Live data from Hacker News

David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

lithub.com

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly it annoys me that someone would throw out a specific number like that for something they have literally no possible basis for.

Without knowing where this number came from, I could imagine that his reasoning is that there's 4 main theories that are well-reasoned and he estimates they are all as equally likely.

Grant Sanderson (3blue1brown) was recently on a Numberphile video where he explained Bertrand's Paradox.

An under-specified question meant that there were good arguments for different answers, depending on how the question was interpreted.

In the complementary video supporting the discussion, I found Sanderson's discussion pretty interesting. -- One of the suggested arguments was even "let's take the average of the other answers", although Sanderson wasn't sure if this was meant to be a joke or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJyKM-7IgAU

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#42
post #3

Oh, another philosopher discovers VR. I asked the people who moderate r/metaverse to create a tag, "MYFIRSTMETAVERSEARTICLE", for this sort of thing, and they did. I've read about a hundred such articles in the last three months. They're rather similar. For a view from the other direction, "How to be a God", by Battle. This is a game dev who became an academic and spent too much time thinking about philosophy. If you…

> For a view from the other direction, "How to be a God", by Battle. This is a game dev who became an academic and spent too much time thinking about philosophy. For anyone else who was struggling to locate this reference, the author is Bartle, not Battle. https://www.amazon.com/How-Be-God-Would-Be-Deities/dp/095564...

https://mud.co.uk/richard/How%20to%20Be%20a%20God.pdf

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like what games?

Virtually every first person VR game that isn't a driving or flying sim needs turning or it kills immersion: - Alyx - Boneworks - Blades & Sorcery / GORN - Skyrim / Fallout 4 VR - Onward, Zero Caliber, Population One, Contractors - Racket NX - Minecraft - Lone Echo - holopoint There's really too many games to name, and I can name more. A huge pain point for me prior to getting the Quest 2 was tangled wires from too m…

Alyx is cool but it also sucks. The little interactions with items feel novel. The combat is bad.

It’s a thin layer of game design tricks to make you think you’re in something intricate but it’s actually dumb as rocks. The lightning dogs are the peak of this. Even on the hardest difficulty they telegraph their attacks for like… 10 seconds. It’s not clear if it’s possible to dodge it by physically walking 5m. The game wants you to teleport pretty much anywhere to “dodge” it. I don’t blame valve for this. What they almost certainly realized is that humans are incompetent in vr so the enemies need to be dumb as rocks. Not that the AI is bad or anything, but the principles behind their behavior are built for the fact that humans are slow, have low situational awareness, and and especially in vr don’t have a good intuition for where their body is exposed. The electric dogs are still decently challenging. But the limitations on it were incredibly immersion breaking to me, much more than having a helmet benefited.

Superhot solves this the other way by having very short high failure levels and just letting you lose due to human incompetence at your own pace. It works pretty well but it’s not a generalizable strategy for other games. I’m looking to do boneworks next. I’ve never felt wires were a real problem. Mostly because the games I play don’t involve moving around much. I have tried wireless.

I have also done one of those vr domes with a huge open warehouses and multiplayer vr shooters with mild graphics but big gun peripherals. This is the biggest freedom you could possibly have. In my experience playing and watching others, people just slowly walk from place to place, rotate in place, and stand still shooting while monsters get too close and “hit” them because melee attacks feel unintuitive still. They move like they’re an old resident evil tank control character lol.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#44
post #3

Oh, another philosopher discovers VR. I asked the people who moderate r/metaverse to create a tag, "MYFIRSTMETAVERSEARTICLE", for this sort of thing, and they did. I've read about a hundred such articles in the last three months. They're rather similar. For a view from the other direction, "How to be a God", by Battle. This is a game dev who became an academic and spent too much time thinking about philosophy. If you…

Your comment(s) really nails my reservations about VR with my Oculus. After the Wow! factor of a sense immersion, you're in kind of a dead zone trying to think of something interesting to do just like in real life. You went from your real living room to your virtual living room. Big deal. You could play a game in either, but the screen is going to be much better back in your real living room. You don't want to watch…

IMO we are just in denial that the VR headset has really solved anything.

It is not just what you can do in VR that you can't do in real life but what you can do in VR with missing most of your senses.

I suspect in 50 years people will look at this time in VR as not much different than VRML 20 years ago. Obviously, that was never going to work with the technological limitations of the time.

It is really hard to deliver when the expectation is 'virtual reality'.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Metaverse will be a niche One big reason for this is some strange social stigma surrounding VR. Yes, there are many other issues like cost (minimum $2000 investment for a VR ready PC and headset) and complexity if you’re not using Oculus / Meta. Then there’s also Facebook’s toxic brand, which drives away many early tech adopters; but what if we were able to take them out of the equation? Anyways, I did an experimen…

You’re assuming VR is a paradigm shift and not just a gimmicky console like the Wii. There’s nothing particularly interesting in VR, at least not yet. Most games suck. The ones that don’t are largely stationary with little rotation if at all. There’s a fundamental problem that humans, even when not constrained by space, aren’t very agile, and much less so wearing a vr headset. It still sucks. I have an index.

The fitness apps are the most absurd thing. No one that is serious about fitness is working out for any length of time with a headset on.

If you could go to a real virtual gym and lift virtual weights that was no different than lifting real weights, that would be amazing. That would be revolutionary because so many problems would have to be solved.

Instead, the headset has literally solved nothing in the last 30 years. There is a video of Jaron Lanier on youtube showing a vr headset and vr glove in 1990. It could literally be a VR advertisement next year and you wouldn't know the difference.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#46
post #2

A little off the deep end when he gets to the philosophical part (which I understand is what the bulk of the book it is excerpted from is focused on). It's quite weird at the moment how we have a mix of people with completely discordant views about VR: still lots of people viewing it as a failed experiment from 10 years ago, written it off as having no interest and no future ("I have a VR headset; I got bored with it…

The problem is I think there is a bias created when we still call our hand held computers that can make telephone calls, "phones".

There is just not that many situations that a VR headset is a better UI than a hand held computer.

The opposite is actually true. If everyone was using VR headsets then it would be obvious that the hand held computer is the next big thing. You are finally free to not have to wear this goofy headset and still do 99% of what you would have done outside of gaming in VR.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#47
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad it probably will mean there are some short term dollars to propel the fundamental tech along. Whatever happens, it will be fun to play with that. Agreed. I think the Metaverse will be a niche, but it will soon become a much higher quality niche.

> Metaverse will be a niche One big reason for this is some strange social stigma surrounding VR. Yes, there are many other issues like cost (minimum $2000 investment for a VR ready PC and headset) and complexity if you’re not using Oculus / Meta. Then there’s also Facebook’s toxic brand, which drives away many early tech adopters; but what if we were able to take them out of the equation? Anyways, I did an experimen…

One big reason for this is some strange social stigma surrounding VR.

Matthew Ball, the venture capitalist, argued last year that the social stigma ended during the pandemic.

People are walking around looking at phone screens while wearing iDweebs hanging out of their ears without being laughed at. VR is just the next step.

[1] https://www.matthewball.vc/all/userbehaviorsmetaverse

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#48
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting experiment. > started to understand VR and use it more regularly, namely the fitness and social apps This is the interesting thing that I observe : beyond the hype there are some genuinely valuable quite mainstream applications. Fitness, e-sports, and virtual monitors being some of the key ones. I regularly use VR for 1-3 hours a day doing these. The problem is that the hype actually gets in the way of pe…

Meta’s Quest 2 doesn’t require either “skill acquisition or semi-non-trivial setup” which was why I found the results of my adhoc experiment interesting.

Yes most gaming doesn't require much, but I think the more sustainable valuable applications do.

For example there are table tennis apps so realistic that pros use them to train. I will never ever be able to own a table tennis / ping pong table due to lack of space in my house but I can have it with VR. Not only that I don't need to find a comparably skilled player and line up schedules every time I want to play. And just the price of a real a table alone is more than buying a Quest!

So what's the issue? Well these apps intrinsically take a bit of getting used to. There's a specific technique for serving that relies on some use of the controllers that is not hard but not obvious to someone who started using VR 5 minutes ago. So nearly 100% of people fail at using this app first time they play. Very few people can do this well until they've spent a bit of time in VR, getting used to how you can open and close your grip in the right way to pick things up and put them down etc. We may eventually get there with hand tracking etc where this is not such a problem, but its far from that point now.

So this is what I mean when I say, the "cheap" experiences that are easy for people to experience actually work against - in some ways - VR fulfilling its potential, because typically that is all they get shown and they never get a chance to learn to do the more "high value" activities.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re assuming VR is a paradigm shift and not just a gimmicky console like the Wii. There’s nothing particularly interesting in VR, at least not yet. Most games suck. The ones that don’t are largely stationary with little rotation if at all. There’s a fundamental problem that humans, even when not constrained by space, aren’t very agile, and much less so wearing a vr headset. It still sucks. I have an index.

The fitness apps are the most absurd thing. No one that is serious about fitness is working out for any length of time with a headset on. If you could go to a real virtual gym and lift virtual weights that was no different than lifting real weights, that would be amazing. That would be revolutionary because so many problems would have to be solved. Instead, the headset has literally solved nothing in the last 30 year…

there are bunch of things here that are just simply empirically wrong ...

The fitness apps and communities are real ... there are subscription services with virtual coaches etc. I myself workout at least 45 mins a day. It's the best workout I've ever had - Synthriders, Crazy Kung Fu, Pistol Whip ... they have you dripping with sweat and surprisingly good strength training (as in, my arms are bulking up more than they ever did with actual weights).

And nothing has been solved in 30 years? Do you understand the Quest is a wireless fully stand alone mobile device? Just that alone is a revolution. It does fully controller free hand tracking. It does 6DoF positional tracking with no base stations or external equipment.

I can't really conclude anything other than that you simply have not even looked in real life at modern VR and have no idea what you are talking about.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtually every first person VR game that isn't a driving or flying sim needs turning or it kills immersion: - Alyx - Boneworks - Blades & Sorcery / GORN - Skyrim / Fallout 4 VR - Onward, Zero Caliber, Population One, Contractors - Racket NX - Minecraft - Lone Echo - holopoint There's really too many games to name, and I can name more. A huge pain point for me prior to getting the Quest 2 was tangled wires from too m…

Alyx is cool but it also sucks. The little interactions with items feel novel. The combat is bad. It’s a thin layer of game design tricks to make you think you’re in something intricate but it’s actually dumb as rocks. The lightning dogs are the peak of this. Even on the hardest difficulty they telegraph their attacks for like… 10 seconds. It’s not clear if it’s possible to dodge it by physically walking 5m. The game…

Glad to find someone else unimpressed by Alyx. I cannot work out why people are so impressed with it. It's just a super impressive sandboxed VR demo really. The whole world is highly constrained - you can't go anywhere they don't want you to, you can only pick up and manipulate a subset of objects they have modeled properly and there all these arbitrary restrictions that just frustrate you from creatively solving any of the challenges. Ends up a totally linear storyline that's more like watching a movie than a real open world VR game (like Skyrim, for example).
Post reply on HN