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

We need technology that is less immersive, not more

filiph.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 202 posts

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#141

Post by pomian »

filiph wrote: post #74
massysett wrote: post #47

"I hope you’ll agree that humanity has a variety of important engineering problems to solve, and nicer-looking graphics is quite low on that list." I used to sneer at the social value of entertainment. Then covid lockdowns hit. I spent a lot of time playing Factorio. When professional sports resumed playing (in empty stadiums, with fake crowd noise on the broadcasts) I was happy to sit on the couch after work and wat…

Nobody disputes that entertainment has value. The article is about the fact that so much talent and resources is funneled into immersion. Using your neurosurgeon example, I posit that having fewer VR headsets will not prevent the doctor from unwinding. Nor will having mobile phones with less vibrant colors or application with lower engagement metrics.

Ahhh, but perhaps a good working VR system may finally be enough for said surgeon to use it for a complex operation. There are byproducts likely unknown to us, with each advance on technology. (Good or ill.)

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#142

Post by monkeynotes »

pimlottc wrote: post #10
monkeynotes wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are doing advertising then they are art directors, not artists. The most talented artists make art, it's not something they have a choice in. They will suffer poverty to make their art. Talent isn't in the execution in art, it's in the ideas, and tapestry of the artist's life. > The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads This is also not true, because those minds aren't in…

Let’s not over romanticize the starving artist. There are plenty of creative people who could create good, worthy art if they had the means and support to pursue it fully. It’s not a moral failing to have a need to make a living, especially if others are relying on you.

The article literally said "the most talented". The top talent artists are certainly making art, and it is a fact they are driven to do it more than anything else. That's the attitude that makes them "the most talented". I am not romanticising it, it's just how it is.

> It’s not a moral failing to have a need to make a living, especially if others are relying on you.

Exactly. People make choices in what they do, it has nothing to do with talent being taken out of the market, it's always been this way. There have always been more profitable things to do than making art.

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#143

Post by monkeynotes »

bena wrote: post #13
monkeynotes wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are doing advertising then they are art directors, not artists. The most talented artists make art, it's not something they have a choice in. They will suffer poverty to make their art. Talent isn't in the execution in art, it's in the ideas, and tapestry of the artist's life. > The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads This is also not true, because those minds aren't in…

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…

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

No, I made an assertion that the most talented artists make art.

> And execution definitely forms part of the talent.

Seeing that many, many top, full time, talented artists have technicians that execute, I don't think it's the defining quality of a top artist. Execution can be offloaded, ideas cannot.

> And that's because most ideas are just half-formed thoughts.

Talented artists have fully formed thoughts. That's their talent.

> And that's because most ideas are just half-formed thoughts.

Well, I'd suggest your job is at risk. Execution can be automated, ideas not so much. Who is gonna tell the GPT what to do?

> And you can find joy in the doing itself. You can make good commercial art.

Yeah, those people failed to be the top talent in art and did something else. They are still highly talented but not in the realms of top talented artists.

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#144

Post by chrisjc »

ranprieur wrote: post #108

Photorealism does not equal immersion. Immersion happens in the mind, not the eyes. The games I've been most immersed in were made in the 90s, when the graphics were not as good but the gameplay was better.

Absolutely! I remember playing Quake 3 and whatnot back in the day. As I became immersed in the game, keyboard/mouse/1024 would eventually disappear (figuratively).

Strangely enough, I feel like there is more friction for me to play video games of this era (and i don't) despite the advancements in and availability of technology to interact with said games. Perhaps the friction I feel has more to do with the bombardment of content (ads, microtransaction, social-media, etc) that gets in the way of and distracts from actual game play.

Then again, maybe I'm just getting old.

Perhaps this is what the author is trying to get at? If we could immerse ourselves in a similar way when we were using "primitive" games and hardware and therefore were subjected to all the temptation and risk, then what is different or relevant?

The quantity of those immersed and additional layer of (arguable harmful) content?

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#146

Post by pj_mukh »

haswell wrote: post #125
pj_mukh wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The warnings started appropriately early in 2011, there should’ve been regulations in place by 2015. VR is still in 2006. Maybe let the first ad run in VR before you ascribe all the same problems to it.

What is it about VR that makes it meaningfully different enough from the current generation of problematic technology that we don't need to worry about the same problems? This isn't a "gotcha" question; I'm genuinely curious. To me, VR is a new interface layer on top of a massive ecosystem, and the same people are building it. The ecosystem is where the problems exist, and VR is just the latest facade through which w…

Sure let’s legislate social media. If the claim is the problems with VR will be the same problems as social media. Let’s legislate social media and that should solve problems in VR as well? As far as it’s just a new facade over social media and the noisy new internet, let’s legislate that.

I personally think the larger space of spatial computing (VR, AR etc) presents immense opportunities outside of its ability to just be another vehicle for ads. Leave that part alone because our regime of regulations only creates calcification and monopolization.

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#147

Post by badpun »

szundi wrote: post #81
paulddraper wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How things look is important. Not as important as how they function, but still important. People, software programs, buildings, landscapes... appearance is information, about quality, about professionalism, about creativity, about attention to detail.

Civilization 1 and 2 was much greater experience than 5, although graphics was quite basic. This is in some other aspects means the opposite

> Civilization 1 and 2 was much greater experience than 5

How so? I've played all 3 of those, and much prefer the Civ 5. Or at least I think I do? I haven't played Civ 1 or 2 for 20 years now, so it's hard to compare.

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#148

Post by ComposedPattern »

massysett wrote: post #47

"I hope you’ll agree that humanity has a variety of important engineering problems to solve, and nicer-looking graphics is quite low on that list." I used to sneer at the social value of entertainment. Then covid lockdowns hit. I spent a lot of time playing Factorio. When professional sports resumed playing (in empty stadiums, with fake crowd noise on the broadcasts) I was happy to sit on the couch after work and wat…

Games certainly have social value, but I'm not convinced that better graphics contribute all that much. I've not played Factorio, but looking at screenshots it seems not to have particularly advanced graphics. Indeed, I still get a lot of enjoyment out of 20-year-old games and often wish that modern games had less sophisticated graphics so they would run better.

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#149

Post by snakeyjake »

It is impossible to predict what effects technological developments will have.

Claiming that effort in one field is "wasted" or "misallocated" is the height of hubris.

I make satellites that are being used to scan the earth to determine the impacts of climate change, quantify coastal erosion, monitor foliage coverage and crop health, locate buried ancient ruins, predict the weather, and create high-resolution 3d maps of urban areas.

The production of these spacecraft is very low volume, and therefore very expensive.

Research into new lithography techniques for longer-lasting battery-powered consumer devices led to low-power electronics that allow the spacecraft I make to have greater processing power for a given energy budget.

Advancements in more powerful graphics chips for gaming have led to affordable (and yes, despite what you think they are affordable) GPUs used to process and rasterize the data the satellites I build gather.

Unreal Engine is used to build tools needed visualize the results.

The low-profile RF connectors that we use were invented for the specific purpose of shoving Bluetooth and Wi-Fi into thin consumer devices like laptops and tablets and they save us (noticeable and significant) weight.

I can't predict what will happen but I think I can predict what will not happen and given the size of the market I work in I assert that there is an exact and precise 0.0% chance that the resources needed to develop the technology I rely on every day would have been allocated in service of my market. It is too small.

Instead they were handed to me on a silver platter by the consumer electronics market. People playing smartphone games-- and militaries trying to destroy each other have directly led to what I do being possible.

>but I had to admit to myself at one point that, long-term, playing video games for any extended period makes me physically miserable and dumber.

I do not play video games, at least nothing newer than SNES games, but I know people who do and that sounds like a personal problem.

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#150

Post by pitdicker »

haswell wrote: post #15

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 keyb…

If wish we could merge this comment with the thread where people are defending Youtubes right to show ads. I am so glad there is technology available to choose what I want to read and see without being forced too much other content.
Post reply on HN