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

Where Will Virtual Reality Take Us?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Where Will Virtual Reality Take Us?

#71

Post by treprinum »

defrost wrote: post #64
treprinum wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VR pr0n is nasty because one can see all imperfections that Photoshop/Portaiture would instantly remove on 2D imagery/movies, breaking the spell. I would rather watch travel documentaries to choose my next vacation or interesting places I'd never see otherwise, like climbing something in Himalayas, visiting Galapagos, Antarctica etc. Visualizing my next house before it's built with all the views to/from the outside w…

A thread on the future of VR demands that: > because one can see all imperfections be qualified "for now" . Once upon a time 2D digital porn d/loaded scan line by scan line over several minutes in low resolution and reduced colour maps.

This is different. If you ever worked with models as a photographer, you'd have noticed that many models that look great in "2D camera projection" look weirdly distorted in the real life. VR basically showcases this weirdness and what tended to be attractive in 2D is suddenly repulsive in 3D.

Re: Where Will Virtual Reality Take Us?

#72

Post by ekianjo »

pushfoo wrote: post #47
ekianjo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if VR is about having virtual monitors then thats not a Very enticing proposition

It's about being able to display information anywhere . Many work tasks consist of using reference material to do something else. This isn't limited to the office. > thats not a Very enticing proposition Consider the following use cases: * A surgical team consulting a 3D CT scan as they remove the tumor threatening to kill you or someone you love * A firefighter who can overlay a building's plans over thick smoke * A…

If you could do any of these scenarios in real time, I'd rather trust robots to take any action in this kind of situation than any human whose attention is split between 3 different kind of screens or visuals. they already can't handle the few pieces of information that they have, adding more is asking for more confusion, like pilots in a plane not hearing the stall warning even though it's screaming in their ears.

Re: Where Will Virtual Reality Take Us?

#73

Post by ekianjo »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #57
vonjuice wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We already have neck strain with multi-monitor setups and bad office ergonomics. And this would make it even worse.

Why? Wouldn't you be able to position virtual displays however you like, and view them from many more body positions than is possible with physical displays?

> Why?

because putting weight on your head does that. Your muscles and joints are not going to like it no matter how you try to be comfortable.

Re: Where Will Virtual Reality Take Us?

#74

Post by bondarchuk »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #45

I've never read Lanier's writing, and this was an interesting article, but the pastoral reverence in the article just felt... weird. Some thoughts. On this line contrasting Apple's approach from Magic Leap's approach: > Camera-based mixed reality is vastly easier to accomplish than the optical version, but it is concerning. Early research by a Stanford-led team has found evidence of cognitive challenges. Your hands a…

I think philosophical rigour is just not something he cares about. I recently read his "You can't argue with a zombie" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31807798) again, arguing that machines could not have consciousness or that human consciousness is non-physical, or something, anyway it's very rambling and none of the arguments hold up if you try to follow them from one statement to the next. But it's written in 1995, different times, different atmosphere around AI and cyberpunk, plus ofc he was 30 years younger.. So this made me wonder if he'd still hold those same views and argue for them in a similar way today. Apparently, mostly, yes.

So I think you can read him as simply vouching for implementing certain technologies in a certain way that would make him happy, and frankly you don't need much rigour for that. He's really just saying that he wants some prototypical human experience to remain the most valuable, and if you also want that, here's how you'd want to use VR. As for why that kind of experience is or should be valued, you won't get that from him beyond a bit of emotional handwaving, because it's just not what he's setting out to do.

Re: Where Will Virtual Reality Take Us?

#75

Post by Karrot_Kream »

bondarchuk wrote: post #74
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #45

I've never read Lanier's writing, and this was an interesting article, but the pastoral reverence in the article just felt... weird. Some thoughts. On this line contrasting Apple's approach from Magic Leap's approach: > Camera-based mixed reality is vastly easier to accomplish than the optical version, but it is concerning. Early research by a Stanford-led team has found evidence of cognitive challenges. Your hands a…

I think philosophical rigour is just not something he cares about. I recently read his "You can't argue with a zombie" ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31807798 ) again, arguing that machines could not have consciousness or that human consciousness is non-physical, or something, anyway it's very rambling and none of the arguments hold up if you try to follow them from one statement to the next. But it's written…

Heh of course he can make these arguments but then it makes his essay nothing more than a long, eloquent online comment. Thanks for the reference to other works of his.

Re: Where Will Virtual Reality Take Us?

#77

Post by vonjuice »

pushfoo wrote: post #67
vonjuice wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why would you do that? Why would you go through the effort to move around? The problem with physical displays isn't that you can't move them around, it's that there's no reason to. It's like a chair, sitting for too long is terrible for your body. Chairs don't literally limit you from getting up, but there's just no immediate reason to get up, do some stretching. It would be the same except you're adding annoying…

> Why would you go through the effort to move around? If a headset can be light enough, it can be a tool for AR documentation overlays. It's like taping a manual up next to the thing you're working on. For example, engine components. I've seen airline mechanics consulting laptops as they work on engines. I didn't get a close enough look to be sure, but it seemed like it was a combination of manuals and running diagno…

Surely if you're walking around a plane and looking at it physically while holding a laptop, you're moving around, not sitting still on a chair for 8 hours, so I don't see how it would benefit that particular case. You were talking about monitors fixed on a desk.

Re: Where Will Virtual Reality Take Us?

#78

Post by adfm »

ben_w wrote: post #6
bugbuddy wrote: post #4

Between 2016 and 2024, an advanced alien race arrived and was preparing to make first contact with humanity. Their primary goal was to ensure that the human race would be a good steward of their technological heritage they were about to bestow upon mankind. After observing the large wasteful investments in techs such as during the Crypto mania, AR/VR mania, and Gen AI mania, the alien race decided that the human race…

> Crypto mania, AR/VR mania, and Gen AI mania One of the things I will never stop finding weird, is the tendency to group together things that aren't really related. I wonder if I do it too? If I did, I expect I wouldn't notice…

They are all related as they are all primary examples of technologies enabled by hardware-accelerated floating point math.

Pro tip: WebGPU provides a common API to all hardware acceleration going forward. From the din of bitcoin miners parked next to hydroelectric plants to the vents in the new Apple Vision Pro to the render farm spitting out hyper-surrealistic midjourney banality to your handset rendering this text; it's all happening via a Web-focused API. You may be asking yourself why Apple would release a half-baked $3500 HMD. This is why. They can balk all they want, but the app store model is eroding and they're looking for cover.

Re: Where Will Virtual Reality Take Us?

#79

Post by defrost »

treprinum wrote: post #71
defrost wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A thread on the future of VR demands that: > because one can see all imperfections be qualified "for now" . Once upon a time 2D digital porn d/loaded scan line by scan line over several minutes in low resolution and reduced colour maps.

This is different. If you ever worked with models as a photographer, you'd have noticed that many models that look great in "2D camera projection" look weirdly distorted in the real life. VR basically showcases this weirdness and what tended to be attractive in 2D is suddenly repulsive in 3D.

This may or may not change - if you're talking about real life (some) fleash and (some) blood X-Ray models with profiles that can cut glass then yes, they can look weird IRL actual 3d.

However that may (or may not) push the use of models that live IRL and look pretty decent from most angles being used as the foundation for VR modelling.

The point being, one way or another, 3D VR will likely lose the weirdness, through viewer acclimation or product delivery advancement.

Post reply on HN