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

61–70 of 202 posts

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

#61

Post by whatwhaaaaat »

foobarbecue wrote: post #49
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…

When my computer glitches, e.g. if a key stops working on my keyboard or the mouse doesn't respond as expected, I sometimes experience a physical sense of of discomfort or disorientation that's not unlike dizzyness or the feeling of missing a step on stairs. I think it's because, as you describe in terms of immersion, my brain has extended its concept of my body through my typing fingers to the computer screen, build…

I don’t buy this for even a minute. If my starter solenoid goes out on my old time Jeep I get the same feeling. (It’s happened a few times now). Does this mean the Jeep is now part of my body? Of course not.

It’s called being annoyed or caught off guard by external stimuli.

I think there is a large portion of people on this website who have not spent a day in years without their devices. That doesn’t mean their devices are integrated with their biology. Just that they have become dependent on things.

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

#62

Post by em-bee »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #51
kamaradclimber wrote: post #2

Many of the most talented artists of our time don’t do any art — they work in advertising. I think the original quote is: The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads (source: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/06/12/click/ ) which is very close to article’s paraphrase

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 work that pays is the unglamorous stuff that needs doing

no, the work that pays is the unglamorous stuff that someone wants to get done to make a profit. the stuff that actually needs doing is the stuff that would be a benefit for our society.

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

#63

Post by yamazakiwi »

filiph wrote: post #16
monkeynotes wrote: post #9

Let's wind this back to the days when people thought reading books was an indulgent waste of time. The best artists are writing trivial drivel for women to read. The best minds are finding new ways to sell books. It's a stupid heuristical argument.

It looks like you're countering with the "it's always been the case" argument. I use it often myself, but I think it's good to realize when it's stretched too far. Yes, I'm sure there were some people in the past who said that reading books is an indulgent waste of time. I'm sure you could find articles in old newspapers. That in itself doesn't mean that working on a VR headset technology is as meaningful as working…

I'm not disagreeing, but I believe it is a better use of ones time to prioritize things that spark personal significance rather than attempting to quantify/compare meaningfulness universally.

I would never listen to someone who proposes reallocating high-level talent resources as an important and solvable problem where the solution is, tell those people their passions are a waste of time. I also don't believe this person understands the talent market as they quote the "Many of the most talented artists of our time work in advertising," nonsense. Yes their are smart people working in advertising, but it's no deeper than that. There are other spaces and industries that have more brilliant minds.

The truth is, you don't know with certainty if working on VR technology is more meaningful or not.

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

#64

Post by andybak »

ghusto wrote: post #57
andybak wrote: post #11

I rather missed the point where he explains why immersive games are bad. There's some hand-wavey bit about "[they] don’t teach them anything valuable about the real world, and don’t relax them at all" but that appears to be it. The first bit is beside the point and the second hugely debatable. Similar criticisms could equally be levelled at engaging with any creative output - reading, listening to music etc. And I lo…

Anything is more important than making entertainment. It’s literally the first thing to be sacrificed in times of crisis.

The orchestra at the siege of Leningrad and the theatre troupes in WW2 camps beg to differ.

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

#65

Post by anonzzzies »

kamaradclimber wrote: post #2

Many of the most talented artists of our time don’t do any art — they work in advertising. I think the original quote is: The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads (source: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/06/12/click/ ) which is very close to article’s paraphrase

The moral of the story is that a lot of humanity is just working for cash instead of anything useful, interesting, etc for humanity and even themselves. The basic needs and sometimes a bit beyond, still, quite worthless on any scale beyond your few m^2. Depressing, but it seems not improve with us all being better off.

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

#67

Post by feoren »

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 I could implant a chip in my brain, and if people could control my brain with that chip, I would probably never allow it. But when that chip is outside of my brain in a device I keep in my pocket, why am I more willing to allow other entities to feed me stimuli?

This definition of "feeding you stimuli" seems extremely broad to me. Are you "allowing other entities to feed you stimuli" when you listen to the radio? When you see signs and billboards on the highway? When you are having a conversation? How could you live your life without allowing other entities to feed you stimuli? How are these examples different from what your phone is doing? (And don't say "notifications": you have far more control over which notifications you receive than which billboards you see.)

If I could implant a chip in my brain that allowed me to tune into any radio station I wanted and listen to it in my brain, I'd probably do that, assuming it's safe and actually under my control. I'm not seeing the dichotomy here.

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

#68

Post by Dalewyn »

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…

More people need to appreciate that video games have been at the core of what drives computing technologies forward.

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

#69

Post by allknowingfrog »

johnchristopher wrote: post #48
mellosouls wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's a paraphrase of a quote attributed to Banksy and it's specifically about graphic arts, not CS or psychology. Nope, the most famous form is Ginsberg; I don't know if he lifted it from somewhere too. I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked - Howl (EDIT: the grandparent link actually points that out)

> Nope, the most famous form is Ginsberg; I don't know if he lifted it from somewhere too. No, they appeared in very different contexts and Ginsberg goes in a different direction (1955, drugs, jazz, etc.): > I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient…

"Best minds of my generation" is a pretty specific phrase which appears in the Ginsberg quote and not in the Banksy one. I would argue that famous quote are more often related by structure than context. Most quotes about "the smell of in the morning" are not about the Vietnam war, for example.

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

#70

Post by feoren »

whatwhaaaaat wrote: post #61
foobarbecue wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When my computer glitches, e.g. if a key stops working on my keyboard or the mouse doesn't respond as expected, I sometimes experience a physical sense of of discomfort or disorientation that's not unlike dizzyness or the feeling of missing a step on stairs. I think it's because, as you describe in terms of immersion, my brain has extended its concept of my body through my typing fingers to the computer screen, build…

I don’t buy this for even a minute. If my starter solenoid goes out on my old time Jeep I get the same feeling. (It’s happened a few times now). Does this mean the Jeep is now part of my body? Of course not. It’s called being annoyed or caught off guard by external stimuli. I think there is a large portion of people on this website who have not spent a day in years without their devices. That doesn’t mean their devic…

> 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 feel your liver either.

Post reply on HN