3 ms·

>Beyond the sheer value we can deliver to humanity by accelerating and shaping the development of this technology This email had me somewhat upset until I reme

>Beyond the sheer value we can deliver to humanity by accelerating and shaping the development of this technology This email had me somewhat upset until I remembered that Meta is floundering and failing badly. It seems self-evident to Zuckerberg that broadly-adopted AR/VR would be an automatic positive for humanity. I can't imagine a world in which AR/VR is a positive. I don't see any reason for VR/AR to be seen a positive development.

tjohns 4y ago
I can't comment on Facebook's vision for VR, but speaking more broadly... During the pandemic, VRChat let me reconnect with friends that I hadn't seen in person for 1-2 years. Combined with body tracking modules (so you can walk around fluidly), the experience can be extremely immersive, like you're in the same room with someone. When I upgraded to a Valve Index and gave my older headset to my roommate, he later mentioned that VRChat and the social experiences he had on there saved him from a deep depression brought on by isolation during the pandemic. I'd consider that an extremely positive experience.
- dinvlad 4y ago
  That's actually a very good point (though still a niche market). For those of us having relatives/friends in distant places (or colleagues in the global workforce), this could be immensely useful. I do think this is far from a ubiquitous need though, outside of troubled times/environments like the global pandemic.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
    There are about 280 million first-generation international migrants. That’s a group that is highly likely to benefit from close social interaction online. And more broadly, the majority of the world population uses some kind of internet communication and many of them would probably use a higher-fidelity version if it became available. To give an example from a more mature technology, the share of internet communication happening over video increases each year (this trend predates the pandemic). Personally, I’ve found that VR takes away a lot of the awkward downsides of Zoom socializing. I’m pretty optimistic it’ll be popular when it matures.
    - dinvlad 4y ago
      Believe me, I would love to chat with my parents living across the ocean over VR! I guess what I'm trying to say is this need would not be replaced with VR though - it would be more of a necessity because of distance. I also think we vastly overestimate the number of people maintaining long-distance relationships (of any kind) beyond close relatives or friends on a daily (!) basis. I cannot back it up with numbers, but my gut is most friends and families (and workers) are still and will always be "local" enough. So, for occasional use when traveling etc. sure - this would be a killer app. I just don't think this would be as ubiquitous as phones for daily use - unless the technology is so seamless it doesn't occupy or need any more space or weight etc. and be as portable as a phone. So, if we're talking about mass adoption by the majority of the population for daily (as opposed to occasional) use, I just don't see VR in particular replacing phones anytime soon. AR on the other hand, could become more ubiquitous in that sense, if it can be worn casually and be looking "cool" enough to not warrant weird/dorky looks. But time will tell, I guess.
- rojobuffalo 4y ago
  the problem is when you provide a substitute for a real human need and it's cheap and addictive, the net effect is going to be negative. people will jump to the cheap thing and everything else deteriorates. i'm sure people have positive anecdotes about something they did with instagram but clearly the net effect, on teenagers in particular, is horrible. even without the issues around biometric data and privacy, sitting inside with lights strapped to your eyeballs is not healthier than doing something with people in real life. there will be specific applications where VR makes new things possible and better, but as a household entertainment device i think it'll be terrible.
  - dinvlad 4y ago
    Exactly this, you can't hug or kiss someone virtually, no matter the technology (outside of some truly out-there sci-fi like virtual surrogates). It's just crazy to think this would replace face-to-face (outside of real necessity) - even FB couldn't do that, though maybe they're aiming for the same role as FB does now, logically. Unfortunately, teens would be the most vulnerable to adopting this though. But I can't imagine this being anything but another "temporarily popular" thing that will get boring quickly.
- jimyt666 4y ago
  No offense to you but I think part of the human experience is to miss out on connections then feel the joy and excitement when you do actually meet again and catch up. i talk with friends in other states daily on discord and it doesnt hold a candle to how much more fun we have when we get together. i see value in brief moments for VR experience but beyond those it just seems half asses and tacky
dinvlad 4y ago
I guess it could be useful in a world where climate change and/or a far worse pandemic have made being outside extremely dangerous. But I think we'd have far bigger problems than VR in that case (like food scarcity). With that said, even the iPad was sort of a goofy device that everyone dismissed initially (iirc). It's hard to imagine the same thing with AR/VR communication though, given the currently known tech limitations and just the sheer dorkiness and/or cumbersomeness of wearing an external device that doesn't look like regular glasses (which are also already perceived as dorky). In addition, for VR there's always this question of "where do we use it?" I stopped using mine because (despite having a sufficiently large space) I kept hitting my furniture or barely missing the TV. I don't think this problem is solvable with technology, and not many people can afford large enough spaces to address this. AR is a different story though. I think they should follow the approach of beachhead markets if they want to prove it could be useful. If it can't be widely adopted even by a niche audience atm, then there's little hope for mass adoption/usefulness. Microsoft is a good example of that - they are/were trying to position the AR headset as a workplace device first and foremost, and even that seems yet to be widely adopted within its market. But figuring out the right initial market takes time.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  > But I think we'd have far bigger problems than VR in that case (like food scarcity). If we’re looking at the big picture, mature VR/AR will help suppress social unrest. It will help with other issues like the scarcity of physical space.
  - dinvlad 4y ago
    Hah, that's a good way to put it :-)
    - chaostheory 4y ago
      This is actually one of the reasons that attracted Carmack to VR. I’m paraphrasing him poorly, but in one of his talks he mentions that “In real life, we don’t have the resources to give everyone their own private bowling alley, but this is possible in VR”
aierou 4y ago
I thought of a few interesting (speculative) use cases: - Treat photosensitive epilepsy by filtering incoming visual stimuli - Improve vision for cases not treatable with typical lenses - Use eye-tracking to assist with communication for people with various disabilities - Teleoperate robots in dangerous conditions - Perform live translation with AR subtitles - Learn everything there is to know about anything you look at - plants, animals, places, things - Block ads/brands in real life - Enhance learning of instrument/sport/activity - Record and re-experience major life events in 3d space - Communicate with true telepresence
wruza 4y ago
Do you mean it would be negative, or just can’t see why it could be good? For a positive example, I’d like to meet or chat with coworkers and management full-VR/AR when they are in the other office or city. Because text is still a pretty low-bandwidth medium for many people and/or topics.
- Mistletoe 4y ago
  Why do you need VR or 3d for that? Why can’t a webcam do it?
  - dinvlad 4y ago
    On top of this, many people prefer to "zoom out" rather than "zoom in" during meetings :-) Though that's not everyone.
  - wruza 4y ago
    Depends on a webcam app/hw. If it allows for an equivalent of in-person “protocols”^, sure. Looking at someone, negotiating attention, proximal subchats, etc. But still, imagine a meeting in a restaurant and everyone is peering into their laptops to just see me echoing around. Anticiating the next question, yes, I find in-person bandwidth (usually, as in popular software) superior to webcam. ^ This could be done in non-VR apps too, but convincing IMs to make UI for that is even less real than creating VR glasses.
phailhaus 4y ago
I think the benefit of AR should be pretty apparent. Unlike VR, it's a strict upgrade for your vision. For example, - It could provide first responders with live HUDs analyzing the environment - The hard-of-hearing could use it to literally provide subtitles for real life. Live translations in general can break down language barriers. - It can provide useful context about objects around you, or even magnify them in real life.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

tjohns 4y ago

I can't comment on Facebook's vision for VR, but speaking more broadly... During the pandemic, VRChat let me reconnect with friends that I hadn't seen in person for 1-2 years. Combined with body tracking modules (so you can walk around fluidly), the experience can be extremely immersive, like you're in the same room with someone. When I upgraded to a Valve Index and gave my older headset to my roommate, he later mentioned that VRChat and the social experiences he had on there saved him from a deep depression brought on by isolation during the pandemic. I'd consider that an extremely positive experience.

dinvlad 4y ago
That's actually a very good point (though still a niche market). For those of us having relatives/friends in distant places (or colleagues in the global workforce), this could be immensely useful. I do think this is far from a ubiquitous need though, outside of troubled times/environments like the global pandemic.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
  There are about 280 million first-generation international migrants. That’s a group that is highly likely to benefit from close social interaction online. And more broadly, the majority of the world population uses some kind of internet communication and many of them would probably use a higher-fidelity version if it became available. To give an example from a more mature technology, the share of internet communication happening over video increases each year (this trend predates the pandemic). Personally, I’ve found that VR takes away a lot of the awkward downsides of Zoom socializing. I’m pretty optimistic it’ll be popular when it matures.
  - dinvlad 4y ago
    Believe me, I would love to chat with my parents living across the ocean over VR! I guess what I'm trying to say is this need would not be replaced with VR though - it would be more of a necessity because of distance. I also think we vastly overestimate the number of people maintaining long-distance relationships (of any kind) beyond close relatives or friends on a daily (!) basis. I cannot back it up with numbers, but my gut is most friends and families (and workers) are still and will always be "local" enough. So, for occasional use when traveling etc. sure - this would be a killer app. I just don't think this would be as ubiquitous as phones for daily use - unless the technology is so seamless it doesn't occupy or need any more space or weight etc. and be as portable as a phone. So, if we're talking about mass adoption by the majority of the population for daily (as opposed to occasional) use, I just don't see VR in particular replacing phones anytime soon. AR on the other hand, could become more ubiquitous in that sense, if it can be worn casually and be looking "cool" enough to not warrant weird/dorky looks. But time will tell, I guess.
rojobuffalo 4y ago
the problem is when you provide a substitute for a real human need and it's cheap and addictive, the net effect is going to be negative. people will jump to the cheap thing and everything else deteriorates. i'm sure people have positive anecdotes about something they did with instagram but clearly the net effect, on teenagers in particular, is horrible. even without the issues around biometric data and privacy, sitting inside with lights strapped to your eyeballs is not healthier than doing something with people in real life. there will be specific applications where VR makes new things possible and better, but as a household entertainment device i think it'll be terrible.
- dinvlad 4y ago
  Exactly this, you can't hug or kiss someone virtually, no matter the technology (outside of some truly out-there sci-fi like virtual surrogates). It's just crazy to think this would replace face-to-face (outside of real necessity) - even FB couldn't do that, though maybe they're aiming for the same role as FB does now, logically. Unfortunately, teens would be the most vulnerable to adopting this though. But I can't imagine this being anything but another "temporarily popular" thing that will get boring quickly.
jimyt666 4y ago
No offense to you but I think part of the human experience is to miss out on connections then feel the joy and excitement when you do actually meet again and catch up. i talk with friends in other states daily on discord and it doesnt hold a candle to how much more fun we have when we get together. i see value in brief moments for VR experience but beyond those it just seems half asses and tacky

dinvlad 4y ago

I guess it could be useful in a world where climate change and/or a far worse pandemic have made being outside extremely dangerous. But I think we'd have far bigger problems than VR in that case (like food scarcity). With that said, even the iPad was sort of a goofy device that everyone dismissed initially (iirc). It's hard to imagine the same thing with AR/VR communication though, given the currently known tech limitations and just the sheer dorkiness and/or cumbersomeness of wearing an external device that doesn't look like regular glasses (which are also already perceived as dorky). In addition, for VR there's always this question of "where do we use it?" I stopped using mine because (despite having a sufficiently large space) I kept hitting my furniture or barely missing the TV. I don't think this problem is solvable with technology, and not many people can afford large enough spaces to address this. AR is a different story though. I think they should follow the approach of beachhead markets if they want to prove it could be useful. If it can't be widely adopted even by a niche audience atm, then there's little hope for mass adoption/usefulness. Microsoft is a good example of that - they are/were trying to position the AR headset as a workplace device first and foremost, and even that seems yet to be widely adopted within its market. But figuring out the right initial market takes time.

chaostheory 4y ago
> But I think we'd have far bigger problems than VR in that case (like food scarcity). If we’re looking at the big picture, mature VR/AR will help suppress social unrest. It will help with other issues like the scarcity of physical space.
- dinvlad 4y ago
  Hah, that's a good way to put it :-)
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    This is actually one of the reasons that attracted Carmack to VR. I’m paraphrasing him poorly, but in one of his talks he mentions that “In real life, we don’t have the resources to give everyone their own private bowling alley, but this is possible in VR”

aierou 4y ago

I thought of a few interesting (speculative) use cases: - Treat photosensitive epilepsy by filtering incoming visual stimuli - Improve vision for cases not treatable with typical lenses - Use eye-tracking to assist with communication for people with various disabilities - Teleoperate robots in dangerous conditions - Perform live translation with AR subtitles - Learn everything there is to know about anything you look at - plants, animals, places, things - Block ads/brands in real life - Enhance learning of instrument/sport/activity - Record and re-experience major life events in 3d space - Communicate with true telepresence

wruza 4y ago

Do you mean it would be negative, or just can’t see why it could be good? For a positive example, I’d like to meet or chat with coworkers and management full-VR/AR when they are in the other office or city. Because text is still a pretty low-bandwidth medium for many people and/or topics.

Mistletoe 4y ago
Why do you need VR or 3d for that? Why can’t a webcam do it?
- dinvlad 4y ago
  On top of this, many people prefer to "zoom out" rather than "zoom in" during meetings :-) Though that's not everyone.
- wruza 4y ago
  Depends on a webcam app/hw. If it allows for an equivalent of in-person “protocols”^, sure. Looking at someone, negotiating attention, proximal subchats, etc. But still, imagine a meeting in a restaurant and everyone is peering into their laptops to just see me echoing around. Anticiating the next question, yes, I find in-person bandwidth (usually, as in popular software) superior to webcam. ^ This could be done in non-VR apps too, but convincing IMs to make UI for that is even less real than creating VR glasses.

phailhaus 4y ago

I think the benefit of AR should be pretty apparent. Unlike VR, it's a strict upgrade for your vision. For example, - It could provide first responders with live HUDs analyzing the environment - The hard-of-hearing could use it to literally provide subtitles for real life. Live translations in general can break down language barriers. - It can provide useful context about objects around you, or even magnify them in real life.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]