61–69 of 69 posts
I have been wondering for quite some time how much better the thing would be if I just swapped out the puny 640xwhatever lcd for something that's 1080p, or better yet had 1080p per eye. I think the focusing adjustments seem to be the coolest part of carmack's stuff that older projects didn't have. I just hope someone quickly comes up with a gyro based control scheme, and a new Descent.
I don't think it's the author's job to tell the reader he can't understand what Carmack's saying.
No, John Carmack is developing software for the Oculus RIFT being developed by Palmer Luckey. http://oculusvr.com/?page_id=2 It is a pretty amazing piece of hardware though. Over 90 degree field of view for $500, rather than the $10000+ it still costs from anywhere else.
It's been, what, 17+ years since I bought my Virtual I/O iGlasses? Amazing how long it takes some technologies to catch on, if ever. The RIFT is certainly an improvement (1280×800 vs 640x480); we'll see if the "visual acuity" twist and improved tracking gives VR the push it needs. Hopefully Carmack (and if anyone can, it's him) can solve whatever the limiting nuance is. Then again, the Newton came out around the same…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this isn't it. We're entering an age of higher order technology, where each advancement leads to faster advancement. In short, we are approaching what many have called the singularity.
The singularity specifically requires AIs that can build smarter AIs. I'm not sure any of our current progress is really leading to true AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The singularity specifically requires AIs that can build smarter AIs. I'm not sure any of our current progress is really leading to true AI.
The term "singularity" is very overloaded. The parent is using Kurzweil's definition. You're using something like Good/Yudkowsky's. http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/schools
However, I am not convinced the schools are entirely contradictory, even with their strong claims.
For example,
- Accelerating Change school: this is mainly a (historical) trajectory claim based on positive feedback loop of technology. It does not seem to make any strong (maximum) claims about even trajectories beyond the point of strong AI.
- Event Horizon school: this is a forecastability claim that the repurcussions of AI or intelligence enhancement significantly beyond current human intelligence is unknowable until you get there.
- Intelligence Explosion school: this is a positive feedback claim that the most you can tell when human intelligence is surpassed is that further intelligence gains, be it by enhancement or AI, will feedback on itself to create further and faster change.
These claims seem to agree with each other on fundamental aspects of technology and intelligence.
In addition, in my opinion, it would not take too much imagination to combine the separate claims into a unified Singularity model.
That said, the school delineation is itself a useful tool.
Nice interview with John demoing and discussing his work: "So the way this has gone, is, I decided to treat myself after Rage on there, I bought a, you know, a head mount for $1,500 or so. It's a little cottage industry, there's a few places that do these things with integration, and... it sucked. It was really bad. It was everything that I expected it to be, that it, it didn't look like there had been any progress i…
Interestingly, the #2 problem is something you don't realize is a problem until you try: "vergence-accommodation conflicts", meaning that the display fails to render optical depth. The solution is "Fixed-Viewpoint Volumetric 3D": http://quora.com/Volumetric-3D , which is what I'm creating as my academic career and my startup Vergence Labs.
Nice interview with John demoing and discussing his work: "So the way this has gone, is, I decided to treat myself after Rage on there, I bought a, you know, a head mount for $1,500 or so. It's a little cottage industry, there's a few places that do these things with integration, and... it sucked. It was really bad. It was everything that I expected it to be, that it, it didn't look like there had been any progress i…
I've visited the Stanford Virtual Reality Lab and tried their $50k HMD and high-precision trackers. I agree with John that latency is currently the #1 problem for VR / AR. Interestingly, the #2 problem is something you don't realize is a problem until you try: "vergence-accommodation conflicts", meaning that the display fails to render optical depth. The solution is "Fixed-Viewpoint Volumetric 3D": http://quora.com/V…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've visited the Stanford Virtual Reality Lab and tried their $50k HMD and high-precision trackers. I agree with John that latency is currently the #1 problem for VR / AR. Interestingly, the #2 problem is something you don't realize is a problem until you try: "vergence-accommodation conflicts", meaning that the display fails to render optical depth. The solution is "Fixed-Viewpoint Volumetric 3D": http://quora.com/V…
Thanks for the info. You will definitely be interested in this part of John's interview, where he discusses depth and how he approached the problem. It starts at around 9:20 and ends at around 11:25: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYa8kirsUfg#t=9m20s
He seems to have not heard of the latest Volumetric 3D display technology: "time-multiplexing": http://bankslab.berkeley.edu/projects/projectlinks/fastswitc... (the bottommost diagram, labeled "Switchable lens volumetric display.", made practical in 2008. The diagram labeled "Illustration of 3 mirrors display" is a bulkier 2004 technology.)
Wow, Carmack looks like a passionate, geeky 16 year old. It's very endearing for such a legend.