Augmented reality will exacerbate our unhealthy relationship with technology | Hacker News Reader

Augmented reality will exacerbate our unhealthy relationship with technology

danielsisson.com

36 pointsdsisson48 comments

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?

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.

> 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!

> virtually non-existent just 20 years ago

Smartphones, yes, but cell phones were pretty common in the 90s.

>> Smartphones, yes, but cell phones were pretty common in the 90s.

In the western world maybe, but not if you consider the entire world.

Between my hobbies and sports, something that has been driven home for me over the last 5-10 years is that there is so much going on around us that we never see.

If we use AR to see things that are already there, that will be one thing. But odds are that we will instead use it to see things that aren't there.

or to hide the unpleasant stuff that is there.

Hyper-Reality shows what the AR could become in the most dystopian way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs

That is the best presentation on the subject ever made.

Came here to post the same video, but I was coming from a positive viewpoint. Can't wait to get an interface like this, but have it open source so I can customise it however I want.

I agree, that's very cool. It's funny how some people see the utopia and others see the dystopia.

Pokemon Go is fully 5 years old. It's AR feature was a decent gimmick but pretty basic and a bit buggy. In the subsequent 5 years there's been nothing to equal it. I won't say AR is "dead" but it seems unlikely to reach mainstream adoption any time soon.

The hardware for wearable AR isn't main stream yet. Handset AR doesn't have the same wow factor. We're only now coming to a self sustaining VR industry but things are still progressing.

The mistake being made is that audio based AR is here and practical, if underutilized. Apple’s transparency mode (and competitor equivalents) is a critical innovation both on usability and social acceptance levels. It supports the blending of digital augmentations on the real world. Audio based AR is also free of many social signs that visual AR systems have struggle with. In particular, I work with teenagers and there seems to be little stigma around holding a conversation with earbuds in place.

> there seems to be little stigma around holding a conversation with earbuds in place

Maybe it's a generational or cultural thing, but I find that kind of thing incredibly rude. But I'm also the kind of person who takes my sunglasses off when I'm talking face-to-face with other people.

I find it rude as well, but it’s an important point for those producing AR tech to de-stigmatize.

Occlusion has gotten significantly better, for sure. That being said; there's still no 'killer app'.

Is there one killer app for the iPhone? The cumulative experience is the killer app. Likewise, the persistent AR environment will also show us value from the collective, incremental improvements over non-augmented experiences: the sidewalk up ahead has a splash of black ice, the pollen count is high by the creek so cycle on the main road today, etc.

I’d argue that a good mobile browser was the killer app that brought the iPhone to the forefront. It differentiated it from what else was available at the time. It’s hard to pinpoint a killer app now because the ecosystem is mature, but a killer app is often what gets a platform off the ground in the first place.

I'd argue that the killer app is more of a killer feature: internet connectivity.

This article goes on a rant about AR and how it will be used for more spying, emotional manipulation, etc that social media has perpetrated. Then defends VR as somehow shielded from these things:

"Most of us don’t have a healthy relationship with technology, and AR as currently thought of, will just exacerbate that. It’s why I really like VR more than AR, because VR is a separate world that you consciously decide to be in for a time."

And yet the author fails to mention that a good chunk of the VR market is dominated by Facebook, one of the very companies doing the things he railed against. Already they force Facebook login with Oculus. So much for your imagined separation of virtual and real life.

Nobody checks constant notifications on their VR headset; few people mindlessly flip through content streams or empty games on it. The fact that VR is so cumbersome means it gravitates towards more intentional experiences. You decide you want to do X, so you set up your headset and do it. I say this as an owner of one myself.

Of course the more the technology improves the less true this becomes. But for now there's a meaningful difference.

The entire Oculus experience is being mined for data. From what you look at to how violent you are in a game to what sites you visit in-app browsers. Your mannerisms. Your voice. Your movement and reflexes.

You think you decide, but you are more impressionable than you think. Your emotions will be exploited in this new medium even more effectively than the rectangular screen, because you will feel embedded in whatever experience they pull you towards. Sure, it's cute gaming experiences now, just as Farmville was 11 years ago, but the nature of Facebook as a company (and the forced FB login means everything is 1:1 traceable with social network identity), means you and everyone else are going to be manipulated in these worlds. And they'll even be able to measure the effect on your social network activity.

It seems weird to state these as dangers of AR, when they're already so completely encompassed by "having a phone and a lack of critical thinking skills".

There's a strong trend of assuming that "new thing" is going to be "existing problem but worse" without much justification - AR isn't exactly going to do anything which isn't already being done. People are already signed up to constant news alerts, and depending which service you pick, that projects a very specific and effective psychological profile.

Like, by far the most common desire I see from people wanting some heralded perfect AR system is the ability to just ad-block real life. Imagine a world where all billboards, bus adverts, bus stop adverts etc. are just being replaced by white squares - where you are not being driven to subtly filter that out every moment of every day. I mean, the whiplash I get now when I don't have uBlock Origin in a web browser is incredible - all that visual noise is genuinely stressful to deal with.

VR will be terrible because, yes, people will be manipulated through virtual realities made up for them to achieve different things. Some options will undoubtedly be good (learning and so on), Others will be worse than any FaceBook bubble + gaming/gambling + video games combined could ever be. Imagine the "re-educational" possibilities here for a sec.

You get to plug in to any reality you want or someone wants for you and you get manipulated through these realities and you no longer live in actual reality but live in a virtual one fabricated for you and people like you and you get manipulated any which way the powers that be want you to be. Gamification will be rampant and will absorb people in to it. They will have little need for actual reality, be it relationships or much else.

> Gamification will be rampant and will absorb people in to it.

When I see how much mundane grinding people are willing to do for video game rewards, it makes me wonder if status or cosmetics in a virtual world will ever be used in place of real compensation for work. Maybe as a gig economy thing? That would effectively give the world controllers the ability to create currency. Virtual economics are already huge and people work in them for fun.

There is so much abuse potential here. Psychologically, it has the potential to change what people are. They will be able to shape people as they see fit --just gamify to achieve whatever goal.

There is no need to confront all the blemishes and warts of actual reality when you can have a perfect universe customized to you pleasing all your psychological needs. Everyone can have their own reality they live in. You can live your life within VR. The more you live in VR, the less you need from actual reality. It's a perfect way to indoctrinate and manipulate people however you wish.

Anyone working on this should understand the consequences of their work down the road and get out and not contribute to this.

Why should someone like you get to decide how anyone else chooses to spend their ~75 years of existence though?

This whole post is just a statement of intent to manipulate people through other means "for their own good".

Imagine that Openwater.cc is successful, and we have the ability to extract and replay memories in full “lived experience” resolution. How many people might choose to spend their ~75 years “living” in the peak experiences of mankind rather than the mundane struggle of real life? Would that be a social paradigm we want to support, to allow?

Given how willing my 8 year old is to watch someone else play video games instead of playing the game himself, I think you're on the right track here.

You're still ultimately stating an intent to limit other people's freedom of thought and leisure "for their own good" - it's baked right into this idea.

If people choose to spend more time in the virtual then the physical, then that's a pretty good sign you've setup your society wrong and need to work on fixing that.

I don't think that's an apt conclusion. If you addict people to something psychologically it does not imply that thing is better than reality. You can get addicted mice to consume themselves to death via addition, is that better than whatever mouse reality is?

Conversely, an individual in an uncontacted tribe, do they miss out on this? Do they feel left out of anything modern? No. What about most people if they were dropped into an isolated tribe, how would they feel. Why so? Point is, you can deal with reality just fine, you don't need distraction. Distraction is a distraction from reality but is unnecessary and completely disconnects people from their selves.

Could we get a regular uncontacted tribesperson hooked on a VR future, you bet, even if they were living out their lives just fine before ---just as they could get addicted to hard drugs even if they did not need that before.

“ You're still ultimately stating an intent to limit other people's freedom of thought and leisure "for their own good" - it's baked right into this idea.”

Where does free will absolutism end? The tip of my nose. Truthfully, I couldn’t care less on an individual level, so the concern is not “their own good”. Such a system would be the ultimate drug. The concern is species level. For instance, physical reproduction would be a dim, depressing shadow compared to the heights of ecstasy the system can produce on tap. Better ramp up that robot womb research...

> it makes me wonder if status or cosmetics in a virtual world will ever be used in place of real compensation for work

That already exists, unsurprisingly from Amazon: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/21/mission...

It's a coin flip that the future will just be that most people will be too lazy to put on a headset.

But VR could also help people achieve maximum hedonic satisfaction at minimal cost and carbon footprint. Your one bedroom apartment could look like Versailles (until you step on a Lego). Your spouse could look like your celebrity sex fantasy. You could simulate any experience that few can afford, like driving a Lamborghini or visiting the Taj Mahal or even visiting the Moon. With VR that goes beyond vision, your healthy vegetarian food could taste like a bacon cheeseburger.

Yes but that’s precisely the scary part. Nothing has consequences. Your psychological profile is completely overturned AND it can be gamified to change to accommodate whatever the powers that be want whoever they are.

At that point people become an illusion a strange simulation of themselves.

I always figured AR would be a replacement for my monitor(s) allowing cool new applications with space and wouldn't leave my workspace. Obviously, there are lots of applications when walking around, but not a whole lot I'd want (given that they can't come up with much that isn't Apple Watch/iPhone strapped to face). Maybe I'll never get my dream of carrying a pair of goggles in my backpack that can let me spread out my work beyond the laptop screen in a hotel room or on a plane.

For my part I don't really care about "AR" as it actually applies to augmenting reality, and in fact I'm pretty sure that if I got such a device I'd have most of the functionality like that turned off, the same way I have most location-aware app functionality disabled on my phone and most notifications turned off on my smartwatch. I just like the idea of having a screen in my glasses that can replace carrying around a Kindle / iPad for reading and other light media consumption.

Seems like this takes a very narrow view of AR and just focuses on every possible negative aspect and for every possible branch only considers the worst case scenario.

Poor quality article.

AR is merely a tool, how we as individuals chose to use it will define what impact is has on each of our lives.

We've done so well with social media.

> We didn't evolve for this.

No, we evolved to jump sharks. Just like that straying into purpose-driven evolution and just so stories did. Motivated reasoning.

He had me until then, though.

other people's augmented realities will be awful. an augmented reality we can holistically build our of pieces ourselves will be at fantastic deep frontier where countless people can define & shape themselves & their views.

good of luck escaping out into a real metaverse, planet earth. few large participants on your planet will shoot for that greater good.

AR as we're currently thinking about it will be a nightmare.

The reality of it will likely be worse than that.

Augmented reality will never exist. So lucky

Even in the movies all they can come up with is ads.

Anything useful it might be able to do makes the task redundant.

It can tell you how to put together your IKEA furniture, then it could tell a robot what to do.

Robot arms are cool and do all sorts of things human arms can't, however, human arms are way better at manipulating objects in the wild.

You can program robots to build furniture, but programming them to build furniture from a box in my house is not going to be worth the effort.

Programming AR to understand how to build IKEA from a box in a house is also not worth the effort. Its amazingly hard to do.

You'd need close to general AI, when we can do that we'll probably have general purpose robots in the home also.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com