We need technology that is less immersive, not more

I rather missed the point where he explains why immersive games are bad. There's some hand-wavey bit about "[they] don’t teach them anything valuable about the real world, and don’t relax them at all" but that appears to be it. The first bit is beside the point and the second hugely debatable.

Similar criticisms could equally be levelled at engaging with any creative output - reading, listening to music etc. And I love being out in nature but it's not teaching me much.

His other point seems to be "talented engineers could be doing something more important" which is slightly more valid but then everyone who isn't saving starving babies could probably be doing something more important.

You do know you can do what you like outside of work, right?

You have a hyper-idealized version of what is and is not art.

And execution definitely forms part of the talent. We should know that just as well. We all know "the idea guy", the guy who has all the "right" ideas, but just can't seem to actually do the thing required to bring the idea to life.

And that's because most ideas are just half-formed thoughts. I'm almost on the other end of the spectrum. It's mostly about execution and the idea actually means very little. The idea of "what if you couldn't make new memories" is the central struggle in two very different movies. In Memento, it's used to tell a detective noir story where we're told who the killer is in the first scene. In 50 First Dates, it's used to give Adam Sandler a hurdle to plowing Drew Barrymore.

And you can find joy in the doing itself. You can make good commercial art. It is possible. There is craft there. And where there is craft, there is art.

While sitting with my iPad typing the other morning, something about the experience struck me in a way that it never had before.

I've been typing since the early 90s, and can type around 120WPM without looking or thinking about it, and it hit me that in a very real sense, the iPad (and other computing devices) are already an extension of me. I've invested the time to integrate this hardware into my brain via the keyboard interface, and once typing is automatic, the friction between brain and machine is very low. I can transmit information from brain to computer and back relatively quickly.

The thing about immersive tech is that we're already immersed in tech. The next generation of VR/AR promises to immerse us even more, but I think it's interesting to consider the idea that we're already immersed and don't always realize it.

When you start to look at the space around you as an extension of you (and I think there are good reasons to look at it this way - your immediate surroundings are in effect a projection/construct formulated by your brain, and the actions you take within that space modulate your average conscious experience), and when you start to look at the computing devices around you as part of that extension of you, it starts to raise really interesting questions like:

If I could implant a chip in my brain, and if people could control my brain with that chip, I would probably never allow it. But when that chip is outside of my brain in a device I keep in my pocket, why am I more willing to allow other entities to feed me stimuli?

I tend to agree with the broader idea that we need to be less immersed in tech, if for no other reason to reduce this kind of external control mechanism we've all hooked ourselves in to. And I don't think immersion is limited to the obvious developments like that next generation VR/AR headset. Immersion is already extremely high.

> I rather missed the point where he explains why immersive games are bad.

I think it's the fact that so many resources go into the final few percent of making games 100% realistic whereas there are other, more important issues that get largely ignored.

I agree that it's not just about talent. That said, having more talented people interested in a field often has the effect of bringing money and political will.