superjudgebunny t1_j7aqb9y wrote
Reply to comment by Low-Restaurant3504 in What weak signals or drivers of change—that receive limited attention today—are most likely to create signifiant impacts over the next 10-20 years? Where are the black swans hiding? by NewDiscourse
The problem I see with AR, many use video games as a means to escape reality. AR doesn’t quite do that. I don’t want to play games in a modified reality, I want a complete and custom reality where fantasy is present.
Low-Restaurant3504 t1_j7arxst wrote
Gonna be waiting a bit on that one. At least if you want to be able to engage with that custom fantasy in any meaningful way.
But videogames are a small portion of what AR has to offer. I don't imagine it's gonna become a household item on it's use as a video game platform. It's gonna be use as a navigation tool, social platform, design implement, quick reference decice that is gonna get it attention. Just focusing on videogames is really limiting the usefulness of AR.
superjudgebunny t1_j7asyj7 wrote
More than likely they will advance together. I don’t see AR being useful for many fields like we think. A big takeaway is how the military doesn’t push adoption. In fact augmented scopes aren’t all they are cracked up to be.
It’s going to boil down to how well wearable devices work in that aspect.
Low-Restaurant3504 t1_j7atuni wrote
Plenty of technologies around us today are from military lineages that were better suited for the civilian market in the end. Sure, battlefield, not so great. It doesn't need to perform under those stresses as a wearable personal assistant platform. Honestly, it's a much better suited technology for civilian use and always has been. Maybe one day it'll be battle worthy, but it doesn't need to be to scan a honey-do list and transfer it into a quick text doc that you can pull up while you are at the grocery later. That's the kind of stuff it has to do to get in households, and it certainly can do that right now if someone would make it and put it out there.
VR is gonna be a bit contingent on brain-interface hardware for one simple reason.
You can't see the horizon in VR. You can in AR. Until you can shut off fine motor skills and provide true feedback from the simulation, which... woof, getting to that point, there are going to be plenty of folks who can't use it for very long. AR keeps the horizon. VR has a looooooong way to go, and Elon's stunt with the brain chips probably pushed it's time table back a bunch, so no, I imagine in the short term, AR is the investment you wanna get in on.
Edit: Had more thoughts.
superjudgebunny t1_j7avcou wrote
K just don’t see much professional use. Given that AR has been around for quite some time. Much longer than VR, where VR has progressed fairly fast.
Fighter pilots use AR heavily, so will Astronauts. It will probably boom in medical and science research.
Until we can get very good motion tracking, controlling what’s on screen is going to be difficult. I can’t think of many other fields which it would shine well. Mainly because in a profession you shouldn’t be using an aid like that. The goal and idea is to know the information already.
I’m not sold on a good use mainstream. Considering it’s been out since the 90s, we’ll before modern VR.
As for fine motor skills? We already are running hats that do neurological input. Sound patterns that trick the ear/balance system. Treadmills that allow 360 walking.
There is a reason you see a lot of people not wear safety glasses in construction. It’s just annoying, especially for those who don’t have to wear them.
Low-Restaurant3504 t1_j7awyha wrote
Okay, I'll bite.
When you say it won't get much professional use, what do you imagine it'd need to do to be useful? I'm just wondering what you think it needs to be capable of to be useful?
And everything you just said that we have that can fix the Horizon issue is nowhere near as cost affordable, nor easy to don as a pair of glasses with a projector screen. Please, you must see the issue with your argument here. Have you even looked up how much the rig you just described would cost? How much space it takes up? It's not really an argument as to which will be a household staple faster.
superjudgebunny t1_j7bbyca wrote
It’s not that it isn’t useful, any professional shouldn’t need a helper. Your a paid professional for a reason. The small amount of time you might look something up wouldn’t justify the cost.
So it needs to be in a field where it’s used a lot. Without much interaction, where it’s displaying pertinent information. Such as surgery, aviation, electrical engineering for maybe blueprints.
Anything that would require interaction and a professional field, you gotta know that information already. The military doesn’t like it for in the field. Neither will the police or first responders as it’s a distraction.
Sports could use it for the coaches, bout it.
The trades won’t use it, you don’t have time to look shit up. Especially when your being paid as much as you are. And residential construction is too fast paced. Same with manufacturing, unless your a technician who repairs a multitude of systems. Going back to the use of blueprints and specs.
It’s just unnecessary tech. The business world works, sure. The uses for it without advanced gesture technology is niche at best. Otherwise you sacrifice a hand at least to navigate a system with decent accuracy. We could pair that with neural stimuli but then the price per device goes way the fuck up.
It’s a limited technology, same with VR. VR however has a much better use in entertainment and therapy. You can travel the world from your own home. We are willing to spend money on entertainment while employers would rather higher a better worker.
It’s just not feasible tech.
Edit: grammar
Low-Restaurant3504 t1_j7cchge wrote
That's all a bunch of "Nuh-Uh, cause I say so!". I'm not even going to begin picking it apart. It's barely even an argument. It's just you saying things you made up in your head. Are you a VR salesmen by any chance?
And this idea you keep repeating that Profesionals shouldn't need helpers? What? Why? What kind of weird made up rule is that. Professionals use tools to aid them ALL THE TIME. You are going to absurd lengths with your argument here.
Unobtanium_Alloy t1_j7egij1 wrote
That's like arguing any profession which requires you to understand basic math shouldn't "need" (be allowed to) use a calculator, since they already understand how to do it themselves.
I don't find your arguments convincing.
superjudgebunny t1_j7ehnls wrote
Right, but you already own a calculator. We used them in construction all the time. It’s a phone. Most of the things AR would bring are already in my phone. I would have to probably stop, get out a device to control my AR and input commands. Might as well just use my phone.
Which I should have brought up. Redundancy doesn’t make something good. If devices are already in public control. What EXTRA features does AR bring?
My argument assumes that one already has access to things in which we now consider basic technology. AR has to offer something that isn’t already in a professionals portfolio of instruments. What new does it bring to the table that would change things?
If you can’t give me examples, this is a one sided discussion. This tells me you have no arguments as a proponent of AR tek.
I’ve stated it has niche applications sure. Not enough to get the funding and research to make it public or mainstream.
Low-Restaurant3504 t1_j7ewb69 wrote
You got alot of weird, made up rules and stipulations you keep running to. Just an observation.
Josvan135 t1_j7emzvn wrote
>I don’t see AR being useful for many fields like we think
AR is being massively adopted in the logistics and supply chain sectors as we speak.
Multiple companies have developed highly effective headset based systems that provide significant benefits in picking tasks (on the order of 30%+ efficiency gains), and numerous major warehousing and logistics companies are rolling them out globally.
juiceandjin t1_j7bj0ho wrote
People using video games as a means to escape reality is a separate issue from AR. There are plenty of people that play games recreationally without being dependent on it and the market for AR games yet to be seen. I'd consider Pokemon GO a good signal for potential of AR gaming.
superjudgebunny t1_j7brca1 wrote
Yea and I’ve expanded on the issues with AR down the comment chain. AR has niche markets, where VR could be a bigger branch of entertainment. Virtual plays, movies, not just games. Why see movies in 3D when you can experience them in full.
Ugh, basically it’s going to be more common that we want to have a distraction or escape from reality.
Longjumping_Pilgirm t1_j7e8cdp wrote
I think it would be awesome to put on a pair of glasses of suddenly have a full-scale American Civil War battle in your backyard you can participate in.
superjudgebunny t1_j7eaoml wrote
I get that. Sure. I just don’t see it becoming a big thing. It’s been a technology for over 30 ish years. It was pioneered in the late 60s, fast forward today. It has limited military use, the rest of the government hasn’t adopted it. Despite the new technology advances.
So the CIA, FBI, and secret service hasn’t seen a good general use for the platforms. In all this time, you would think if it had massive capabilities at least those branches of government would use it. Or the medical world, the other big complex that tends to pioneer technology.
Now VR was also pioneered the at the same time. In the last decade we’ve seen it gain massive leaps. Major funding for public use, with not only games but media and other applications possible to the general public. With companies pushing massive amounts of money to fix the current issues with the platform.
Which one is getting the funding, applicational use and support?
I would rather watch the civil war in 3D, see the original battlefields. Feel the environment, get sucked into the reality those soldiers lived. That to me sounds like a much better experience.
Longjumping_Pilgirm t1_j7eheo3 wrote
I too am waiting for VR War of Rights (one of the most realistic Civil War games out there at the moment), and I actually do reenactments as a Union soldier, and even did one at Gettysburg last year, but there are positives and negatives with that kind of thing - we can't replicate dead or dying soldiers easily for instance, but for now it's the closest you can get to being "in" the Civil War like my ancestors were. I have even heard of reenactments where people will cut themselves off from modern society completely for a couple weeks, get themselves lost in a national park somewhere, and then fight a battle.
Augmented reality would be a decent halfway point until we can get the kind of VR I am thinking of (near full immersive), and it could be quickly done also. Anything less than full immersion in the VR kind of sense would feel off to me because I already partially know what it is like.
superjudgebunny t1_j7eitwu wrote
I can see that, I just don’t see any funding for that small of a thing. While I haven’t known many civil war actors, used to know people who do medieval stuff. I know how in character they can become.
The problem i see is that there isn’t enough of a backing. Google glass, sure. A few others. The truth is, most of what the tek can offer is already offered. And outside of pure entertainment, then you need control devices. Extra gear to control what’s being displayed. That is a major problem, as most of not all the information can already be displayed on current technologies that are wide spread already.
It’s got no real momentum, I know more people with VR than with AR. That alone should be a major tell. Even the tech industry stopped pushing it. The HoloLens went? What has it done in the public eye? In the private sector?
The industries that it works for have already adopted it. I see no tangible proof of it getting much more momentum.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments