4 ms·

Augmented reality is the only thing I am excited for, more so than virtual reality is right now (and I say that as someone who has a couple of VR headsets aroun

Augmented reality is the only thing I am excited for, more so than virtual reality is right now (and I say that as someone who has a couple of VR headsets around the house, the Reverb G2 and Valve Index). To me, VR will always be relegated to gaming and solo interactive experiences, augmented reality has already proven itself in fields such as medical and training purposes. Microsoft Hololens has been widely successful in the avenues they have pursued and deployed in, going as far back as 2016. I know some plants are using them for maintenance, if I recall elevator techs using them to repair elevators more efficiently, vehicle mechanics and more. The positives outweigh the negatives and it is sad to see the article only focuses on the downsides. Find me a technology that doesn't have a negative?

imheretolearn 5y ago
I disagree that positives will outweigh the negatives. AR and VR are more invasive* than mobile phones. If the ubiquity of mobile phones has taught us anything, it's that tech companies will gain even more access to your personal lives. I certainly see a point where tech companies will know you better than you and can predict your behavior with a fair margin of accuracy. I do agree that most technologies have downsides. Having said that, you do need to realize that we're biochemical beings and we are affected more by certain phenomena than others. I am pretty sure most people check their phones first thing after waking up and cell phones for all intents and purposes were virtually non-existent just 20 years ago. AR and VR will only amplify the dopamine hits which rewire our brains into performing certain actions. This will mean more leverage for the tech companies to influence you into doing things you wouldn't have otherwise. Remember that thing from Amazon you bought which you didn't really need? It's only going to become worse.
- foobarbecue 5y ago
  > AR and VR are more pervasive than mobile phones. What? No they aren't... There's probably 10x more mobile phones than XR headsets... Did you mean invasive? Also, I really love that thing I bought from Amazon that I don't need so don't knock it!
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > virtually non-existent just 20 years ago Smartphones, yes, but cell phones were pretty common in the 90s.
  - imheretolearn 5y ago
    >> Smartphones, yes, but cell phones were pretty common in the 90s. In the western world maybe, but not if you consider the entire world.
- SignalNotSecure 5y ago
  TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOM 125. It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises. Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the other’s land. The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, “OK, let’s compromise. Give me half of what I asked.” The weak one has little choice but to give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands another piece of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth. By forcing a long series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful one eventually gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between technology and freedom. 126. Let us explain why technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. 127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.) 128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications ... how could one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages.

imheretolearn 5y ago

I disagree that positives will outweigh the negatives. AR and VR are more invasive* than mobile phones. If the ubiquity of mobile phones has taught us anything, it's that tech companies will gain even more access to your personal lives. I certainly see a point where tech companies will know you better than you and can predict your behavior with a fair margin of accuracy. I do agree that most technologies have downsides. Having said that, you do need to realize that we're biochemical beings and we are affected more by certain phenomena than others. I am pretty sure most people check their phones first thing after waking up and cell phones for all intents and purposes were virtually non-existent just 20 years ago. AR and VR will only amplify the dopamine hits which rewire our brains into performing certain actions. This will mean more leverage for the tech companies to influence you into doing things you wouldn't have otherwise. Remember that thing from Amazon you bought which you didn't really need? It's only going to become worse.

foobarbecue 5y ago
> AR and VR are more pervasive than mobile phones. What? No they aren't... There's probably 10x more mobile phones than XR headsets... Did you mean invasive? Also, I really love that thing I bought from Amazon that I don't need so don't knock it!
rootusrootus 5y ago
> virtually non-existent just 20 years ago Smartphones, yes, but cell phones were pretty common in the 90s.
- imheretolearn 5y ago
  >> Smartphones, yes, but cell phones were pretty common in the 90s. In the western world maybe, but not if you consider the entire world.
SignalNotSecure 5y ago
TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOM 125. It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises. Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the other’s land. The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, “OK, let’s compromise. Give me half of what I asked.” The weak one has little choice but to give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands another piece of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth. By forcing a long series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful one eventually gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between technology and freedom. 126. Let us explain why technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. 127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.) 128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications ... how could one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages.