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

171–180 of 192 posts

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#171

Post by manquer »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #85
purple_ferret wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of the possibilities. -A VR show can modify the jokes in real time if they know how funny you find them. -A VR casino can offer a 'full biometrics' table for the players who really think they know how to bluff -A VR porno can have your VR GF climax at the same time as you

> VR GF This seems like an oxymoron. I get that it's a "virtual" girl friend which semantically qualifies the term girl friend, yet there's something immensely sad about the combination of these terms. VR sex bot seems more apt to me. It doesn't really matter and I don't mean to impose terminology on anyone; it's just an observation/reaction.

Sex bot implies sex in some form, that I don’t think is primary value of a such system even if it all available.

The ability to form a connection and understand your needs perfectly and respond to that a companion is the real value

Sex gets boring pretty fast . It is not that expensive to pay for in real life, a companion would be supportive, knowledgeable, empathetic and always available is very hard to pay and get or have otherwise .

I don’t know why people find it sad , not everyone is able to find the perfect (or any) human partner /companion , we should be happy if we are all are able to connect to sentience does it matter if it is a human , dog or a machine ?

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#172

Post by steve_adams_86 »

manquer wrote: post #171
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> VR GF This seems like an oxymoron. I get that it's a "virtual" girl friend which semantically qualifies the term girl friend, yet there's something immensely sad about the combination of these terms. VR sex bot seems more apt to me. It doesn't really matter and I don't mean to impose terminology on anyone; it's just an observation/reaction.

Sex bot implies sex in some form, that I don’t think is primary value of a such system even if it all available. The ability to form a connection and understand your needs perfectly and respond to that a companion is the real value Sex gets boring pretty fast . It is not that expensive to pay for in real life, a companion would be supportive, knowledgeable, empathetic and always available is very hard to pay and get…

I'm not opposed to it under all circumstances. What worries me is that people will do it under too many circumstances and fail to engage with the real thing. That seems like a tremendous loss of social opportunity which I'd argue is already occurring with technology today.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#173

Post by vkou »

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #169
vkou wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's worse. The point of patent protection is that you teach everyone how to build the thing that's being protected, in exchange for a monopoly. Not actually teaching people how to build the thing that's being protected, but still having a monopoly on it is the worst of all worlds. If you aren't going to teach us how to build something, don't expect patent protection for it. I'd rather you keep it as a trade secr…

Could the reason be that someone in China doesn’t have to abide by US patent law and will be free to reproduce the device, and sell it to the rest of the world? Are patents less useful once your competition is overseas?

They'd do the same thing if China didn't exist. It's a bug in our patent law.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#175

Post by AlexanderTheGr8 »

Sorry for hijacking this thread for a question about personal curiosity but does anyone know of an affordable way of measuring pupil distance?

I want to measure my pupil distance while browsing social media. The reasoning is my reading in "Thinking Fast and Slow" that pupils dilate when we see something we find interesting / something we like / when we are thinking and vice-versa. I want to put it to the test and it seems like finally the consumer tech is close to making it possible.

Does quest support pupil tracking? I did some cursory research but couldn't find any reference for it. Industry pupil tracking headsets are way too expensive; My last hope is that someone will jailbreak vision pro...

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#176

Post by swyx »

vincnetas wrote: post #53

"All of these details are publicly available in patents, and were carefully written to not leak anything." This part makes me sad about patents and original idea behind them. This actually is the opposite of original idea why people came up with the idea of patenting something. To spread the knowledge and to award inventors. Not to stifle the competition.

you have to wonder what the statute of limitations is on Apple's NDA blowdart. Surely 10 years after the work was done if its not being used people should be able to at least talk in broad strokes about their work without fear of repurcussion?

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#177

Post by ActorNightly »

noindiecred wrote: post #24

Oh so now the hot new thing is a computing device that actively tries to guess its user’s emotional state (using various methods, including introducing new stimuli) and then then CHANGES ITS BEHAVIOR based on the results! The Free Software people were right - a device this intimate needs to have publicly available, verifiable source code.

I dunno why people are surprised by this. We are long past the whole "autonomy of thought". Much of our decision on a day to day basis is already guided by culture society which is heavily influenced by companies.

For starters (apart from a very few outliers), if you own any Apple product, you have fallen into the trap of paying more for something that you believe is more valuable to you, but in reality, that feeling is artificially created. You aren't paying extra for features, you are paying extra because you believe that those features are worth that much, which is not your own thought.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#178

Post by simonebrunozzi »

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…

Hey Sterling! Good work.

Would love to chat. Can you drop me an email? $HN_username at gmail

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#179

Post by retSava »

simontheowl wrote: post #81
makeitdouble wrote: post #7

This whole tweet had the same tone as when pop science crime investigation TV explains a criminal can be identified through its gait alone. It's always magic, except when the predictive model doesn't work and there is no corrective action possible on the user side. We're talking about physical reactions, so that means it's supposed to be the same through gender, age, race, health conditions from the algorithm's point…

A lot of these large companies spend millions of dollars recruiting participants from various demographics to test prototypes and fine-tune technologies like this. It's a tremendous effort.

A lot of these large companies also, for some undisclosed reason or chain of events, design a phone so that a non-neglible amount of people can't hold it without dropping calls (iphone 4), and then blame the user for "holding it wrong".

Also such a thing as being too conservative with battery size (iphone 6?) so that when it unavoidably degrades, you must throttle down the phone to avoid killing the battery and perhaps more (literally by a current draw it can't handle since the internal resistance has increased).

And that's just apple, then there's unintended acceleration (toyota), exploding airbags, faulty ignition (ford was it?).

Don't think that just because they are large, or a company, or old, or whatever, they always have their shit together. Companies are people. People make mistakes. Mistakes can slip through the cracks.

Re: Apple Vision predictive bio-feedback

#180

Post by trevyn »

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?
Post reply on HN