> For a time, at what may have been the height of the internet’s thrall, it became popular to pretend that the digital and material worlds were continuous—that the “real” one had no special meaning, because cyberspace had become a part of it. That turned out to be wrong. We live in cars and on couches and, separately, we also live on phones. Apple believes it can resolve this conflict—that the digital and material worlds can be merged together—but it has only put the conflict into higher resolution. A headset is a pair of spectacles, but a headset is also a blindfold.
This is a really poignant conclusion, and reflects much of the worry I have about this device category. The more tightly we've integrated the digital and physical worlds the less connected we've become as people. It's showing in our relationships, its showing in our mental health, it's showing in our politics.
At this point, humane technology is technology that gets out of your way as much as possible and let you exist in the real world with real people. From my perspective, further integrating digital experiences into our real lives should not be the goal, the goal should be to achieve the benefits that digital devices bring without actually needing to interact with them.
I don't think thats it. Its not the part where we interact with digital devices that is the problem, exactly. Maybe its the part where we stop interacting with other people as people as well.
I watched a wild video[1] the other day which really gave me a new perspective on the Apple Vision Pro. Casey Neistat walks around NYC with an apple vision strapped on his head and chats with people in the street. I was arrested by it - part of the reason is how he "effortlessly" interacts with a bunch of strangers in the video. He exists in the city, even with the headset on. Despite how nobody can actually see his face. I'd find that pretty scary to do!
I suspect part of the problem might be that devices give as an emotional excuse to avoid real human to human interactions. They enable us to turtle away. Talking to people online feels like the real thing, but better because its less scary. We don't have to be quite as vulnerable when we do it. And maybe thats the problem with this stuff - the more we enable "social junk food" we use it as a substitute for real, scary, intimate human interactions. The technology isn't the problem per se. The problem is how we choose to hide behind it.
It's not even starting or stopping interacting with people. Its being fed what we want and what we are comfortable with. The algorithmic firehose freezes us into a comfortable, unchanging state. We don't update our beliefs because its easier to confirm them.
It's also a bit that compulsatory education ends at 18, and we switch to entercation. The top priority of the news is to captivate attention and entertain.
The black mirror about muting people and not seeing them anymore is the future. Living in one physical space occupied by multiple tribes, who merely see otherselves as apparitions.
There's an interesting set of conflicting forces where people are tempted through selfish interests to be lazy interacting with humans and prefer to stay home connected while also craving intimate human interaction. I think this laziness is encouraging us to stay home while also causing all us to feel more isolated and lonely. Like you said, "social junk food", but it's also video games, TV, etc. We've invented more ways to avoid social interaction which causes a feedback-loop of sorts. We're becoming more anti-social but also more lonely.
Having nothing to do is a great driver to force people out of their holes and interacting with other humans. We've made it too easy to stay home
It's easy to make this judgement now when the headset has just been launched. But over the coming decades we are going to new see new types of social interaction that could enhance the world rather than break it apart.
For example, being in Australia conferences in the EU and US require a 14 hour flight time and days of adjusting to a new time zone. Likewise there are people working two jobs, have children or are a carer who may want to experience the benefits of studying in person but can't.
I suspect as the fidelity gets better that human need of being around other people is going to be fulfilled. Which could make a massive difference in terms of reducing loneliness and the feeling of isolation.
> It's easy to make this judgement now when the headset has just been launched. But over the coming decades we are going to new see new types of social interaction that could enhance the world rather than break it apart.
So ... in many ways my life has been this "over the coming decades" first the internet in general, then social media, then smart phones. And at each of those steps I said what you just said about this.
But I dunno man! I have to say that I feel like the "this will lead to deterioration in valuable human bonds" crowd has been more thoroughly vindicated than my "we have to wait and see whether the good dominates the bad!" crowd.
We already have that with video calls. The headset adds a sense of depth, but since you're wearing it on your face, any visual of you is going to be artificially constructed (i.e. there's a rubber gasket over important facial muscles, so no camera could hope to capture them).
The world has to evolve in a different way than it is currently happening. Which is not impossible but those headset development are not cheap so the monetisation is a very high requirement.
It is a lot easier to use those headset where they naturally fit: ultra-personalised experience. Like social media v2, lot of potential to connect human, but devolving into jailing human in echo chambers: you can keep in touch with your family and friends across the world, or you can get hooked into a forever stream of news/post/video/product customised to make you engage.
VR headset used for games. I can see the social aspect winning. Spacial computing, I'm scared.
I'm hesitant to embrace a tech that so clearly and obviously keeps people separated. At least with a phone, you can position it so 2 people can view it simultaneously.
True. At the same time, VR could afford richer interactions with those who live far away from you. For example, about 30% of older adults in the US live alone. Of course, it would be better to visit or live with them, but that is often impossible.
The problem is not the tech. The problem is what’s on it. Social media in particular runs on dividing us, since maximally triggering or addicting content maximizes time spent staring at the app.
This isn’t a new observation. I recall reading back in the 90s about how the problem with TV is what’s on the TV.
The tech is fine. The incentives for media are all perverse and destructive.
Unfortunately I think most people want the "escape" of these digital worlds. To them (and others), it's easier to live inside of dream world than fix the current one.
If you think about it, it's indeed easier to start from scratch and create a new digital world than to fix the current one. The current world depends on far too many people
There's something very gross to me about this product. It digital gluttony. It's like buttering your pop tarts. It's like adding extra sugar to your Cola. It's like wearing a diaper so you don't have to get up off the couch. At some point isn't enough enough? How connected do you have to really be? How much more engagement do you need to feel something? How many screens do you need to fill the hole in your heart? I wonder what's going on in the mind of a person who craves this isolating hyper stimulated cocoon strapped to their head.
Current stats are that 50% of Americans aged 30-49 have a social media addiction.
Under 29 who knows but obviously higher.
You can't expect a coke head to not snort the whole bag. We just don't believe social media addiction is like a coke addiction. This isn't going to just get better either. What are the kids that grew up watching tiktok as a first memory all of the sudden going to become ludite hippies in 15 years?
I even had the thought that maybe generation alpha would be reactionary against all this. Looking that up, holy shit is that wrong.
The amount of robberies is going to skyrocket... I would suspect that Apple will have to implement some sort of "50% translucency requirement for on-screen windows" so that using the Vision Pro in public places will not prevent people from being aware of their central vision & surroundings.
I don't personally carry a cell phone with me in day-to-day life, so I am already well aware of how addictive technology is for young & old [and am myself about half way along the journey].
The first person to get injured because the VisionPro screens suddenly freeze/blank is going to make global news. RIP.
I'm sure I'm a pollyanna about all this, but every time some new piece of tech or innovation comes out, English majors crank out "What Hast Thou Wrought" pieces like nobody's business.
The truth is nobody knows how this thing will integrate into human society. Personally I think the social media hysteria is overdone, and the human need for connection is probably stronger than technology. Time and time again, what we've seen is that technology amplifies individual characteristics rather than changing them.
Of course the press is obsessed with the goings on of social media. They themselves spend all their time obsessing about their ratios on Twitter. But there are plenty of people out there who don't, and they don't get noticed because the opinion leaders can't get outside their own little bubble of Tik Tok, Twitter, Reddit, etc.
Yes, certain people already predisposed to isolation will use technology as a substitute for human connection. But those people are going to do that anyway.
Wasn't this about it being a terrible unusable product though? Not a "what has thou wrought" bit at all.
I think this has convinced me we need a new technology altogether, not cameras + screens for AR to be feasible.
The use as a movie theatre, if they could eliminate the weight, maybe an interesting use. But not a good AR headset, and probably never without eliminating the lag/precision issue (hint, you aren't allowed to digitize the universe).
I've seen a couple of videos on TikTok of people using Apple Vision, and it looks so strange from an outsider's perspective. I understand that, in addition to extra information from apps, a person also sees everything around them, but from the outside, it looks like they're in their own world. It's just weird not to see a person's eyes.
I wonder if it could result in cities making public spaces safer and more accessible for people with vision impairment.
I know AirPods/noise cancelation made me very aware of accessibility features for hearing impaired people. Suddenly I’m looking for the lights on the train door button because I can’t hear the beep.
Most of this danger is entirely human constructed. If you put someone out on a farm or otherwise undeveloped land, they are very unlikely to kill themselves by mis stepping.
Was watching the Casey Neistat review video today and it's both crazy as in exciting and somehow terribly frightening https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvkgmyfMPks There is just something eerie about the whole thing, like existing on the edge between the digital and real world.
But truly this is the future, there is no stop and it will be miniaturized down to normal glass size sooner or later
I got back from the Apple Store a few hours ago and that headline is exactly how I felt when I finished the 20 minute demo. It was amazing, it’s the future of entertainment especially sports and that’s the sad part, you will be enjoying it alone.
The demo was ~20 min. I put my name on a list and waited about 30 min. I was surprised that most people at the store were not there for the Vision Pro.
> The headset, which weighs as much as a cauliflower
Christ, I just learned the length of a football field (and that there exists a different futbol pitch). Now I have to learn how much random vegetables weigh?
Can we at least stick to Brassica oleracea in the future? Whats the brussel sprout equivalent?
> A medium-sized head of cauliflower is about 6 inches across, weighs about 2 pounds and makes 4 to 6 servings after trimming off the leaves and stem. [1]
In all seriousness this seems like a total deal breaker:
> Typing via finger pinches or dictation was a pain, so I used a wireless keyboard. Even that had problems. Touch-typing in that context wasn’t easy, and the writing felt out of phase. The letters on the screen appeared after a very slight delay, just enough to make it feel like my words were being pulled through a wormhole on their way into my document.
It only occurred to me recently that when people compare something to the length of a football field, they are probably talking about American Football. I had always just assumed (without thinking about it) it was the length of an Australian Rules Football field, which can be almost 70% longer!
It must be about time we all just used metres and grams?
Practically no one would ever be talking about Australian Rules Football (outside of the handful of countries where that's popular, of course), although presumably outside of the US they'd often be talking about soccer.
Readit News
Sorry, I had meant to post the archive link with it.
This is a really poignant conclusion, and reflects much of the worry I have about this device category. The more tightly we've integrated the digital and physical worlds the less connected we've become as people. It's showing in our relationships, its showing in our mental health, it's showing in our politics.
At this point, humane technology is technology that gets out of your way as much as possible and let you exist in the real world with real people. From my perspective, further integrating digital experiences into our real lives should not be the goal, the goal should be to achieve the benefits that digital devices bring without actually needing to interact with them.
I watched a wild video[1] the other day which really gave me a new perspective on the Apple Vision Pro. Casey Neistat walks around NYC with an apple vision strapped on his head and chats with people in the street. I was arrested by it - part of the reason is how he "effortlessly" interacts with a bunch of strangers in the video. He exists in the city, even with the headset on. Despite how nobody can actually see his face. I'd find that pretty scary to do!
I suspect part of the problem might be that devices give as an emotional excuse to avoid real human to human interactions. They enable us to turtle away. Talking to people online feels like the real thing, but better because its less scary. We don't have to be quite as vulnerable when we do it. And maybe thats the problem with this stuff - the more we enable "social junk food" we use it as a substitute for real, scary, intimate human interactions. The technology isn't the problem per se. The problem is how we choose to hide behind it.
[1] https://youtu.be/UvkgmyfMPks . Definitely worth a watch.
It's also a bit that compulsatory education ends at 18, and we switch to entercation. The top priority of the news is to captivate attention and entertain.
The black mirror about muting people and not seeing them anymore is the future. Living in one physical space occupied by multiple tribes, who merely see otherselves as apparitions.
Any time it is applicable, i have to post my favorite article on the internt https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/78691781-c9b7... Ironic that im stuck on it.
Having nothing to do is a great driver to force people out of their holes and interacting with other humans. We've made it too easy to stay home
For example, being in Australia conferences in the EU and US require a 14 hour flight time and days of adjusting to a new time zone. Likewise there are people working two jobs, have children or are a carer who may want to experience the benefits of studying in person but can't.
I suspect as the fidelity gets better that human need of being around other people is going to be fulfilled. Which could make a massive difference in terms of reducing loneliness and the feeling of isolation.
So ... in many ways my life has been this "over the coming decades" first the internet in general, then social media, then smart phones. And at each of those steps I said what you just said about this.
But I dunno man! I have to say that I feel like the "this will lead to deterioration in valuable human bonds" crowd has been more thoroughly vindicated than my "we have to wait and see whether the good dominates the bad!" crowd.
I have much more hope for someone like Starline, though it seems they've gone the AI route to cut down on the number of cameras and hardware for blending them together. https://blog.google/technology/research/project-starline-pro...
It is a lot easier to use those headset where they naturally fit: ultra-personalised experience. Like social media v2, lot of potential to connect human, but devolving into jailing human in echo chambers: you can keep in touch with your family and friends across the world, or you can get hooked into a forever stream of news/post/video/product customised to make you engage.
VR headset used for games. I can see the social aspect winning. Spacial computing, I'm scared.
This ^.
I'm hesitant to embrace a tech that so clearly and obviously keeps people separated. At least with a phone, you can position it so 2 people can view it simultaneously.
This isn’t a new observation. I recall reading back in the 90s about how the problem with TV is what’s on the TV.
The tech is fine. The incentives for media are all perverse and destructive.
Which isn’t wrong necessarily. But definitely is working hard.
Worth a re-watch in this day and age given your comments on the zeitgeist.
Under 29 who knows but obviously higher.
You can't expect a coke head to not snort the whole bag. We just don't believe social media addiction is like a coke addiction. This isn't going to just get better either. What are the kids that grew up watching tiktok as a first memory all of the sudden going to become ludite hippies in 15 years?
I even had the thought that maybe generation alpha would be reactionary against all this. Looking that up, holy shit is that wrong.
I don't personally carry a cell phone with me in day-to-day life, so I am already well aware of how addictive technology is for young & old [and am myself about half way along the journey].
The first person to get injured because the VisionPro screens suddenly freeze/blank is going to make global news. RIP.
The truth is nobody knows how this thing will integrate into human society. Personally I think the social media hysteria is overdone, and the human need for connection is probably stronger than technology. Time and time again, what we've seen is that technology amplifies individual characteristics rather than changing them.
Of course the press is obsessed with the goings on of social media. They themselves spend all their time obsessing about their ratios on Twitter. But there are plenty of people out there who don't, and they don't get noticed because the opinion leaders can't get outside their own little bubble of Tik Tok, Twitter, Reddit, etc.
Yes, certain people already predisposed to isolation will use technology as a substitute for human connection. But those people are going to do that anyway.
I think this has convinced me we need a new technology altogether, not cameras + screens for AR to be feasible.
The use as a movie theatre, if they could eliminate the weight, maybe an interesting use. But not a good AR headset, and probably never without eliminating the lag/precision issue (hint, you aren't allowed to digitize the universe).
I know AirPods/noise cancelation made me very aware of accessibility features for hearing impaired people. Suddenly I’m looking for the lights on the train door button because I can’t hear the beep.
Most of this danger is entirely human constructed. If you put someone out on a farm or otherwise undeveloped land, they are very unlikely to kill themselves by mis stepping.
But truly this is the future, there is no stop and it will be miniaturized down to normal glass size sooner or later
Christ, I just learned the length of a football field (and that there exists a different futbol pitch). Now I have to learn how much random vegetables weigh?
Can we at least stick to Brassica oleracea in the future? Whats the brussel sprout equivalent?
> A medium-sized head of cauliflower is about 6 inches across, weighs about 2 pounds and makes 4 to 6 servings after trimming off the leaves and stem. [1]
In all seriousness this seems like a total deal breaker:
> Typing via finger pinches or dictation was a pain, so I used a wireless keyboard. Even that had problems. Touch-typing in that context wasn’t easy, and the writing felt out of phase. The letters on the screen appeared after a very slight delay, just enough to make it feel like my words were being pulled through a wormhole on their way into my document.
[1] https://gmach.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Cauliflower.pdf
It must be about time we all just used metres and grams?
Deleted Comment