51–60 of 192 posts
I wonder if him not having worked on Apple Vision for the last >1.5 years means they distanced themselves from his "vision, strategy and direction" or even gave up on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who said it’s hooked up to a centralized AI? Apple’s buzzword of the day yesterday was “on-device processing” and “on-device X” in general. They have invested heavily for years now into shipping ML chips in their devices and don’t seem to be stopping; if anything they’re increasing the use of it. Is there anything definitively claiming this would be any different?
> Who said it’s hooked up to a centralized AI? I'm talking about the infrastructure not this device necessarily
This part makes me sad about patents and original idea behind them. This actually is the opposite of original idea why people came up with the idea of patenting something. To spread the knowledge and to award inventors. Not to stifle the competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As usual, people will try to use workarounds. For missing ports on my Mac Book Pro, I use a hub. For connecting my AKG headset to my iPhone, I use a dongle. I guess sooner or later Apple will make available a kind of API for device makers to make it possible to interact with the content in ways different that eyeballs tracking.
You're right. The same way face unlock doesn't work for some people and they inout a password every time, so it's not intractable. I expect people for who eye tracking fails to be stuck on third party controllers for the default interface (hopefully they're supported outside of games ?). The bummer though will be that this device is US only for its launch, so the first round of application might also not care at all…
I wonder if him not having worked on Apple Vision for the last >1.5 years means they distanced themselves from his "vision, strategy and direction" or even gave up on it.
Also he keeps telling companies to reach out to him about this tech so he can make that sweet sweet consultant money, so I'm guessing he's still onboard.
Right... so this thing hooked up to a centralized AI, deciding what people see when, how often they see it, what they can express and how they feel... Do people really want to live in the matrix? I have a visceral reaction to this idea
"Where a user looks stays private while navigating Apple Vision Pro, and eye tracking information is not shared with Apple, third-party apps, or websites. Additionally, data from the camera and other sensors is processed at the system level, so individual apps do not need to see a user’s surroundings to enable spatial experiences."
This whole tweet had the same tone as when pop science crime investigation TV explains a criminal can be identified through its gait alone. It's always magic, except when the predictive model doesn't work and there is no corrective action possible on the user side. We're talking about physical reactions, so that means it's supposed to be the same through gender, age, race, health conditions from the algorithm's point…
As usual, people will try to use workarounds. For missing ports on my Mac Book Pro, I use a hub. For connecting my AKG headset to my iPhone, I use a dongle. I guess sooner or later Apple will make available a kind of API for device makers to make it possible to interact with the content in ways different that eyeballs tracking.
But instead every screams about dongles.
"All of these details are publicly available in patents, and were carefully written to not leak anything." This part makes me sad about patents and original idea behind them. This actually is the opposite of original idea why people came up with the idea of patenting something. To spread the knowledge and to award inventors. Not to stifle the competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? The more personal a device is and the closer it becomes to interfacing with who we are, the more it will need to do things like this to work, else it will just feel off.
There's the good ol' bait-and-switch of tech industry you have to consider. New tech is promoted by emphasizing (and sometimes overstating) the humane aspects, the hypothetical applications for the benefit of the user and the society at large. In reality, these capabilities turn out to be mediocre, and those humane applications never manifest - there is no business in them. We always end up with a shitty version that…
Reality: "We'll use it to store media encryption keys, so hollywood will let us stream media to your device."
I wonder if/how they incorporate that.
Because a lot of social drama comes from humans betting on the statistically likely thing in social situations and it being wrong rather than checking or hedging their bet. ("I shall assume the white male is in charge. Oops. Now I've offended the woman or person of color who is actually in charge.")