3 ms·

I don't think it's harsh at all, but I'm not quite sure which part raises an issue for you. If you're saying that they are motivated by their desire to "spread

I don't think it's harsh at all, but I'm not quite sure which part raises an issue for you. If you're saying that they are motivated by their desire to "spread their love" much more than the economic benefit they seek, then why not do this in a non-profit fashion? But, I won't quibble with that point. I mean, I do think that the economic benefit sets up the potential to "taint" the benovolenct love fest, but my much bigger point is WRT the very idea that a relative few people would redefine reality for everyone else by any motivation. It's an incredible amount of power to hand over and I think it warrants caution. That they are seeking to profit from it simply underscores this point and adds an additional "Dystopian Future Sci-fi Creep Factor".

andybak 10y ago
Would the same argument work against cinema? Surely the difference between VR and film is one of degree rather than a categorical change. I think there will be negative and positive aspects if/when VR becomes mass market but it's the opening up of a new creative medium and on the whole that has always been a net benefit for humanity.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  >Surely the difference between VR and film is one of degree rather than a categorical change. Degree matters. And, naming them both media doesn't make them qualitatively the same to begin with. >I think there will be negative and positive aspects Respectfully, one can use that argument to wave off any concern about anything. But, here, experiencing lasting and disturbing dissociative effects after walking away from the interaction is not the same as feeling momentarily sad after watching a film. >that has always been a net benefit for humanity. I'm not sure if that's categorically true but, there is certainly no rule that says it must always be so, irrespective of the actual medium or environment. And, I think it's safe to say we are in uncharted waters here. We've never had a medium that competes with reality so effectively or whose effects are more akin to doing psychadelic drugs than reading a book or watching film. I'm not willing to declare that a net positive just yet.

andybak 10y ago

Would the same argument work against cinema? Surely the difference between VR and film is one of degree rather than a categorical change. I think there will be negative and positive aspects if/when VR becomes mass market but it's the opening up of a new creative medium and on the whole that has always been a net benefit for humanity.

unclebucknasty 10y ago
>Surely the difference between VR and film is one of degree rather than a categorical change. Degree matters. And, naming them both media doesn't make them qualitatively the same to begin with. >I think there will be negative and positive aspects Respectfully, one can use that argument to wave off any concern about anything. But, here, experiencing lasting and disturbing dissociative effects after walking away from the interaction is not the same as feeling momentarily sad after watching a film. >that has always been a net benefit for humanity. I'm not sure if that's categorically true but, there is certainly no rule that says it must always be so, irrespective of the actual medium or environment. And, I think it's safe to say we are in uncharted waters here. We've never had a medium that competes with reality so effectively or whose effects are more akin to doing psychadelic drugs than reading a book or watching film. I'm not willing to declare that a net positive just yet.