4 ms·

I actually really hope this will turn out to be true. I'm unfamiliar with the processing power required to run this on a single image, let alone a video feed.

I actually really hope this will turn out to be true. I'm unfamiliar with the processing power required to run this on a single image, let alone a video feed. Does anyone have any back of the napkin estimations that might show just how far away AR glasses are from this?

coldtea 10y ago
>I actually really hope this will turn out to be true. Yeah, screw reality.
- drusepth 10y ago
  Reality is nice. Being able to augment it in various ways would also be nice, and has a ton of applications across a ton of fields. AR games and hollywood filters are the obvious go-tos, but I wouldn't be surprised to see seemingly random industries like therapy see benefits (a few applications that come to mind are brightening up the world to combat SAD, tinting views to ease aggression, or even Black Mirror-esque "blocking" of people who upset or anger you IRL if you want to trend towards dystopian tropes). Personally, I just want to up the world's saturation to max and chill with rainbows and bright colors while I'm otherwise productive. Seems like having fun filters would (or could) make life mildly better for many people going about their usual day.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Personally, I just want to up the world's saturation to max and chill with rainbows and bright colors while I'm otherwise productive That would mostly lead to overstimulation and desensitization. People get bored with everything they have immediate and easy access to.
    - drusepth 10y ago
      Of course, doing anything in moderation is obviously important. As long as it were an optional thing (i.e. not forced on people like the traditional dystopian take), I don't see how letting people choose to change how they see the world would be a guaranteed negative outcome. Especially since that's pretty much literally the advice in every self-help book: look at things from a new perspective, get a new perspective on life, surround yourself with positive things, go where the scenery makes you most happy, be more cheerful, fake it 'til you make it, etc. Obviously it could be abused by some (overstimulation/desensitization don't sound so bad compared to alternatives), but I imagine overall it'd be a net positive on the lives of more. I guess we'll just have to wait and see!
- icebraining 10y ago
  We can't see reality, we can only see a very limited representation of a small slice of reality. Why is that particular representation any better than others?
  - lucidrains 10y ago
    Found the philosopher lol
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Oh, no, it's a physical fact, that I'm reminded of every time I put on my glasses; in a very real way, my vision is already being mediated by technology.
      - lucidrains 10y ago
        in some way, we are just piecing together representations of each other from the photons that fly into our eyes. so maybe 'reality' is only as good as these photons that we receive anyhow.
dsr_ 10y ago
Yes. Go look at the thread starting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13949385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13949385 and a figure of 20+ years comes up, assuming that you want it to be truly indistinguishable from reality. It could be sooner with major algorithmical improvements, and the display technology itself could be 5-10 years out.
- drusepth 10y ago
  Thanks for the link. This makes me excited for the future.
gwern 10y ago
It's effectively doable now. Facebook has already shipped a realtime smartphone style transfer app using Caffe2go (no word on how much it hammers battery life, though). That was for a fixed style transfer network, but a variable style transfer only needs to tack on an additional smaller network to process the style image as well as the input, so <2x as much computation/model size.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
netsharc 10y ago
If the computing power doesn't fit in a headgear, you could just put a massive computer (e.g. iPhone size) in your pocket and have it transmit the images using WiFi/Bluetooth to your glasses.

coldtea 10y ago

>I actually really hope this will turn out to be true. Yeah, screw reality.

drusepth 10y ago
Reality is nice. Being able to augment it in various ways would also be nice, and has a ton of applications across a ton of fields. AR games and hollywood filters are the obvious go-tos, but I wouldn't be surprised to see seemingly random industries like therapy see benefits (a few applications that come to mind are brightening up the world to combat SAD, tinting views to ease aggression, or even Black Mirror-esque "blocking" of people who upset or anger you IRL if you want to trend towards dystopian tropes). Personally, I just want to up the world's saturation to max and chill with rainbows and bright colors while I'm otherwise productive. Seems like having fun filters would (or could) make life mildly better for many people going about their usual day.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Personally, I just want to up the world's saturation to max and chill with rainbows and bright colors while I'm otherwise productive That would mostly lead to overstimulation and desensitization. People get bored with everything they have immediate and easy access to.
  - drusepth 10y ago
    Of course, doing anything in moderation is obviously important. As long as it were an optional thing (i.e. not forced on people like the traditional dystopian take), I don't see how letting people choose to change how they see the world would be a guaranteed negative outcome. Especially since that's pretty much literally the advice in every self-help book: look at things from a new perspective, get a new perspective on life, surround yourself with positive things, go where the scenery makes you most happy, be more cheerful, fake it 'til you make it, etc. Obviously it could be abused by some (overstimulation/desensitization don't sound so bad compared to alternatives), but I imagine overall it'd be a net positive on the lives of more. I guess we'll just have to wait and see!
icebraining 10y ago
We can't see reality, we can only see a very limited representation of a small slice of reality. Why is that particular representation any better than others?
- lucidrains 10y ago
  Found the philosopher lol
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Oh, no, it's a physical fact, that I'm reminded of every time I put on my glasses; in a very real way, my vision is already being mediated by technology.
    - lucidrains 10y ago
      in some way, we are just piecing together representations of each other from the photons that fly into our eyes. so maybe 'reality' is only as good as these photons that we receive anyhow.

dsr_ 10y ago

Yes. Go look at the thread starting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13949385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13949385 and a figure of 20+ years comes up, assuming that you want it to be truly indistinguishable from reality. It could be sooner with major algorithmical improvements, and the display technology itself could be 5-10 years out.

drusepth 10y ago
Thanks for the link. This makes me excited for the future.

gwern 10y ago

It's effectively doable now. Facebook has already shipped a realtime smartphone style transfer app using Caffe2go (no word on how much it hammers battery life, though). That was for a fixed style transfer network, but a variable style transfer only needs to tack on an additional smaller network to process the style image as well as the input, so <2x as much computation/model size.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

netsharc 10y ago

If the computing power doesn't fit in a headgear, you could just put a massive computer (e.g. iPhone size) in your pocket and have it transmit the images using WiFi/Bluetooth to your glasses.