Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 192 posts

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#71

Post by purple_ferret »

kasperni wrote: post #2

> So, a user is in a mixed reality or virtual reality experience, and AI models are trying to predict if you are feeling curious, mind wandering, scared, paying attention, remembering a past experience, or some other cognitive state. And these may be inferred through measurements like eye tracking, electrical activity in the brain, heart beats and rhythms, muscle activity, blood density in the brain, blood pressure,…

Think of the possibilities.

-A VR show can modify the jokes in real time if they know how funny you find them.

-A VR casino can offer a 'full biometrics' table for the players who really think they know how to bluff

-A VR porno can have your VR GF climax at the same time as you

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#72

Post by dilap »

vincnetas wrote: post #53

"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.

well arguably here they are doing that -- w/o patent protection his NDA would probably completely stop him from talking about any of this

(tho i personally still think the patent idea is probably misguided -- apple would develop this tech ANYWAY, and it will all become public knowledge once people play w/ the devices enough, so what are we really gaining here?)

but still the argument can be made.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#73

Post by BasedAnon »

jodrellblank wrote: post #56
BasedAnon wrote: post #41

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

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/06/introducing-apple-vis... says " 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. "

I'm not suggesting it currently has this functionality

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#74

Post by FabHK »

wil421 wrote: post #58
vincnetas wrote: post #53

"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.

It’s not the patent that’s preventing him from speaking it’s the NDA he signed with Apple.

The sad fact is not that the author cannot speak about the invention (because of the NDA), but that the patent was carefully written not to disclose anything substantial about the invention.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#76

Post by FabHK »

throwaway290 wrote: post #39
adinisom wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps rubber hose resistance: "I'm sorry Seydor, it appears you're being coerced to unlock this data."

Which is especially fun if Seydor weren't coerced and does not truly help solve the rubber hose factor... Once rubber hose is in play this only means more suffering

Beatings will continue until your emotions improve.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#78

Post by acomjean »

vincnetas wrote: post #53

"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.

I worked at a large company with lots of patents. It was said some things they kept as "trade secrets" as to not alert the world to how they were doing things. Mostly I understood to have to do with the processes they were using for Chip Fabrication. I left long ago and they sold they're chip business...

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#79

Post by majormajor »

vincnetas wrote: post #53

"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.

If not for patent protection they'd be trade secrets inside Apple and if anything they'd talk about them less.

Whether or not those trade secrets were likely to leak before or after the expiration of the patent... well... in theory the patents mean you get the info out there even for the failed companies where leaks wouldn't be interesting. In practice you've got patent trolls.

I think it would make sense to shorten the patent length for certain things, based on how fast the state of the art in that industry is moving, but it would be hard to make everyone happy with whoever was in charge of deciding those terms.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#80

Post by c7DJTLrn »

vincnetas wrote: post #53

"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.

Give away too much information and your technology will just be copied by some Chinese company.
Post reply on HN