4 ms·

Your argument is that when computers were room sized, nobody would want turn by turn directions. There are probably uses for AR today that are legitimately use

Your argument is that when computers were room sized, nobody would want turn by turn directions. There are probably uses for AR today that are legitimately useful. I've never used them but I hear good things about the uses in factory floors and classes with technical machinery. But the expectation is always that that the glasses with a ridiculous battery pack (the room sized computer) will become something of a size where every single person will want to have it on them at all times. Living memory of people alive right now are the room size computers becoming dirt cheap ESP32s.

somenameforme 1y ago
Okay let's speak of the far distant future. Would I want them if they were contact the size of contact lenses? My opinion is secondary there because there's approximately a 100% chance that they would end up banned. I, like many if not the overwhelming majority, would absolutely refuse to interact with anybody wearing them. And it wouldn't be out of protest of the technology itself, but simply out of privacy issues. What people say face to face should remain between them. On top of that I have little interest in discussions in real life turning into internet discussions where it's two people searching "proof my view is right [and his is wrong]" and then repeating arguments they oft have little to no understanding of. And there are also practical issues - girls would probably not enjoy the fact that there'd 100% be insta-strip apps. And then there's the dystopia of surveillance and all that stuff. Nah, not gonna happen. More generally I think smartphones changed the world hard in one direction but, at scale, are starting to change it back in the opposite direction. They enabled great convenience, but it turns out that the nature of 24/7 tech connectivity are also quite unpleasant in many ways. And speaking of things being banned it's already quite obvious that many apps today are already working, intentionally, to function as digital drugs that will, almost certainly, also end up being treated as such in the future. I think the one and only reason that we're stalling control of these 'digital substances' is because intelligence agencies have tremendous back-door influence and we've created a sort of global honey pot. There's probably still some fantasies of pre-crime and the nonsense belief that if you just control the message you can make people believe whatever you want (really worked well for the USSR, North Korea, and everywhere else that's tried such...). Once we get over the myopia, these things are on their way out.

somenameforme 1y ago

Okay let's speak of the far distant future. Would I want them if they were contact the size of contact lenses? My opinion is secondary there because there's approximately a 100% chance that they would end up banned. I, like many if not the overwhelming majority, would absolutely refuse to interact with anybody wearing them. And it wouldn't be out of protest of the technology itself, but simply out of privacy issues. What people say face to face should remain between them. On top of that I have little interest in discussions in real life turning into internet discussions where it's two people searching "proof my view is right [and his is wrong]" and then repeating arguments they oft have little to no understanding of. And there are also practical issues - girls would probably not enjoy the fact that there'd 100% be insta-strip apps. And then there's the dystopia of surveillance and all that stuff. Nah, not gonna happen. More generally I think smartphones changed the world hard in one direction but, at scale, are starting to change it back in the opposite direction. They enabled great convenience, but it turns out that the nature of 24/7 tech connectivity are also quite unpleasant in many ways. And speaking of things being banned it's already quite obvious that many apps today are already working, intentionally, to function as digital drugs that will, almost certainly, also end up being treated as such in the future. I think the one and only reason that we're stalling control of these 'digital substances' is because intelligence agencies have tremendous back-door influence and we've created a sort of global honey pot. There's probably still some fantasies of pre-crime and the nonsense belief that if you just control the message you can make people believe whatever you want (really worked well for the USSR, North Korea, and everywhere else that's tried such...). Once we get over the myopia, these things are on their way out.