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

181–190 of 192 posts

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#181

Post by fragmede »

astrange wrote: post #167
fragmede wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not on a $3 million 5-bedroom mansion in the hills, but with $500,000 1 and 2-bedroom condos, 20% down payment is $100,000 k, which is affordable by a high level engineer or product designer making $500,000/yr, especially if it's a power DINK couple making close to $1mm/yr. Whether they want to invest in housing there is another story, but let's not pretend the upper class is priced out of Cupertino. Eg https:/…

There are not many of those. (Not many condos in the US in general for that matter, since they're pretty discouraged by housing laws.) Wonder how many 10s-100s of bids there were for it. Anyway, I'm not accusing Cupertino residents of being upper class, I'm accusing them of being old.

"Some of them are old" is a different statement than "None of them are young", but I see your point. It's true to the point that the local elementary school was or is closing down due to lack of enrollment.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#182

Post by rickdeckard »

passion__desire wrote: post #115
rickdeckard wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a billion dollar company, you invest alot in multiple trajectories of the possible future, because you don't want to end up not being ready when the market shifts (like Nokia for example) and being forced to pay royalty to your competitors just to stay in the market. Now imagine you're a trillion dollar company.

How is one company able to hush all its employees and contractors on the details of such a monumental effort? It's like trying to build a pyramid in secret.

By separating Research & Development of the fundamentals from the Development of the product (on top of having NDA's of course).

People and Media are not so much interested in technology research, and without a product it's also often too abstract to understand. If a company makes no publications or speeches at conferences, they can often work for YEARS without any special measureas and not getting noticed...

The product itself they then likely developed with the same business-practices to secrecy as an iPhone.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#183

Post by reportgunner »

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,…

Reminds me of dreaming.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#184

Post by sumedh »

passion__desire wrote: post #115
rickdeckard wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a billion dollar company, you invest alot in multiple trajectories of the possible future, because you don't want to end up not being ready when the market shifts (like Nokia for example) and being forced to pay royalty to your competitors just to stay in the market. Now imagine you're a trillion dollar company.

How is one company able to hush all its employees and contractors on the details of such a monumental effort? It's like trying to build a pyramid in secret.

> How is one company able to hush all its employees

Not all employees are working on top secret projects, those who do very few get the overall picture, they just work on some individual features.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#185

Post by justinator »

jameshart wrote: post #164
justinator wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, original sentence, "All of these details are publicly available in patents, and were carefully written to not leak anything." I'll simplify: "Details available in patents, carefully written to not leak" What's been written? The patent. What is in the patent? Details. How are the details written to not leak? Carefully.

Stop being obtuse. The author's intent is clear. What are we reading? A tweet. What does it contain? Details. What details? Ones that are publicly available in patents. How have they been written? Carefully, to not leak anything.

I'm not trying to be obtuse at all, this is grade school level sentence structure break down.

The details are contained in the patents. The tweet explains some of the high level concepts (but not the details - after all, it's a tweet). Neither - honestly - are written to leak anything (like trade secrets).

The tweet goes on, saying if you want more information to hire them. It's a pitch for their consultation services, since they believe this tech will mature in the coming decade and, don't ya wanna get on the base floor?

Seems pretty cut and dry.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#186

Post by sterlingcrispin »

jscottmiller wrote: post #168
sterlingcrispin wrote: post #121

Hey I appreciate the general lack of cruelty so far in the comments, sometimes HN can be pretty rough. The weird phrasing in the tweet is because I can't talk about any of the work I did due to NDA's besides my job description and those patents. But I had a pretty unusual role all things considered. I was also trying to clarify in the tweet that these aren't meant to be interpreted as unannounced existing features or…

This is fascinating, thanks for sharing! Oddly enough I worked on something similar in grad school in 2008 ( https://cowboyscott.gg/research/micro08.pdf ). Our methods and models were quite primitive (though we did have a nice eye tracker) and the work had mixed success. It's great seeing related approaches, but with proper budgets and teams!

Hah! This is very quirky and interesting, connecting it so close to the metal is an odd choice but cool.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#187

Post by sterlingcrispin »

trevyn wrote: post #180
sterlingcrispin wrote: post #121

Hey I appreciate the general lack of cruelty so far in the comments, sometimes HN can be pretty rough. The weird phrasing in the tweet is because I can't talk about any of the work I did due to NDA's besides my job description and those patents. But I had a pretty unusual role all things considered. I was also trying to clarify in the tweet that these aren't meant to be interpreted as unannounced existing features or…

Did you or your colleagues spend much time on considering the darker aspects of your work?

I don't want to speak for anyone else. But yes it's something we should take seriously and be responsible with.

I'm more concerned with ad tech that's already out there and having massive impacts on society.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#188

Post by avianlyric »

doxeddaily wrote: post #137
avianlyric wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m gonna avoid opining on the value of the patent system in general. But one way of reading this statement is that the patents were written to avoid leaking anything about what the technology was going to be used for. It’s entirely possible that the patents created for the Vision Pro are good enough to recreate many of the individual components that have been patented, but don’t help you assemble the entire product.…

>Which I would argue is entirely within the sprit of the patent system. I don't think so. The spirit of the patent system is you submit your product to them in the form of a working model. You get to patent that device. Tearing it apart into individual inventions to me is against the spirit. Of course none of this matters anymore, we are far down the rabbit hole.

> I don't think so. The spirit of the patent system is you submit your product to them in the form of a working model.

On what basis? The patent system protects inventions not products. Not all inventions are sellable products in themselves, and not all products are inventions.

How would you patent anything meaningful if you can only patent an entire product? It’s would be trivial to around just patents, just make a minor insignificant change to the design of the product, and bam, you’ve got something brand new and unprotected. Thus rendering the entire reason for getting a patent meaningless.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#189

Post by hackernewds »

sterlingcrispin wrote: post #121

Hey I appreciate the general lack of cruelty so far in the comments, sometimes HN can be pretty rough. The weird phrasing in the tweet is because I can't talk about any of the work I did due to NDA's besides my job description and those patents. But I had a pretty unusual role all things considered. I was also trying to clarify in the tweet that these aren't meant to be interpreted as unannounced existing features or…

> the general lack of cruelty so far in the comments, sometimes HN can be pretty rough.

I would only be surprised of this outcome on no -Apple posts. It's quite clear there is mass adoration (or cult following, you judge?) of Apple on HN

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#190

Post by bdowling »

justinator wrote: post #146
bdowling wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "in patents" modifies "available", not "details". Had he wanted to state that the patents were carefully written, he would have written "which", not "and".

Again, original sentence, "All of these details are publicly available in patents, and were carefully written to not leak anything." I'll simplify: "Details available in patents, carefully written to not leak" What's been written? The patent. What is in the patent? Details. How are the details written to not leak? Carefully.

You’re wrong about what the author meant, but you’re right about patents. Patents are indeed written very carefully to meet the validity requirements but not “leak anything”, because disclosed but unclaimed material is a dedication to the public. Here’s a recent article aimed at patent practitioners about the topic: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/prosecution-first...
Post reply on HN