Walmart deploys Oculus Go headsets to train its employees
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
It will probably work. It's probably a good idea from the employer's point of view. It feels very dystopian.
For me, there are things that might improve outcomes, but would be unacceptable.
For example, drugs that help with information retention. Mandatory memory enhancing brain implants. Drugs that adjust motivation/focus. Wires attached to eyelids to prevent you from closing your eyes.
The reason why VR used for training seems dystopian is that it removes choice. Or at least feels like it does.
Arguably the trade off is worth it in this case.
edit: downvoters have never worked in an HR department...
Some of it probably appears foolish to new people, but it’s all from prior or realistically possible safety concerns. If it helps our insurance premium or lawsuit outcome, so be it, but we do it to not hurt or kill people.
That might be the intention of the trainers and the participants, but it's not the (primary) intention of corporate.
I get the cynicism, because it’s not wrong in every case of company policy. I’m sure there is a company somewhere who wouldn’t implement any safety policy unless required by OSHA, labor demands, or insurance. It’s not my experience working with, talking to, or being a manufacturing leader that that’s the primary driver in most companies.
However I’m hopeful that this new medium leads to interactivity by default, furthermore there are first mover advantages to be gained from improved engagement while VR is novel to most users.
You could wire a video signal straight into my optic nerves and I'l still tune out if it wasn't minimally engaging. I daydream about things random things, such as a programming puzzle I'm trying to solve, while I'm watching TV shows I love (looking at you Game of Thrones). Does anyone else experience this? Maybe it's an ADHD thing, which I have.
This is not likely, too overtly evil.
> make the video longer repeating the important parts until you pay attention, select a longer version of the video where the repetition is not obvious but they keep saying the same thing again or again, or let the system randomly select you for a voluntary group for a new training video tomorrow.
I've already had mandatory training that included all of these in various forms.
Safety training is a good place to start, there’s a great argument for “it’s important and will save lives!”
Makes one wonder where the next stop on the road to our cyberpunk dystopia will be. Rift v2 will probably have eye tracking which will be a godsend to advertisers and if we all have them on our faces employers would love to know what we’re actually paying attention to.
The future is going to be great, awful, but great.
Welcome to walmart training camp!, some of you are here because some kind of incident/accident during your usual workflow, please take a sit on this special brainwashing machine while some of the assistants tie you down on the sit... It will last only 12 hours for the first seven days and after that we will have a quiz and you can go back to work.
Does walmart detect when you close your eyes trying to avoid the anti-union 'documentary'?
Being able to watch something in 3D as opposed to just 2D video is like night and day.
Btw, I'm not talking about 360' videos, I'm talking about the 3D stereoscopic ones. When I watch a video in 3D, I can actually totally relate to what I am watching and it is as if I am actually there. It really helps with perception and understanding the subject.
I think the real revolution in teaching will be when we have enough well educated, well paid teachers. Imagine the level of immersion that could be accomplished with real-time individualized lessons!
In addition, because VR makes project-based learning [0] more scalable, a teacher's time can be used more efficiently.
These cost-savings can be passed on to the students and the teachers (in the form of higher salaries). All this while improving average the education quality.
A big problem with education in my opinion is that everyone who has been to school sees themselves as a teaching expert. The near-minimum-wage teacher who buy school supplies out of their own pockets, they are the experts. Rant over.
I think VR might help to some subjects, but having an all-VR experience seems an awful thing to me...
I'll note that TV was seen as the future of education for quite a while. And that videoconferencing has been the future of interaction since the early 1980s. The first never worked out. And although the jury's still out on the latter, it's undeniable that a) it's not as good, and b) it's taken a very long time for the technology to be reasonably useful.
Historically, people seem to confuse "we don't know what X can't do" with "there's nothing X can't do". Technoutopianism can be useful, in that optimistic people will try things out and discover where the limits are. The current wave of VR is interesting, but it's perfectly possible that it will end up in the same place as 1990s VR: a historically interesting wave of hype that turned out not to deliver much value that couldn't be gotten more easily with other approaches.
It's just more exciting to me to envision a future where VR will work out, and I will keep working on it under that assumption.
A classic example here is Apple. They did not make the first personal computer, the first MP3 player, or the first smartphone. Those were made by people focused on the tech. Instead, Apple took mostly-existing tech and really focused on delivering value to users.
I think a user-first attitude is important even when making consumer gadgets. But a student-first focus is vital for education. There are a zillion examples of educational tools and methods inflicted upon kids not because they were better for students, but because somebody wanted to prove something.
I'm sure the engineers at Apple also looked at the tech and were like "holy shit, this enables us to do crazy stuff".
But in practice, nobody has demonstrated that those new things deliver more value. Again, consider 90s VR. Or how people were sure that home computers were the coming thing starting in 1970 (and probably earlier). But they didn't really become particularly useful or common until the arrival of the web browser. [1]
The engineers at jetpack and flying car and humaniform robot companies also said "Holy shit, imagine what we can do." We could look at the plans for manned space travel of 1940-1980, none of which panned out. Heck, we could look at 3D movies and TV, which have flopped repeatedly. And even at Apple there were plenty of times that they said that and were wrong. [2]
I'm really not trying to rain on your parade here. I'm happy to admit that this could really be the time VR takes off. But I'd love it if more VR proponents could accept that "feels like magic" is a novelty effect; that the history of 3D "feels like magic" products turning into giant flops goes back at least 150 years; and that this could be just another one of those things that ends up like 3D TV or Smellovision.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_computer#Reception_and_so...
[2] https://blog.musicmagpie.co.uk/2017/09/06/7-apple-products-t...
Why not?
> You don't only need information, you also need interactions, real life interaction
What is reality?
Education is a class separator. What matters is relative education, not absolute.
Also, it doesn't matter how good books are at teaching kids to solve integrals if 90% of them won't even give the book a chance, but can't wait to get on their headsets.
Please try this and come back with a fresh perspective.
Then our GIS department bought one and I’ve tried it a few times now. I always feel constrained when I go back to my two monitors.
The interface and technology in general has some way to go, but I think VR will be the biggest tech revolution in my lifetime and I’ve been around since before the refrigerator was a common thing.
my mom was a teacher, and i clearly remember the required use of powerpoint to be a major detriment to her teaching. as another example, i was horrified recently during a volunteer opportunity at a local high school at the use of chromebooks in the classroom. it seemed like such a blind use that served no purpose other than to further seaparate the students and teachers from social interaction and communication.
i think something like dynamicland is the only technology that has promise to be used as an educational tool.
One thing I can see this being used for is fork lift driver training. You could put the person in the seat of the heavy and expensive equipment without actually risking anything. The user can play around with the controls and make mistakes without the fear of breaking something. That alone would be valuable.
on a side note, it also took my interest to new levels because the 3d animations revealed to me just how mechanical our body is, with a hierarchy of components very much like an integrated circuit.
so I can only imagine what it will be like to conduct labs or teach students using a 3d VR environment. It has a unique edge that not even the best teacher on earth can do-trick its users into believe they are not in lecture, but in a video game like world but with higher productivity.
It might also be great for teaching science, since VR can communicate scale much better than drawings.
https://savkar.math.uconn.edu/calculus-3-visuals/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T647CGsuOVU https://www.reddit.com/r/visualizedmath/top/
At my high school somebody asked the calculus teacher why he was the calculus teacher and not another teacher. "We drew straws and I lost so I went to the training".
I played with VR a few years ago, and found the notion of an immersive virtual environment to be profoundly different from looking at something on a computer screen.
Some technology absolutely helps with learning. Pencils and paper are technology that help us write down our thoughts. School buildings and chalkboards are technology that make it easy for us to meet and collaborate.
Computers too can provide an opportunity for us to play with abstract concepts. Immersive VR could be a way to better understand certain concepts. With the right presentation, I think VR could be a more effective way of learning than other methods.
I would totally pay $60 for a VR game that has you building a house from the ground up or doing woodworking in as much detail as possible (even if it's individual stages and tasks without a proper physics sandbox).
This implies having children using these headsets for extended periods of time. I hope the (auto?) calibration of future headsets gets real good, otherwise I fear there are some risks, messing with the eyesight of children.
Potentially awesome, sure. Just, not too fast.
I'll note that "3D is the future of education!" has a long history. Stereoscopic photos were the future starting in the 1850s. During WWII, the US Department of Defense bought 100,000 View-Masters and millions of reels because 3D content was more effective and engaging for training. But somehow those futures never happened. This one could well end up in the same historical category.
Magic Leap just released their first dev kit last month. StarVR has a new HMD coming out with 210 degree FOV. Oculus is working on a standalone wireless HMD. Things are actually progressing much quicker than anyone thought back in 2014 when the "VR renaissance" got started. We now have wireless HMDs, eye tracking with foveated rendering, perfect sub-millimeter inside-out camera based tracking, and the first multi-plane displays (on Magic Leap One).
None of that tech even existed 4 years ago, or if it did it was in a university research lab. We're now less than 5 years away from having a slim, lightweight, wireless device that you can put on your face and have 100% nonstop presence. There are still things to solve like haptics and locomotion which will be decades away, but the visual component is totally solvable with current tech.
With all that said, I can handle VR as long as it doesn’t interfere with my proprioception. That is, no movement of the camera independent of my actual head moving. As long as that holds true, and the system doesn’t lag (fixed by “time warp”, thanks John Carmack). As long as those conditions are true I can play VR without breaks for several hours at a time.
Is this more of a PR stunt, or has the Go somehow solved nausea issues enough that widespread workplace deployment is now considered feasible?
This isn't true for 99% of VR experiences, mind you. ;)
I experience eyestrain and nausea within five to ten minutes. It takes considerable effort to overcome.
The tech just isn't there yet for lighting. I am hopeful that real time ray tracing will provide some solution...
It's not so bad with flat and Tron-like games.
I've never heard anyone bring up lighting as a factor in nausea before. There's certainly a lot of room for improvement for visual quality but it's not something I've heard anyone discuss as a factor in simulator sickness before. What do you think might be going on there?
It'd be interesting to see how VR sickness triggers are distributed in the population. How many people actually get nauseous from bad lighting, how many get nauseous from forced camera movement etc
Deleted comment
“Punk” as self destruction to express disdain for norms is a requirement, otherwise the future is merely “Cyber” and in that sort of septugenarian congressional “Information Superhighway” privatized by Enron interpretation of the word.
It’s not really “cyberpunk” until cruising for back alley bionic implants becomes a reality.
This might be a big source of income for companies specialized in mechanical engineering. They'd sell those ghost videos on a marketplace..
But this takes it to another level and doesn't require a specialized set up for tooling or being in a particular location (custom simulation room).
You're training hand eye coordination, and other than the instructor or your master in an apprenticeship, you don't have formed habits through practice. You stand in front of an object you want to interact with, and the ghost basically directs your movement, showing you how to hold or lift components and the ideal posture.
They could simultaneously capture training data for a coming workforce of robots. What are the chances they aren't doing this?