it as open data their business case goes away. This may be good and we'd still not have the data (but "they" can collect on their own privately/secretly)

▲

wartywhoa23 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> While the technology certainly is dual use.

It's dual, but its positive aspects are only unlocked after a sufficient human blood sacrifice is made by its overlords, as is the case with all dual use tech.

	▲	fragmede 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No it's not. How does 3D printing; what blood sacrifice happened with 3d printers before they were unleashed upon the world? Hard to prove for encryption, though that one's antediluvian. Drones were around and toys for quite a while before they ever killed anyone.

▲

alexashka 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can ask for whatever you like - nobody's listening.

There is no 'we'. 99%+ of people view the world as a zero sum game where for me to win, somebody has to lose and if I don't do whatever it takes, somebody else will and then I lose, therefore I have no morals or principles or virtues and anyone who does is a liar or a fool.

Everything is a bad faith act, everyone is a selfish bad faith actor and I shouldn't feel bad about being one because everyone else who isn't a fool is too.

This tragically wrong but intuitively correct worldview and much more was explained by Plato long, long ago and just about no one understood any of it. At least the text survived and people with 140+ IQ and an iota of decency can read it and be at peace knowing they're not crazy or foolish.