Live data from Hacker News

David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

lithub.com

1–10 of 56 posts

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#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 after a few days and now its in the closet" - most tech journalists); vs those who have pretty much factored in that VR will take over and become a mainstream if not dominant computing experience in a meaningful timeframe.

One thing is clear: with Facebook all in on the Metaverse, Microsoft purchasing Blizzard with one of the core stated reasons that it will empower their "metaverse", and Apple on the brink of releasing a VR product - the hype is back and a huge amount of cash is going to get sunk into VR. Whatever that means for the long term, 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.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#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 want some good metaverse questions to think about, here are a few, based on experience with mature systems such as Second Life.

* Games, like most forms of entertainment, must be interesting. So they have a much higher frequency of interesting events than people usually experience in real life. Much effort is expended in game design to make that happen. User-built virtual worlds, where the world itself is mostly passive, are more like real life. The frequency and density of interesting events is comparable to real life. That indicates the virtual world is doing a good job of simulating the real one. But it can be boring. It results in the standard Second Life new user question, "What do I do now?". The answer is "What do you want to do", which may lead to them being directed to an area where something that fits their interest is happening. But the world itself is indifferent to the players and does not try to engage them.

* How do we govern this thing? Almost everybody seems to assume the existence of some unchallengable authority. That is not only obnoxious, but has scaling problems. Second Life uses property rights to allow property owners to control much of what visitors can do on an owned parcel. This reduces the need for "moderators", who, in practice, are minimum wage workers in some outsourced call center. It's disappointing that democracy is out of fashion. The crypto people's idea of democracy is "one dollar, one vote". That lacks something.

* How "safe" does the virtual world have to be? Roblox takes a very hard line on this. Facebook claims to but has trouble delivering. Decentraland is too empty for it to matter. Second Life takes the position that they don't get involved with disputes between residents, and "safety", if desired, is the problem of the property owner.

* Are you your avatar, or are you puppeteering your avatar? This is a big issue in game design. If someone annoys your avatar, are they annoying you?

* What are we going to do about identity in virtual worlds? "Real Names"? Cross-system identities? Face recognition? Crypto wallets?

* How much of the user do we want to project into the virtual world? Typing only? Voice? Facial feature tracking? Full body tracking? All of those are available.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#4
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…

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.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#5
post #4
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…

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 experiment last Christmas. I got several family members Oculus Meta Quest 2 headsets. At the same time Meta was offering a $60 referral credit where both you and the new Quest user would get $60 in store credit.

To summarize, I removed the barrier of monetary cost, and Meta removed the barrier of complexity from VR (ie no wires, or PC setup). None of these people had a bad opinion of Facebook either. What was the result?

They tried the free demos once and stopped using it. It wasn’t until I constantly pestered them, that they actually tried apps with free credits and games and started to understand VR and use it more regularly, namely the fitness and social apps. I even recently talked to Meta contractor who mentioned that she wasn’t interested in a free Quest 2 headset even though she held the company in high regard. I feel for VR marketing teams. Until Apple helps make this mainstream, XR will have a very big hill to climb.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#7
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…

[deleted]

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#8
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…

To Chalmers' credit, he's been writing about this stuff at least back to 2003, when he had a paper called "The Matrix as Metaphysics" defending the idea that the claim that we're living in a simulation is not a skeptical hypothesis, and that such a world would be just as real, just one layer "in." (Probably not as wild of an idea now as it was back then.) Also a couple of other papers on VR since then and many on AI going back to 1990 [1].

[1] http://consc.net/ai-and-computation/

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#9
Here, Chalmers is flirting with the simulation hypothesis. I have not yet read his new book, but an article in the NY Times indicates that there he goes deeper into the issue, where he says that he estimates a 25% likelihood that we are in a simulation.

I wonder how he squares that with his enthusiasm for zombie arguments, which purport to show that no mere simulation of a conscious human would have all that is necessary for it to be conscious itself?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/opinion/virtual-reality-s...

Post reply on HN