The live demo of this is brutal. https://x.com/ns123abc/status/1968469616545452055
Normal method:
* Search for a recipe
* Leave my phone on a stand and glance at it if I forget a step
Meta glasses:
* Put glasses on (there's a reason I got lasek, it's because wearing glasses sucks)
* Talk into the void, trying to figure out how to describe my problem as well as the format that I want the LLM to structure the response
* Correct it when it misreads one of my ingredients
* Hope that the rng gods give me a decent recipe
Or basically any of the things shown off for Apple's headset. Strap on a giant headset just so I can... browse photos? or take a video call where the other person can't even see my face?
Hands-free while cooking (not having to touch my phone with messy hands) is not a bad thing either.
But yeah, it doesn't give me good answeres any more, usually trys to start an unrelated YouTube video or email me something about Youtube plus or w/e
Imagine it’s 1992:
Cookbook: Open book, follow steps.
PC: Turn on tower, wait for DOS, fiddle with floppies, pray the printer works, hope the shareware recipe isn’t weird.
Not saying you're wrong but its easy to miss the big picture
I still feel that way. I have cookbooks because I find the UX better than searching for recipes.
And frankly, even the online recipe experience leaves much to be desired. Skip past the blog post. Skip past the list of ingredients. Skip past another blog post. Find the single statblock on the bottom that lists ingredients & amounts, & instructions - hoping that it exists.
Like other commenters, I've also started going back to paper cookbooks.
Internet and recipe websites solve a real problem: accessing recipes was expensive and not easy
AR headsets don't solve any problems. If anything, they make up a nonexistent problem, attempts but fails to solve the problem, during which the experience becomes even worse.
Phone method:
* Find phone
* Search for the right app, before finding the right recipe
* Leave my phone on counter, constantly having to move it as I move plates, pans etc.
* Wash and dry hands after each step, before unlocking phone
* Clean it every time gunk gets to it
Meta glasses:
* They're already on, just ask for recipe
* No need to ever wash/dry hands, move a device around, or clean it since one can easily unlock it without touching it
Right? Similarly with cookbooks, the best case is great and the worst case is terrible. There's a reason there's a market for recipe websites, cookbooks, etc.
Cookbook: Open book, follow steps.
New gadget from mult-billion dollar company: showcases on a live demonstration that it's a broken piece of crap that doesn't work.
Like, are we forgetting that it didn't work? It sucked at the job! Let's not what-if or have some imaginary "okay, but pretend it's actually good," deal here. It was bad!
i got the art of italian cooking recently and it's genuinely far easier to get a recipe than trying to scroll through a 50 page monologue about the intracicies of someones childhood before even listing the ingredients
The internet over time has been riddled with junk, especially since the cost of production of information is just your opportunity cost of time. Even that is going away with the use of LLMs....
In the same way that google search used to be amazing before it was taken over by optimization, I think we're seeing a mass influx of content production to attempt to integrate itself into training corpus.
I have always believed there is a cost borne to get the best of something. This means a sacrifice is entailed. Theres something very important about this re. the culture - a culture in which everything is free is how you get crap stuff produced. And people settle for crap stuff just because its free.
People who can see the bigger picture when you have this, can see the dangers of it.
I agree random recipes are hell on the internet, but it's also not something we're forced into if we care any bit about recipes in the first replace.
With glasses, you have to aim your head at whatever you want the AI to see. With a phone, you just point the camera while your hands stay free. Even in Meta’s demo, the presenter had to look back down at the counter because the AI couldn’t see the ingredients.
It feels like the same dead end we saw with Rabbit and the Humane pin—clever hardware that solves nothing the phone doesn’t already do. Maybe there’s a niche if you already wear glasses every day, but beyond that it’s hard to see the case.
To me the phone is a pretty good form factor. Convenient enough(especially with voice control), unobtrusive, socially acceptable, and I need to own one anyway because it's a phone. I'm a geek so I think this tech is cool, but I see zero chance I would use one, even if it were a few steps better than it is.
You're missing the part where I'm reminded that my phone autolocks so I have to go into the settings in the middle of cooking to make it never autolock (or be lazy and unlock it every time I need it). And then I have to find a clean knuckle to scroll the ingredient list and the recipe steps every time I'm trying to remember what step I'm at.
You could do some killer recipe UX with a HUD on some glasses.
Beat Saber as a social party experience with friends in the same room, sure, that's fun... but for day to day gaming the amount of people who want to play VR games on the regular is nearly zero.
If they really want to lean into the VR use case that people want, its porn, but I suspect they won't put that front and center.
But since I moved I didn't want to screw the base stations in to the walls again and haven't played in a long time. I feel like I probably still would like VR gaming but haven't been tempted enough to buy any of the newer systems since it seems like Meta has fully captured the market and it all seems pretty distasteful now.
Of course, you could make all sorts of traditional top-down or isometric games work well without motion sickness - but no one is going to pay for VR to play Civilization or Star Craft or Baldur's Gate 3, since these would be fundamentally the exact same experience as playing on PC or console, but with a display strapped to your head.
This is an overated problem. You play VR for a small amount of time then you adapt to it. You get your "VR Legs" as they say.
I've been involved with two VR projects that were ultimately cancelled because, while we developed a sexy tech demo that showed the potential, building things out into something sustainable required too many resources and took too much time to maintain.
I agree they are reaching (and not finding) for an application.
An idea that I've had before is like 'augmented curated experiences' for all kinds of things--for example imagine playing a Magic the Gathering (or similar) card game, and watching your cards come to life on the board in hologram-esque 3D. Or while watching a sports match, being able to pull up the stats or numbers of any players, or flip through channels of POV camera from helmets. Car navigation that shows you what turns to make by augmenting lanes or signs with highlighting. Brick and mortar stores having a live wayfinding route to products in their store based on your grocery list, recognizing and highlighting items you like.
This is the kind of thing that buries VR ideas. It's very cute in a demo, but as an actual product, the cost of coming up with 3D models and animations for all MTG cards currently being played is many orders of magnitude more than the total number of people who would pay for this. Ultimately this is completely unnecessary fluff for the game, like chess games where the pieces actually fight: irrelevant, and it actually detracts from the game because it interrupts the flow of what you're actually doing.
It just isn't taking off. In my experience even though VR is unique and amazing, it's not that much better than playing those games flat screen. I tend to spend most of my time in Beat Saber.
Also i'm not sure what these single player relatively short playtime/runtime games accomplish as you buy it play it in less than a week and are done. What I would like to see is the large scale infinitely playable MMO type game done on VR with at least at 250M budget.
And without free movement, you can't build any of the mainstream game genres. You can't build and get people excited in a Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed or Fortnite or Elden Ring or Zelda where movement works like Riven, the sequel to Myst. Valve actually tried with the first Half-Life game in a decade, and even that didn't work.
Add to this massive gameplay limitation the second massive issue that you can't get a mass audience to pay hundreds of dollars extra for a peripheral without which they can't play your 70-80 dollar game.
Half Life Alyx is still considered to be one of the best VR games ever made and one that is still consistently recommended to new users even years after release. IMO people buy hardware because of the exclusive content. If a standard game console came out and it only had one AAA game on it, I probably wouldn't bother buying it. But if there were 3-4 games that looked really interesting it starts to look more worth the investment. Playing VR games takes a lot of committment (time / physical space / $$$) so the payoff has to be worth it or you'll lose people. With the huge amount of money spent on R&D for new hardware I think it's a valid argument to say that maybe funding content would have been a better investment in terms of ensuring platform growth.
Also, side note but not every game requires free motion. Plenty of hits had no movement or teleport etc. A lot of these were completely new (sub-)genres that didn't exist or hit the same as they would in a traditional pancake game. Plus lots of kids seem unaffected by free movement (maybe as high as 50% of users by my rough estimate).
I played some VR sword-fighting games and they were bad in a way that AAA budgets would not fix. Stuff like an attack animation being pre-scripted feels incredibly goofy in VR.
I think this is a general problem. VR worlds need to be more dynamic than typical games. AAA games tend to have higher quality assets, but arranged in a more restrictive and scripted configuration. More innovative indie work is needed to work out what the language of VR should be (it is a bit weird compared to the past because stuff like Quake was innovative, AAA-equivalent for the era, but also small and independent enough to be innovative).
I had really expected a different "only one"
[1]:
Most played VR games
Rank Name Curr 24h pk All-time
1. VRChat 33,032 46,652 66,824
2. War Thunder 26,388 65,589 121,318
3. PAYDAY 2 23,513 31,619 247,709
4. No Man's Sky 22,509 46,010 212,613
5. OBS Studio 11,434 22,388 27,334
6. Phasmophobia 7,716 22,789 112,717
7. Forza Hz 5 4,940 13,617 81,096
8. Assetto Corsa 3,885 13,598 19,796
9. OVR Adv. Sett. 3,030 4,299 6,418
10. Tabletop Sim. 2,902 7,755 37,198
THere is no need for these stupid glasses. Some refuse to accept it - especially Zuckerberg who relies on folks like Apple to make his money. Thats really whats driving this project if you tear away all the BS.
Maybe the tech wasn't quite fool proof and they tried to fake it and then the fake version messed up.
I fully expect the AI to suck initially and then over many months of updates evolve to mostly annoying and only occasionally mildly useful.
However, the live stage demo failing isn't necessarily supporting evidence. Live stage demos involving Wifi are just hard because in addition to the normal device functionality they're demoing, they need to simultaneously compress and transmit a screen share of the final output back over wifi so the audience can see it. And they have to do all that in a highly challenging RF environment that's basically impossible to simulate in advance. Frankly, I'd be okay with them using a special headset that has a hard-wired data link for the stage demo.
So, the failure was apparently with the glasses Zuckerberg's wearing on stage not establishing a two-way video call while simultaneously streaming it's own interface for the live stream and big-screen. He said it worked dozens of times in rehearsal and one notable difference was that for the real demo hundreds of other wifi devices present in the room.
I have quite a bit of experience producing live keynote demos at large tech events, so I don't think I've confused about this. As an aside, when we're being shown "Zuckerberg's POV" through the glasses I believe that's actually something custom put together for demos because the normal glasses don't even have a mode which shows the wearer's POV. Creating that view requires sending both the internal output of the glasses, which is the corner inset overlay AND the full screen output of the glasses live camera - which are then being composited together backstage to create the combined image we see representing what Zuckerberg sees. Sending all of that while establishing a two-way video call is a lot for a resource constrained mobile device.
(I didn't have control over temperature settings.)
That's...interesting. You'd think they'd dial the temperature to 0 for you before the demo at least. Regardless, if the tech is good, I'd hope all the answers are at least decent and you could roll with it. If not....then maybe it needs to stay in R&D.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19567011
And a quora link (sorry):
https://www.quora.com/If-floating-point-addition-isnt-associ...
I think there’s some respect to give cause they’re doing it live and non-scripted.
I bet the device hardware is small/cheap and susceptible to interference
Mad props to the presenter for holding it together though.
Edit0: ie without internet access the ai is unable to produce an answer other than some prerecorded ones I guess
In the live showcase the presenter even mentions that the wifi must have been bad for the ai to repeat the answer
In the glasses is just a client to the ai. Like there is no ai in your phone when you talk to chatgpt, you are querying it and it will not keep talking to you if you cut off the wifi
The prerecorded responses I speculated about would have been things like "i'm having some connectivity problems, I'm unable to chat at this time, I'll let you know when I'm back." - the same kind of prerecorded things your earbuds tell you when they're low on power.
Unless you think they've added some inference logic on the device to slightly re-state the last answer they got from the cloud, it's clear that the glasses were connected and receiving the same useless answer from the cloud.
* side note, but it can also sound like "pear" to me this second time
I own a pair of Meta glasses, and the response when they don't have connectivity is "this function is not available at this time".
Edit0: and what are you even doing? Where do you think this is going?
But hey, at least it's not all faked
Pitches can be spun, data is cherry picked. But the proof is always in the pudding.
This is embarrassing for sure, but from the ashes of this failure we find the resolve to make the next version better.
For an internal team sure absolutely, but for public-facing work, prerecorded is the way to go
Not doing it live would've been an embarrassment. I don't think the thought ever crossed anyone's mind, of course we'd do it live. Sure the machines were super customized, bare bones Windows installs stripped back to the minimum amount of software needed for just one demo, but at the end of the day it sure as hell was real software running up there on stage.
Their actual result was pretty bad, but, ya know, work in progress I guess.
live demonstrations are tough - i wish apple would go back to them.
Zuckerberg handling it reasonably well was nice.
(Though the tone at the end of "we'll go check out what he made later" sounded dismissive. The blame-free post-mortem will include each of the personnel involved in the failure, in a series of one-on-one MMA sparring rounds. "I'm up there, launching a milestone in a trillion-dollar strategic push, and you left me @#$*&^ my @#*$&^@#( like a #@&#^@! I'll show you post-mortem!")