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

191–200 of 202 posts

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

#191

Post by throwaway4aday »

feoren wrote: post #80
throwaway4aday wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could really say this about anything, the only moral to the story is that people have to work to pay the bills and the work that pays is the unglamorous stuff that needs doing. I believe this has been true throughout human history. The greatest artists and thinkers throughout history have earned their keep by providing services to the wealthy or teaching paying students (also often wealthy). There are upsides, th…

> the unglamorous stuff that needs doing. You're thinking of picking up the trash, driving trucks, fixing toilets, and assembling wheelbarrows. That pays shit: the things that "need doing" are mostly just not done , and what is done pays nothing. Advertising has never "needed doing", it's always been an exploit that psychopaths use to enrich themselves at the expense of all of humanity. And the advertising industry i…

I don't think you can get away with throwing out the baby with the bathwater on this one. In any market where there is more than one supplier you need some form of advertising even if it's just just a couple signs that say "Bob sells shoes" and "Alice sells shoes" though in reality customers need more information than that. What kind of shoes? Men's shoes? Women's shoes? Children's shoes? What color are they? What weather are they good in? What are they made of? etc. etc.

Granted, advertising has been taken to the extreme and there wouldn't be harm in cutting back on it to a certain degree, you just can't get rid of all of it so it is in fact one of those jobs that need doing.

The point of my comment is that you can say the same thing about every pair of thing someone wants to do and thing someone needs done and the essential part is that it doesn't matter what the second thing is, people would still complain that all this talent for A was being wasted because they were working on B instead but it's not a waste for a variety of reasons one of which is that there is not enough demand for A. You could easily say someone is a psycopath or antisocial if they choose to spend all their time doing something that isn't needed or not wanted instead of doing the things that other people need done. You would at the very least say they are selfish.

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

#192

Post by partomniscient »

robot_no_421 wrote: post #72
hopa wrote: post #66

I feel like you only see articles like this written by game developers. Something about making video games for a living makes you question the value of what you’re creating.

The longer I remain a software engineer the more I hate relying on computers. Maybe the people closest to the technology are the ones to first realize how superficial and downright damaging these innovations actually are.

I'm kind of with you. In line with the article, its more the application of computers that's the problem - instead of making the world a better place, its a more distracting place.

Is it really worth it shuffling digitized crap around at high speeds if the outcome is a worse human experience because we're only applying it to the low hanging fruit and therefore creating a slippery slope for ourselves...?

The irony is that escaping into a simpler VR world with less distractions can help you deal with this, but I don't think its the right move.

I'm also reminded of Lee Felensteins quote from Steven Levy's Hacker's book. "You're doing all that for the computer!? What are you doing for the people!?"

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

#193

Post by antifa »

badpun wrote: post #147
szundi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The best civ game would be a remix of the best parts of 4 and 5.

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

#194

Post by feoren »

filleduchaos wrote: post #167
feoren wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does this mean the Jeep is now part of my body? Of course not. Why is that "of course not"? Is your arm part of your body? Your hair? A wig? A pacemaker? A well-fitted mechanical exoskeleton that you use without thinking about it? A poorly-fitted exoskeleton that you're still learning how to use? A Jeep? It's not as clear-cut as you make it sound. If the criteria is: well, I can't feel the Jeep -- well, you can't f…

> Is your arm part of your body? Of course yes. > Your hair? Of course yes. > A wig? Of course not. > A pacemaker? Depends on who's asking and why. > A well-fitted mechanical exoskeleton that you use without thinking about it? A poorly-fitted exoskeleton that you're still learning how to use? Of course not to both of these things. > A Jeep? Of course not, and framing a Jeep and a human's liver as if the only possible…

So your definition seems to be that it's part of your body if it was built via instructions in your inherited DNA? So tattoos are not part of your body, nor are the gut bacteria you were mostly born with (or their ancestors) and without which you would quickly die. Phlegm that you spit on the street is still part of your body? Your tears? What about clonal colonies and parthenogenesis? Do identical twins have the same body?

The point is, your "of course" is based on some "obvious" definition that always gets fuzzy at the edges. Someone else's "of course" is based on some equally valid and obvious definition that gets fuzzy in different ways at different edges. Don't act like everyone who doesn't think exactly like you is just pointlessly navel gazing. The pointlessness is in trying to have a clear definition at all, which saying "of course" implicitly assumes.

> and framing a Jeep and a human's liver as if the only possible point of difference between them is whether or not you can "feel" them is strange.

Good thing that's nowhere near what I said. I said "I can feel it" is obviously not a good criterion.

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

#195

Post by graffix »

My current job is in robotic space exploration, on a renderer in which to immerse a robot in a virtual world. This is just play in-silico, relying heavily on immersive technology developed for video games. In evolutionary terms, play's function is to learn in preparation for real events, which appears to work out on the technological frontier too.

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

#196

Post by antifa »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #79
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…

Funny you mention Factorio, because there's a Reddit thread where most of the commenters came to same conclusion you did. https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/ml00ac/how_...

I like the delusional presumption/implication that there are hundreds of thousands of long-term unfilled job listings for things like fusion researcher, nano bots engineering, space exploration, (other near future sounding stuff), etc., and the only reason those things aren't getting worked on is because every Factorio/EVE player is a genius with a debilitating video gaming addiction.

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

#197

Post by CatWChainsaw »

pj_mukh wrote: post #117
haswell wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But otherwise this warning is too early. When would the right time have been to warn people about the current generation of social media? We now have a ton of information about how technology will be used and abused, and we have a laundry list of known problems that we have not solved. Algorithmic social media and engagement-driven content are front and center. To me, the warning is appropriate not based on what ha…

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.

Why is it that techbros insist on no regulation until there's a problem, and when there's a problem it's suddenly "the confetti has left the cannon, nothing to do now"? Oh wait that was a rhetorical question.

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

#198

Post by filleduchaos »

feoren wrote: post #194
filleduchaos wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is your arm part of your body? Of course yes. > Your hair? Of course yes. > A wig? Of course not. > A pacemaker? Depends on who's asking and why. > A well-fitted mechanical exoskeleton that you use without thinking about it? A poorly-fitted exoskeleton that you're still learning how to use? Of course not to both of these things. > A Jeep? Of course not, and framing a Jeep and a human's liver as if the only possible…

So your definition seems to be that it's part of your body if it was built via instructions in your inherited DNA? So tattoos are not part of your body, nor are the gut bacteria you were mostly born with (or their ancestors) and without which you would quickly die. Phlegm that you spit on the street is still part of your body? Your tears? What about clonal colonies and parthenogenesis? Do identical twins have the sam…

> So your definition seems to be that it's part of your body if it was built via instructions in your inherited DNA?

I think you'll find discussions significantly more straightforward if you don't make up the other person's side of the conversation for them and run off tilting at windmills.

What part of the comment where I e.g. said that whether or not a pacemaker is considered part of your body "depends on who's asking and why" gave you the impression that I define body parts as being built by you? What part of my comment mentioned genetics at all?

By the by, tattoos are a modification to a part of your body (your skin) but are very much not a part of it (your immune system is literally constantly trying to get rid of them). And your gut microbiota is very clearly considered to be a _separate_ organism from you, with its relationship described in symbiotic terms.

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

#199

Post by slater- »

williamcotton wrote: post #175
slater- wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an important distinction that I agree with. Glancing at your username I think I maybe know you through some mutual sf friends. The Page called they want a lot of their fernet back

Well, considering I’ve drank my fair share of fernet at The Page, I’d say you’re probably correct! Maybe we both know Kevin? Dan? Yani? (sp?) Big Ben? Anyways, say hello from me to whomever we know in common!

All the above! I lived with Kevin. Hope things are good with you dude.

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

#200

Post by feoren »

filleduchaos wrote: post #198
feoren wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your definition seems to be that it's part of your body if it was built via instructions in your inherited DNA? So tattoos are not part of your body, nor are the gut bacteria you were mostly born with (or their ancestors) and without which you would quickly die. Phlegm that you spit on the street is still part of your body? Your tears? What about clonal colonies and parthenogenesis? Do identical twins have the sam…

> So your definition seems to be that it's part of your body if it was built via instructions in your inherited DNA? I think you'll find discussions significantly more straightforward if you don't make up the other person's side of the conversation for them and run off tilting at windmills. What part of the comment where I e.g. said that whether or not a pacemaker is considered part of your body "depends on who's ask…

> I think you'll find discussions significantly more straightforward if you don't make up the other person's side of the conversation

You never specified your "obvious" definition, so I had to reverse engineer it from your examples. I wouldn't have to make up your side of the conversation if you just actually said what it is. You're still using "obvious" and "clearly" as meaning obvious to you, based on every iota of experience you've ever had, but totally failed to justify why exactly your "obvious" opinions should be obvious to anyone else. Either you have a hard and fast definition that can definitively determine whether that thing is or is not part of a body, or it's not obvious. Unless your rule for determining whether something is part of a body is: "just ask filleduchaos, and he'll tell you whether it obviously is or obviously is not."

> And your gut microbiota is very clearly considered to be a _separate_ organism from you

"Very clearly" again. It's considered a separate organism because it has different DNA than your germ cells. But so do your mitochondria. So does a chimeric twin. Is a chimera "obviously one" or "obviously two" bodies? Tell me which one of those is so obvious that I'd be completely stupid to believe the other one, please. I suspect you'll say it's obviously one body, but then you have a problem with gut bacteria being obviously not part of your body.

Post reply on HN