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

81–90 of 192 posts

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#81

Post by simontheowl »

makeitdouble wrote: post #7

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…

A lot of these large companies spend millions of dollars recruiting participants from various demographics to test prototypes and fine-tune technologies like this. It's a tremendous effort.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#82

Post by MichaelZuo »

FabHK wrote: post #74
wil421 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is that sad? Partial information seems better then remaining 100% a trade secret.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#83

Post by evancox100 »

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 could be wrong, but I took that to mean the tweet thread was written not to leak anything that wasn’t already publicly available in the patents. Not that the patents were written to not disclose anything.

In which case patent regime is working exactly as intended and promoting dissemination of ideas while still providing the (time limited) economic advantages to the inventor.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#84

Post by gumby »

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.

Actually his statement is entirely within the spirit of patents: the secret sauce is disclosed in exchange for some limited monopoly; since it's been disclosed people can talk about it and learn from it.

(None of this comment should be interpreted as a defense of the travesty that the patent system has become)

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#85

Post by steve_adams_86 »

purple_ferret wrote: post #71
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

> VR GF

This seems like an oxymoron. I get that it's a "virtual" girl friend which semantically qualifies the term girl friend, yet there's something immensely sad about the combination of these terms.

VR sex bot seems more apt to me. It doesn't really matter and I don't mean to impose terminology on anyone; it's just an observation/reaction.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#87

Post by steve_adams_86 »

seydor wrote: post #14

I know we all hate each other but is this like a good direction for the future? Directing all our emotions to silicon chips? Maybe there is other things we should be building. Emotion recognition is an old field but (apart from autism research) the only application i can think of is emotion manipulation. How does one wake up in the morning and decide to work on consumer emotion recognition

> How does one wake up in the morning and decide to work on consumer emotion recognition

I think two significant factors would be 1) they have the skills to make progress in the field and it's highly rewarded, and 2) they believe there could be real value in making progress. One or both of those could be enough to motivate a lot of people.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#88

Post by justinator »

evancox100 wrote: post #83
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 could be wrong, but I took that to mean the tweet thread was written not to leak anything that wasn’t already publicly available in the patents. Not that the patents were written to not disclose anything. In which case patent regime is working exactly as intended and promoting dissemination of ideas while still providing the (time limited) economic advantages to the inventor.

As is written, the subject of what's, "carefully written" are, "the details [...] in patents".

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#89

Post by croes »

purple_ferret wrote: post #71
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

Think of the possibilities

- they can track what you fear

- they can track what you like

- they can track what enrages you

Agencies will love that data.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#90

Post by justinator »

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.

To be honest, I think it's a little dangerous he's saying the things he's saying, esp. the part where he tells people, "hire me to talk more".
Post reply on HN