Is this the future of Project Glass? | Hacker News Reader

Is this the future of Project Glass?

geek.com

82 pointsukdm34 comments

Interesting video. A bit dark at the end, though. It bothered me seeing how disengaged both characters were when they were on their date. It's considered poor manners to have your smartphone out during a date, but what would happen if there was no visual signal to indicate that you were checking your social networks during dinner?

To me, these thought experiments put us close to the realm of 'post-scarcity'. What happens when first-world society can replace physical goods and entertainment with virtual ones? It's fun to think about.

While an interesting approach, the interface way too distracting. And like using cellphones in conversation is considered rude, so will these things be. For example, how would the girl know he is using a dating app? She won't, so its more acceptable to somehow "disable" it?

I liked juxtaposition between the room being overwhelmed with virtual items, but in real life actually being rather empty and dull.

The most interesting challenge about these interfaces is the question of UX and norms. For mainstream adoption, the interface is going to be the most interesting facet.

"how would the girl know he is using a dating app?"

My guess would be the guy was so clueless he left this dating app on the list of his active apps that he kept on the equivalent of his Facebook wall. It's a "script kiddie mistake", like the burglar who post his exploits to his Facebook page. And in this future, everyone's become an idiot through doing everything by prompt, so this kind of mistake would be what you'd expect.

Honestly that video seemed from the start like a horrific distopian nightmare.

If anything, the end distracted from the empty and idiotic quality of the characters normal activities - prompted for every task, "congratulated" on every "victory". The guy's "sport coat" comment was just painful in revealing someone who knew and had nothing to say.

I did seem like a realistic scenario to boot.

>Honestly that video seemed from the start like a horrific distopian nightmare.

I think that was the point.

Personally I thought it was superb and extremely well acted.

As someone who has been a cyberpunk fan my entire life - I am 100% against implant augmentations, for specifically this reason.

Even something as seemingly innocuous as an in-eye-HUD turns you into a complete robot... something no longer human.

The sad thing is that we will get to this reality, and it is from our current outside view that we can see this is not a good thing. When the ops are available to everyone, their view will become shrouded in digital lies.

I have two small children. The biggest thing I can do for them as a parent is to teach them as much as possible to be connected to their humanity.

I loved the vid - for its creativity and its warning.

I still love the idea of all that is cyberpunk, just not so much the reality...

"Even something as seemingly innocuous as an in-eye-HUD turns you into a complete robot... something no longer human"

Spot on! I was thinking the same thing. Who needs to worry about robots turning on us and ruling the world when we are turning humans into robots! Mindless, soulless robots.

I thought the opener was cool, but then seeing a guy on his couch looking at a blank wall was so cold and isolated. Everything is in his head and he's not using his other senses. Yes, the characters in this film could just connect to others who have liked technology, but its still missing that aspect of having a warm body next to you.

Also the constant searching of apps that will help out the date is just painful. Relying on technology just to do well with the interview/hanging out process of the date seems so detached. Its like the girl wasn't dating that man. She was dating his technology.

This was a good video. Could this actually be the future? Perhaps, but we've always had that "red flag" moment where we thought "Wait a second, this is going too far!". Then again, how can you detect someone who has this technology on them? I don't have an answer for that.

Meh, alarmist tripe. People aren't that stupid, and as with any new technology there will be a period of adjustment.

When smartphones first hit the mainstream, people had them out everywhere, and yeah, you had a lot of cases where people checked their email during dinner with friends and whatnot.

But now that the technology has matured some, and we've gotten used to it, we've developed etiquette around its use. We can no openly frown when someone whips a phone out at dinner, we even play phone stacking games to make fun of the phenomenon.

So sure, when something like Glass comes out we will go through a brief period where we're abusing the uses and social acceptability of this device to no end. But that too will pass and will settle into a steady state that is nowhere near as dystopian as these alarmist videos would have us believe.

You are suggesting that people picking up their phones and playing games or checking out the social networks during dinner or other social situations is a thing of the past. It is not.

Not only that, it is becoming more and more frequent. As people get used to this, it becomes more and more difficult to support awkward periods of silence and people resort more and more to their mobile devices to fill them. Which only worsens the problem.

This is one of the reasons why I don't get excited about anything related to smartphones. They are a tool of social disconnection, and that's not going to get any better in the future.

It still happens, but anecdotally it's dropping and fast. In the last couple of years we've seen people actually turn against such behavior, and that's the first step. Like another poster brought up, you don't hear phones ring in theaters any more - it took time, but the new etiquette is catching on.

> "They are a tool of social disconnection"

Balderdash. On the whole smartphones have been a net gain for socialization. Remember, certain people also lamented the loss of the hand-written letter, or the telegram, and predicted grave consequences for the nature of human interaction. None of which has come true. The need for social contact in humans transcends any technological imposition we can place upon it.

Look at Facebook, which is a favourite whipping boy of HN's, but they have changed the face of socialization. You are now capable of keeping up with many more people than ever before - and I call shenanigans on people who would claim this form of interaction is "cheating" (like a rolodex is cheating), or somehow less genuine (elitist bull).

To pre-empt an incredibly facile and common argument that relates to this: keeping up with more people is a good thing, and the whole notion that having fewer, tighter friends is unequivocally better is arrogance in the extreme, not to mention a huge case of false dichotomy.

So, back to smartphones. It has enabled a new, lower-barrier-threshold communication form (SMS/IM) that is not as intrusive, it has enabled incredible ability to keep in touch with a category of acquaintances which previously got no attention at all (Facebook/G+/etc), it has given us tools by which organizing large events is easier than ever before (GroupMe, Facebook), and finally realized the dream of vid-calling (FaceTime/Skype), as well as the tools by which we stay informed about important news of relevance to our daily lives (Twitter, Facebook), and hell, it's even helping us make friends and date (Meetup, OKCupid, Match, etc, all of which have deep mobile integration).

So what's that about smartphones been a net negative again?

Great arguments man! Like the way you think.

In support of your point, I remember a time not so long ago when phones ringing in movie theaters were not unheard of. That hasn't happened to me in recent memory, and I go to the movies a lot.

Unfortunately you just don't get it.

I and many others DON'T LIKE BEING RECORDED.

It is a gross invasion of our privacy, illegal without our permission and opens up innumerable issues should I do something that could be classed a crime. And absolutely no amount of "getting used to it" is going to change that.

> illegal without our permission

Unless you're in a public space, of course.

> absolutely no amount of "getting used to it" is going to change that.

The Amish believe something similar about phones in the house - the belief that a stranger being able to reach out and interrupt you at any point is detrimental. The rest of the world seems to have adjusted okay, though.

I keep Facebook chat turned off for a very similar reason.

If you're out on a date, you're probably being recorded already. There are very few businesses that don't have security cameras.

Security cameras are not immediately posted on YouTube. People have become nonchalant about recording others and disseminating the footage, it'll be even weirder if you can't see that they have a camera. How would you ever be able to drop your guard?

It would probably the same as posting to online forums like this one. Most of the time, the Secret Service doesn't show up at your house to investigate something you say, but it does happen, so you self-censor accordingly.

Alternative ending: she leaves, he appears disappointed but a closeup of his mouth shows a wry grin slowly appearing. Cut to her on a new date, switch to her view of a completely different looking guy. It's going great!

Outside shot of the couple reveals it's the same guy - he's just overlayed a different face on his own.

Cut to game wall .. "hidden identity" badge pro level

Amazing video. Dystopian, yes, but dystopian visions are a useful counterbalance to the optimism and short-term thinking of most day-to-day tech news and discussion. It outlines the negatives of what could develop in the future, and it gives us all a jolt - shit, we realise, this stuff needs to be taken seriously. The imperative now is for us to monitor the development of these technologies and see that the negatives are minimised and the positives optimised. Because of course there are plenty of positives. This technology could have absolutely amazing applications - just like all of the technologies we are haphazardly developing, there is awesome potential for both good and bad. The difference in outcomes will derive from the choices we all make as they emerge and mature.

Summary: a bit of fear is healthy here. Now it's time to start imagining the opposite of this video: how could such technologies make our lives and planet amazing?

There are plenty of positives in the film — the cool flightsim, the lack of need for a physical TV, help with cooking... heck, the dating app was even helping improve the dude's love life up until he revealed he used it at the end. I think the point is that these helpful augmentations, taken too far, become harmful.

But if we really want to improve the world, I like the counter in the fridge telling you how many days each food will stay good. That could be enhanced. What if, when you know you have too many zucchinis, you could click a 'share' button and instantly offer them to friends in your apartment building, so they end up in a neighbor's stir-fry and not the trash? Or let Sight predict your cooking habits for the next week based on past behavior, so when you're shopping, it can beep, put a red outline around the zucchini and say "recommend not buying - likely to rot before use." This kind of tech could seriously reduce food waste, which is a big deal in the developed world. I don't have a citation on hand for how much food gets thrown away in the US, but I believe it's over 25 percent.

Funny that I haven't seen one mention of gamification in this thread. To me that was the big takeaway here. When Glass/Augmented Reality/whatever-its-going-to-be-called hits, this could probably be how most people will interact with it.

It's all over this video. Watch the guy get frustrated when he doesn't get a perfect score chopping cucumbers. Note the high-score table in his closet. Even the "Wingman" dating app is pushing him to succeed via goals and achievements.

If you found this interesting, I can recommend the 3rd episode of the British show "Black Mirror".

If it comes to pass, it will create a huge gulf between people 'with' augmented sight and those without. That would not be helpful.

I remember when there was a gulf between people with cell phones and people without. Then cell phones got super-cheap. More recently, smartphones were a "digital divide", but that won't last long either.

Nice video, but it is a mixed bag of interesting and implausible. In particular, it's unfortunate that the video had to be mostly wasted on the implausible date scene, with an app reading emotions (such as impatience) and suggesting things to do or say. I'd say that is in fact the perfect example of what NOT to expect in any foreseeable future.

Actually the Affective Computing group at MIT has been actively working on this since at least 2007. They had a fully functionaly prototype last year. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128191.600-specs-tha... and http://theinstitute.ieee.org/people/profiles/rosalind-picard...

I'm not surprised that this is a research topic but compared to all the other applications, I still think this will take much longer to get running reliably.

They are working on centered, pre-registered faces and stationary cameras. Once you add low-quality sensor that moves with the head (introducing huge amounts of motion blur to the image), and rich, real-world scenes full of other distractors, the technology will fall apart.

I'm certain we'll get hacked up implementations that work half the time if you keep perfectly still for some of the very basic and easy to tell emotions such as happy and sad, but it will mostly be a disfunctional joke for a long time. Time will tell!

Faces will be pre-registered with Facebook (and the Face.com tech they just bought). Anyway if it's that useful, people will learn to keep their heads still while waiting for the computer's assistance :)

The scariest part about this video:

Comments on it saying "well, it had a frightening turn towards the end".

The video opens with someone eschewing physical activity for literally wriggling on the floor, like a fish out of water. Streamlining activities like ordering food or selecting clothes, but each step we remove from the process, each abstraction, is another human interaction lost, another retreat into hermitage.

I don't want this future.

Who's to say that wriggling on the floor in a virtual reality simulation isn't the next Pilates or Yoga? Also, the girl referred to her jogging gamification and navigation app.

Isn't it plausible that many more people would exercise with the added encouragement training that such technology could provide?

Streamlining mundane activities frees time for more interesting ones. Augmented reality might enhance human interaction, rather than diminish it.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful comment, but I thought I could counter it with some devil's advocacy.

"The real" Google glass is the bluetooth 2.0, if you know what I mean.

I thought it was odd that the video's producers apparently don't know anything about the seduction community subculture, despite barely managing to side-swipe it in the dating app references.

I suppose I could see that they were trying to make it about AR, rather than PUA stuff... but really, all I saw was a criticism of PUA practices and nothing significant about AR issues except that they make PUA practices easier.

Humans -> Androids

Reply on news.ycombinator.com