4 ms·

I think I could get very close via video. But that depends on a lot of my non-canyon experience moving around the world, and LLMs are very flawed in their abil

I think I could get very close via video. But that depends on a lot of my non-canyon experience moving around the world, and LLMs are very flawed in their ability to input video, so I think they would not get nearly as close.

throwaway0123_5 3mo ago
I've been to a few natural wonders (including the Grand Canyon) that I saw in advance on video. At least for me it isn't close at all. Even if audiovisual elements could be near-perfectly reproduced by video (imo not even close with modern tech, no screen is capturing the brilliance of sunlight), you aren't capturing the temperature, the feel of wind or rain, the smell of the plants around you, etc.
- Dylan16807 3mo ago
  But you already know those feelings from being outside elsewhere. You get a unique combination there, but that's only worth so much.
  - throwaway0123_5 3mo ago
    > only worth so much. Worth... quite a lot imo. First, in the slightly objective sense of "What is this place like in real life, under X conditions." But, more subjectively, watching a video of a glacier and imagining the wind/rain/cold doesn't even approach 5% of the intensity and awe of climbing up a mountain yourself to see a seemingly endless expanse of ice, struggling to stand steady because of the wind, shivering because of the cold and rain. And finally, in the financial sense, a lot of people routinely spend many thousands of dollars and days-weeks of their time to experience natural wonders in real life.
    - Dylan16807 3mo ago
      There's so much natural wonder in the world in and around your home. It's not that the value of the grand canyon is low in an absolute sense, it's that in a relative sense the gap between "empty numb void" and "hiking at home (plus grand canyon videos)" is far far greater than the gap between "hiking at home (plus grand canyon videos)" and "actual grand canyon".
      - AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
        > in a relative sense the gap between "empty numb void" and "hiking at home (plus grand canyon videos)" is far far greater than the gap between "hiking at home (plus grand canyon videos)" and "actual grand canyon". Have you ever been to a place which is really high up? You're above the trees and can not only see as far as the curvature of the earth allows you to, but are high enough that the curvature of the earth allows you to see for miles. The air is thinner so it's easier to take a breath yet harder to catch it. Your sweat evaporates faster but a breeze doesn't cool you as much. The sun is brighter, rises earlier and sets later. The wildlife makes unfamiliar sounds and sound itself is changed. Even the same food tastes different. It's not something you can get by sitting at home and changing the background on your computer.
        Dylan16807 3mo ago
        I haven't been that high but I've been in places with some pretty impressive views. And the grand canyon doesn't give you that mountaintop experience either. Back to the topic, I'm sure it's very impressive, but I think you're underestimating just how impressive our baseline is.
      - throwaway0123_5 3mo ago
        > There's so much natural wonder in the world in and around your home. Sure, no doubt. But I don't really think "video of my local state park + imagining the parts that aren't conveyed over video" is particularly close to the real thing either.
- gabbagool 3mo ago
  Well, I've never been to the Grand Canyon myself, but what you said perfectly aligns with my intuition. Also, you touched on how even modern tech still falls short of the true experience. Just look at the history of motion picture since the early 1900s. We have added sound, color, bigger screens, faster refresh rates, more pixels, 3D (sort of), surround sound, spatial audio, IMAX, etc. Almost seems like video leaves a lot to be desired.
  - goodmythical 3mo ago
    4d gaussian splats are going to be a major revolution in vicarious experiences
- jhbadger 3mo ago
  I don't know. I think some "wonders" like the Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls are more impressive in aerial videos and are kind of a let down in person -- you can't really see the whole thing when you are next to it.
- NegativeLatency 3mo ago
  Mt Rushmore is better and more impressive in media than IRL. Saw North by Northwest a few times and went later in my life just didn’t compare.
jimbokun 3mo ago
The experience of every famous place I've visited after watching extensive video before hand, has been very different from what I imagined from the video.
astura 3mo ago
Grand Canyon looks kinda meh on pictures/video. It's much more impressive in person. Honestly, it's amazing taking a picture of something that's breathtaking and the picture not being breathtaking.

throwaway0123_5 3mo ago

I've been to a few natural wonders (including the Grand Canyon) that I saw in advance on video. At least for me it isn't close at all. Even if audiovisual elements could be near-perfectly reproduced by video (imo not even close with modern tech, no screen is capturing the brilliance of sunlight), you aren't capturing the temperature, the feel of wind or rain, the smell of the plants around you, etc.

Dylan16807 3mo ago
But you already know those feelings from being outside elsewhere. You get a unique combination there, but that's only worth so much.
- throwaway0123_5 3mo ago
  > only worth so much. Worth... quite a lot imo. First, in the slightly objective sense of "What is this place like in real life, under X conditions." But, more subjectively, watching a video of a glacier and imagining the wind/rain/cold doesn't even approach 5% of the intensity and awe of climbing up a mountain yourself to see a seemingly endless expanse of ice, struggling to stand steady because of the wind, shivering because of the cold and rain. And finally, in the financial sense, a lot of people routinely spend many thousands of dollars and days-weeks of their time to experience natural wonders in real life.
  - Dylan16807 3mo ago
    There's so much natural wonder in the world in and around your home. It's not that the value of the grand canyon is low in an absolute sense, it's that in a relative sense the gap between "empty numb void" and "hiking at home (plus grand canyon videos)" is far far greater than the gap between "hiking at home (plus grand canyon videos)" and "actual grand canyon".
    - AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
      > in a relative sense the gap between "empty numb void" and "hiking at home (plus grand canyon videos)" is far far greater than the gap between "hiking at home (plus grand canyon videos)" and "actual grand canyon". Have you ever been to a place which is really high up? You're above the trees and can not only see as far as the curvature of the earth allows you to, but are high enough that the curvature of the earth allows you to see for miles. The air is thinner so it's easier to take a breath yet harder to catch it. Your sweat evaporates faster but a breeze doesn't cool you as much. The sun is brighter, rises earlier and sets later. The wildlife makes unfamiliar sounds and sound itself is changed. Even the same food tastes different. It's not something you can get by sitting at home and changing the background on your computer.
      - Dylan16807 3mo ago
        I haven't been that high but I've been in places with some pretty impressive views. And the grand canyon doesn't give you that mountaintop experience either. Back to the topic, I'm sure it's very impressive, but I think you're underestimating just how impressive our baseline is.
    - throwaway0123_5 3mo ago
      > There's so much natural wonder in the world in and around your home. Sure, no doubt. But I don't really think "video of my local state park + imagining the parts that aren't conveyed over video" is particularly close to the real thing either.
gabbagool 3mo ago
Well, I've never been to the Grand Canyon myself, but what you said perfectly aligns with my intuition. Also, you touched on how even modern tech still falls short of the true experience. Just look at the history of motion picture since the early 1900s. We have added sound, color, bigger screens, faster refresh rates, more pixels, 3D (sort of), surround sound, spatial audio, IMAX, etc. Almost seems like video leaves a lot to be desired.
- goodmythical 3mo ago
  4d gaussian splats are going to be a major revolution in vicarious experiences
jhbadger 3mo ago
I don't know. I think some "wonders" like the Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls are more impressive in aerial videos and are kind of a let down in person -- you can't really see the whole thing when you are next to it.
NegativeLatency 3mo ago
Mt Rushmore is better and more impressive in media than IRL. Saw North by Northwest a few times and went later in my life just didn’t compare.

jimbokun 3mo ago

The experience of every famous place I've visited after watching extensive video before hand, has been very different from what I imagined from the video.

astura 3mo ago

Grand Canyon looks kinda meh on pictures/video. It's much more impressive in person. Honestly, it's amazing taking a picture of something that's breathtaking and the picture not being breathtaking.