Live data from Hacker News

VR Is Not Dead

yadin.com

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: VR Is Not Dead

#51
I mean at some point, probably very soon over the next decade or so, we’re going to get to a point where AI is just going to generate extremely convincing virtual worlds on the fly. From what Google has been putting out these essentially immediately look exactly like real life and we will have sidestepped the whole “gradual graphical increases approaching reality” thing we’ve been doing for all these years. AI video right now is insane. It can generate 30 second videos that are completely lifelike. If they can manage to do that in three dimensions and you can walk around in it there’s no way VR is not going to takeoff.

You have guys right now spending $300 a month on Grok Imagine because it puts out extremely realistic soft porn. Imagine what that would be like in a virtual world, that is three-dimensional, looks exactly like real life, the VR headset is in your contact lenses and AI can generate compelling narratives on the fly.

Re: VR Is Not Dead

#52
post #39

VR isn't dead. It's not alive either. It's just not it's time yet for mass adoption, however it might be. VR/AR continues to have an increasing footprint of usage and adoption as the technologies evolve. This has been the same cycle for over 20 years. Once we get past 4K displays to 8K at a reasonable cost level, it again will introduce a new audience to VR/AR, and a larger and larger existing audience will sit here…

I don't think VR will ever reach mass adoption, I don't think there's any reason for it to. It isn't sufficiently superior to screens and keyboard/mouse or phones to warrant it. I liken the hype around VR to the hype around LLMs - it's good at some things, but not everything.

Re: VR Is Not Dead

#54
VR surged (mainly in the form of VR cafes) in the late 90's, only to fall into obscurity, much like 3D film surged in the 50's, 80's, and 2010's before subsiding. VR now seems to be subsiding again (the number of new VR titles released on Steam has declined year-over-year for several years now). When will it return, and for how long?

3D film offers an added level of immersion, but the technology has had peaks of popularity interspersed with longer periods where it was very niche. Anaglyph 3D boomed in the 50's, but couldn't handle colour. Polarized 3D boomed in the 80's and could handle colour, but often at the expense of reduced brightness and resolution as well as increased prices. IMAX 3D soldiered on, but 3D was all but absent from mainstream movies until the 2010's, when active shutter 3D become popular alongside polarized 3D. Today, only the occasional movie is offered in 3D, and that's declining. Few cinema's are investing in new hardware for 3D projection.

The pattern repeated because 3D always added drawbacks and expense. Films were either made with it in mind (e.g. By deliberately shoving things into the viewer's face) or they just let it passively enhance things. The former made films gimmicky and limited their audience. The latter left it to audiences to choose whether 3D was worth the drawbacks. Audiences decided it wasn't time and again. A 2D window into another world was immersive enough. Studios keep coming back, roughly every three decades, because it seems like that's how long it takes audiences to start getting excited for the same gimmicks again.

VR is currently expensive, uncomfortable, isolating, and (for some) nausea inducing. Any one of these is worse than the sum total of modern 3D's drawbacks: You have to wear glasses, pay $5 extra, and hope the theatre's projector is bright enough. My bold prediction is that VR and 3D will both eventually succeed and stick (perhaps in the same package!), but only when the technologies are without significant drawbacks or extra expense. VR technology has made exciting progress since the 90's but, like 3D, it's not ready to stick yet.

The harsh reality is that, even if somebody were to make a quantum leap forward in VR technology tomorrow that solves all its major drawbacks, it would probably still be years or decades before audiences are willing to reconsider the opinion of VR they've formed over the last several years. People need to forget before they're willing to reevaluate.

Re: VR Is Not Dead

#55
post #20

I’m on my third quest unit (my quest 1 died during the pandemic and I had to buy a new 1, and then the 2 came out). I still use it for around 3-4 hours a week and I’m thinking about upgrading to the quest 3. Just use one or two apps though (beat saber and fitxr), I never really got into actual gaming or social stuff on it. I wish a company would come around and seethe potential for fitness tech with VR, they could co…

I agree. I've been using the quest to regularly work out for the last 4 years. It's the only app I use. I think my issue is that VR is very much a solo experience. It's hard for me to have the free time and room to play with my kids and family. I would rather play 2d games with the kids.

I think zuckberg was infatuated with the social aspect, but really it’s the solo grind that works well with VR.

Re: VR Is Not Dead

#56

IMO this blog post can be summarized as "Even if nobody actually wants to use VR for extended periods, it's cool so it will be coming in the future eventually!!" VR is the perfect metaphor IMO for how "the tech industry" at large has lost its way. It's no longer about using technology to solve long standing human problems, it's about how tech firms can find ways to insert themselves in the fabric of human existence s…

It is not about the technology being cool (although I think it is). It is about its being intimately linked to human psychology, philosophy, and culture. That makes it, in my view, a very human technology. It allows us, in theory, to break out of our physical environment, bodies, and limitations.

Re: VR Is Not Dead

#57
post #32

From the article: "The main theme in the Spanish Golden Age playwright Pedro Calderón de la Barca’s La Vida es Sueño (Life is a Dream) from 1635 is the contrast between subjective and objective perceptions of reality." Huh? Is this AI slop? The basic problems with VR are well known. First, the headgear is too bulky. Carmack, who headed Oculus for a while, says that it won't get traction until the headgear is down to…

Just a quick note to say that it is not AI slop. That particular line is out of my PhD dissertation about the legal implications of VR, submitted over a decade ago. I'll take it as a compliment though, assuming you meant the piece is well researched.

Re: VR Is Not Dead

#58
post #47
post #30

The biggest impediment for VR is the fundamentally asocial nature of it. If there are fewer headsets in a room than there are people, it’s going to be awkward for at least one person. Trying to help someone debug something in their headset without me being able to see what they see is a problem (granted, this could be solved by software). Having to share headsets sucks. You have to faff with head straps, adjust IPD,…

Are video game consoles "fundamentally asocial" because there are likely fewer controllers than people in a household? Are computers, because they only have one mouse and keyboard? The existence of VR chat suggests it handles social gaming just fine. I can think of a lot of impediments to VR (the weight of the headset and vertigo being the biggest) but needing everyone in a room to share a single headset at the same…

No because I can watch you play very easily and you can toss the controller over to me when it's my turn and I just pick it up and start playing.

Re: VR Is Not Dead

#59
post #56

IMO this blog post can be summarized as "Even if nobody actually wants to use VR for extended periods, it's cool so it will be coming in the future eventually!!" VR is the perfect metaphor IMO for how "the tech industry" at large has lost its way. It's no longer about using technology to solve long standing human problems, it's about how tech firms can find ways to insert themselves in the fabric of human existence s…

It is not about the technology being cool (although I think it is). It is about its being intimately linked to human psychology, philosophy, and culture. That makes it, in my view, a very human technology. It allows us, in theory, to break out of our physical environment, bodies, and limitations.

> It allows us, in theory, to break out of our physical environment, bodies, and limitations.

Or one could, you know, go for a walk outside. There is a reason phrases like "go touch grass" have become popular, or that the prescient Nickelodeon ad from the 90s about putting down VR so you can experience the wonders of "actual reality" has gone viral again.

For the past 30 or so years we've seen an explosion of tech that was supposedly going to make humanity more connected, yet somehow in many ways I've seen the exact opposite happen.

Until I see folks "max out" on the amazing experiences available in our natural world, I'm extremely skeptical that VR is the solution to our natural limitations.

Re: VR Is Not Dead

#60

With AI, VR is even more promising. I have been working on a Gaussian splat renderer for the Quest 3, and by having Claude and ChatGPT read state-of-the-art papers, I have been able to build a training and rendering pipeline that is getting >50 fps for large indoor scenes on the Quest 3. I started with an (AI-driven) port of a desktop renderer, which got less than 1 fps, but I've integrated both training and renderin…

Sorry if this is a basic question, but what's you workflow for feeding the papers into the LLM and getting the implementation done? The coding agents that I've used are not able to read PDFs, so I've been wondering how to do it.

this is actually a great question - I just extract the text with PyPDF, but did a brief search on the functionality I'd like to have (convert math equations to LaTeX, extract images, reformat in markdown, extract data from charts) and it looks like there are a couple of promising Python libs like Docling and Marker.. I should really improve this part of my workflow.
Post reply on HN