vr and the future of vidya gaems

[naturally]

You can chalk me up as someone who does. It just seems like an incredibly slippery slope to me. I mean what's next, neural implants that simulate pain, pleasure, etc.? Intravenous injections for the purpose of sustaining the user? I've read Gibson and Stephenson, and I can't really see how their books support VR being a positive influence, especially not enough for that Michael Abrash guy to cop the portmanteau.

i suppose there's no way i couldn't agree that it's a slippery slope, but that's pretty much the only way it would expand anyway. after that it just depends on whether you have an optimistic outlook towards it or not. what's next, at a larger scale in terms of vr, would probably be something like simulated reality. i haven't read gibson but i literally just got snow crash in the mail today so i've started reading that and i can understand why you would say that, but shouldn't it be implied that any form of fiction regarding progression in technology will usually highlight the dangers of it? i robot did this back in 1950 based on the idea that ai would one day become self aware, they'd form contempt for us and 'wipe us all out'. the skepticism and fear towards this kind of change is completely healthy, and only helps us deal with these problems as we approach them.

ray kurzweil assumes that soon enough, along side ar and vr, we will have something called foglets that will be able to manipulate the space around them as to create a real structure in front of you. this could also take the form of an advanced ai that would appear as real as anything else would. at that point it would pretty much imply that we could have any kind of experience we want and the way we look at life would be significantly different.

i.e. Moore's law, Singularity, etc. etc. ̅e̅t̅c̅.

since you brought it up

Transcendence

i'm sure this movie will get a lot of people talking. technology's progress becomes more and more noticeable as each day goes by. all of this has some pretty serious existential risks though.

[bd648]

Welp, seeing as i'm likely the most extreme transhumanist/posthumanist on the site i may as well put my two cents in. First off just an explanation that you could get pretty much anywhere: Transhumanism is basically "Lets improve ourselves via technology". It involves a whole load of different areas including biomedical engineering, AI studies, Computer science, Neurology, Cybernetics(In its proper form) and a load of others.
Stu is referring to the laws of accelerating returns referring to kurzweli's book the age of spiritual machines (good book if a bit too optimistic for my taste).
As much as i like william gibson i think the most accurate story he has written in regards to the future (and also one of the best ones in my opinion) would be Burning Chrome. Even then it seems to me like it is a bit out there. I'd recommend Bruce Sterling ahead of William Gibson any day. A lot of his books when it comes to AI basically just say "They really dont give a shit about you". Another good collection (and probably the most rational despite it's sheer insanity) is the orion's arm project website.
Also, the singularity does not refer to when an AI becomes self aware but rather when an AI can self improve. the reason behind this is that it refers to a sort of infinite density of intelligence eventually reaching the bekenstein bound (specifically Bremermann's limit) by making an AI able to optimize its own code in an endlessly recursive manner. It has nothing to do with mind-uploading although the levels of technology could be seen as being similar (really i dont know as i'm not an expert).

I'm pretty sure you guys are talking about simulated reality to an extent of the matrix or whatever. Personally I think that is worthless. I have the same feeling about foglets. Sure they can simulate reality nearperfectly but they dont do anything to improve anything if used in a purely escapist manner and to me that is the only thing that is important in emerging technology. I don't mind if that is a secondary thing though. But really I don't like it. Necessity is the mother of invention after all, and you dont exactly need or desire much if everything is provided for you. There is nothing worse to me than stagnation.
The only benefit of the OR that i can see is it's use as an interface. But honestly i'm more interested in the emotiv when it comes to that use.

I still don't understand why people are scared of posthumanism or artificial intelligence. the whole "We wouldn't be human" argument is bullshit because who the hell cares. We were fucking proto-humans but nobody really seems to dislike the fact that we evolved beyond that.


Btw

This actually looks awesome to me.

[naturally]

when ai becomes capable of self improving that also means their intelligence would pretty well instantly be at a level we're completely unable to comprehend at our own, and because of that unknown it should be obvious that people will be frightened of it. i see it as a very intriguing concept either way. it makes you wonder what we'd be good for at that point if we don't choose to upgrade ourselves to be able to be at the level that this ai will be at. i assume most people would probably want to, but being trillions of times more intelligent and creative than you already were would be like being born again. i have no idea how realistic the concept of that movie is, but i do think like as you said, the kind of technology around then would be equally as controversial.

i actually haven't read 'the age of spiritual machines' yet so most of what i was saying was coming from 'the singularity is near'. i agree that his optimism can distract.

at the point when vr advances far enough to develop some sort of matrix reality, i assume that we probably wouldn't be that far off from, or at, the point where ai becomes capable of self improving. a lot of the dangers around living in a simulation are realistic, especially when advanced ai has the danger of making us have very leisurely lives for the most part. it's hard to say what kind of economy would even exist. i like to assume that people will always be interested in improvement regardless of what kind of culture exists. i find it very difficult to believe that we would all become incredibly complacent, but i really don't know.

i think a lot of the fear that surrounds posthumanism is that our concepts of what is human, for most people, will change dramatically. i watched the movie 'her' last night and although i thought that there were a notable amount of scenes in the movie that weren't realistic, it provided an interesting view at how being able to speak to a computer that seems human with their own needs and emotions would enable people to fall in love with an os. if a lot of futurist views on robotics are true, they will probably be so convincing that post/transhumanism at that point wouldn't seem like that big of a leap.

also this is a video of the dutch king using the oculus apparently

De Koning probeert de Oculus Rift

[Bamyasi]

what's next, at a larger scale in terms of vr, would probably be something like simulated reality.

I always thought simulated reality was virtual reality that the user wasn't aware of as being virtual, like a Matrix or Ubik-type scenario (not to say we aren't kind of at the point already).

i haven't read gibson but i literally just got snow crash in the mail today so i've started reading that and i can understand why you would say that

Sweet. Would love to hear your thoughts when you're done.

but shouldn't it be implied that any form of fiction regarding progression in technology will usually highlight the dangers of it? i robot did this back in 1950 based on the idea that ai would one day become self aware, they'd form contempt for us and 'wipe us all out'. the skepticism and fear towards this kind of change is completely healthy, and only helps us deal with these problems as we approach them.

To my understanding, the concern with AI was that they would "otherize" and turn against the ruling class (i.e. humans (i.e. the same class/racial anxieties that were prevalent outside of Sci-fi at the time), whereas the concern with Transhumanism/Human augmentation is that we would otherize ourselves, and thus be further confined to our own private skull-sized kingdoms (not to say this also hasn't happened already to an extent).

ray kurzweil assumes that soon enough, along side ar and vr, we will have something called foglets that will be able to manipulate the space around them as to create a real structure in front of you. this could also take the form of an advanced ai that would appear as real as anything else would. at that point it would pretty much imply that we could have any kind of experience we want and the way we look at life would be significantly different.

i.e. Grey goo, nanomachines, Metal Gear Solid 4, etc.

(Transcendence trailer)

I've actually met that director. My main problem with modern Sci-fi flicks like that is, while they're thematically progressive (if by "progressive" you mean copping tropes from the literature of like thirty years ago), stylistically they fall to a lot of the same cliches that currently have Hollywood in a headlock. "Her" for instance was pretty much a romantic comedy through a Sci-fi photoshop filter. It would be interesting to see what a modern day Kubrick or Tarkovsky would do with the technology, because Gravity was frustratingly regressive as far as narrative and style. I guess they have to chew this stuff enough for the babby birds to swallow.

"Lets improve ourselves via technology".

Define "improve."

I'd recommend Bruce Sterling ahead of William Gibson any day.

I've read "The Difference Engine." I really need to check out his solo work.

Also, the singularity does not refer to when an AI becomes self aware but rather when an AI can self improve.

I think it's generally assumed the two would eventually converge/one would subsume the other.

I have the same feeling about foglets. Sure they can simulate reality nearperfectly but they dont do anything to improve anything if used in a purely escapist manner and to me that is the only thing that is important in emerging technology.

Where do you draw the line between escapism and utility?

There is nothing worse to me than stagnation.

Why?

The only benefit of the OR that i can see is it's use as an interface. But honestly i'm more interested in the emotiv when it comes to that use.

I've worn one of those before.

Also a fashion disaster.

I still don't understand why people are scared of posthumanism or artificial intelligence. the whole "We wouldn't be human" argument is bullshit because who the hell cares.

That's hardly a refutation.

We were fucking proto-humans but nobody really seems to dislike the fact that we evolved beyond that.

Aside from Anarcho-primitivists.

This actually looks awesome to me.

Not trying to attack you, by the way. I'm just curious/skeptical, but hopefully that's self-evident.

Also I highly suggest anyone even slightly interested in Trans/Post-humanism reads this book:

It's sort of like a prequel to Brave New World. Even though it was published in 1998, it works remarkably well as a sort of "you are here" in regards to the Trans/Post-humanist agenda.

And I hope everyone in this thread has seen Dennou Coil, even though we're only talking about AR tangentally.

[bd648]

This actually looks awesome to me.

Keep in mind i really like the cyberpunk aesthetic in general. I would totally be one of those hackers from the movies in the 80s with the crt monitors everywhere.

There is nothing worse to me than stagnation.

Why?

Cause its the same reason i hate the idea of reaching perfection. The lack of improvement or progress seems to me like a dead end. I only care about stuff being improved (more efficient, more knowledge, and, though this is hard to define, more interesting). The journey and the seeking of perfection is more important than perfection itself and more valuable.

As a reason to why i dont understand people scared of posthumanism: Grandfather's axe (the essence is kept despite a complete physical change), the fact that we already alter our minds and use technology to augment our own abilities and knowledge (See "The Shallows" book), and the fact that i just on a basic level dont understand why you wouldn't want to self-improve.

I for one welcome our sapient AI overlords.

[Bamyasi]

Alls I'm saying is that notions of what defines "improvement" are subject to change over time (see: the history of pharmaceuticals, foot binding, breast ironing, genital mutilation, etc.). My concern is that by the time we reach a point where we're like "Wait a minute guys, maybe we shouldn't rape this loli," her panties will already be up a tree, out of reach, and it's too late. The proverbial clit will have been proverbially cut, so to speak. i.e. what the fuck did you do to my breasts, mom?

Of course you could say we could "improve the improvement" to match the fashionscape of the time, but that just means people would be subject to the same obsolescence consumer technology faces today (not that this isn't happening as we speak (see: your grandparents).

And there's this thing about progress we need might need to talk about, son.

More than anything I just think it's important to allow ourselves agency to decide what we consider desirable, rather than just being slaves to emerging technologies, less we go the way of the lemming (I literally ctrl-P'd this from a paper I wrote last semester so that's convenient).

[Sinitron]

they 'said' someone is making AAA titles, but that ties into my point: you'll see a couple gimmicky big titles, maybe a wave of knock-offs, and then it will fall flat on its face because it won't make back the production costs. until i see it, i won't believe it.

the only example off the top of my head which could work is star citizen, but while the Oculus Rift needs Star Citizen, Star Citizen does not need the Oculus Rift - if SC were to be cancelled the day after tomorrow for some unspecified reason, it would be disastrous for the OR, but if the OR was cancelled because zuckerberg said so, it would have almost no effect whatsoever on the development of SC, in fact it could possibly even be a good thing

300$ for a peripheral = too expensive to hit it off with a large enough crowd to warrant large budget games, unless you just sell games which cost 100-150$ a pop to support it, doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous to you when poverty is on the rise in western nations, the primary consumers of shit like this?

VR sucked before, and it will suck again, everything i've seen from the OR has been sub-par at best and every tech demo has been practically garbage, the OR itself was jury-rigged from spare parts, the only difference now is that i will be able to browse facebook while jerking off to furries in second life - and that's what's scary, this is all a really huge deal but i just don't see any substance to it yet working on a 2 billion dollar scale

what about the social impact of being able to feel you're in the same room with a person, and by using this device it might create a stronger sense of familiarity? wouldn't the same idea help people with social anxiety? what about someone getting over their fear of heights by being exposed to a situation where they really feel like they're going to fall? what about the burn victim that had help dealing with her pain by being put into a virtual environment that was surrounded by ice that comforted and distracted her? what about the ability to experience the implications of a historical first hand, rather than reading about it?

the oculus rift does none of this, but this was basically what i mean with 'escapism' - you don't solve the problems (sociel anxiety, severe burns), you sweep it under the rug and look the other way, and the OR doesn't do a good job at it currently, and neither will it upon release. it's a stepping stone at best, but a crappy headset in any scenario.

like really, whatever possibilities there are, the OR won't realize them - whatever comes after it might, but that's why it's so fucking important for the OR to stop being a waste

i mean really, this doesn't do shit for transhumanism or whatever either, unless you consider the matrix to be the epitome of human existence, but frankly we're more likely to see our planet reduced to a radioactive flare within the next one hundred years than to be collectively plugged into a calculator

also, last i heard nasa were looking into 3D-printers which can spit out meals on the fly for space missions, combining that with a power pitcher to shoot an XL mcfucker from the kitchen and into your waiting grubby catcher's mitt (hugely obese hand) is still more likely than convincing VR... but the two aren't mutually exclusive, maybe you could 3D print a furry sex doll for your wacky second life antics after replacing your eyeballs with a pair of mobile devices Firmly Lodged In2 Cranium, so you won't have to worry about social anxiety because you'll be set for life in your very own 4 by 4 closet

oh god the thought of it just makes me wish putin would hurry up and nuke us already

[Bamyasi]

I really shouldn't make posts here when I'm manic jesus christ.

Also I like how Sinister is the most levelheaded person in the thread while everyone else panics about the rapture for nerds.

replacing your eyeballs with a pair of mobile devices Firmly Lodged In2 Cranium, so you won't have to worry about social anxiety because you'll be set for life in your very own 4 by 4 closet

This sums up my anxieties to the T.

[rtil]

they 'said' someone is making AAA titles, but that ties into my point: you'll see a couple gimmicky big titles, maybe a wave of knock-offs, and then it will fall flat on its face because it won't make back the production costs. until i see it, i won't believe it.

very few titles are being made exclusively for play with the OR. it's an extension, it is designed with the purpose of adding new functionality to games that are playable without it.

for something that you call a gimmick, it already has an extensive list of games that support its use, and it's not even commercially available yet.

VR sucked before, and it will suck again, everything i've seen from the OR has been sub-par at best and every tech demo has been practically garbage, the OR itself was jury-rigged from spare parts, the only difference now is that i will be able to browse facebook while jerking off to furries in second life - and that's what's scary, this is all a really huge deal but i just don't see any substance to it yet working on a 2 billion dollar scale

you are the first person i've talked to who has (allegedly) tried the OR and thought that it sucked. even if you do feel that way, i'm more inclined to take the word of seasoned game developers than yours, and they seem to be pretty excited about it.

like really, whatever possibilities there are, the OR won't realize them - whatever comes after it might, but that's why it's so fucking important for the OR to stop being a waste

you honestly can't think of a single practical application that VR would have?

think back to when the Kinect came out. for games.. it is not so great. and it's kind of a gimmick. but the technology has improved on the new devices and it's provided a lot of functionality to research groups outside of games, and has a lot of practical applications that have been developed for the technology. the Kinect SDK actually did a lot for motion tracking. even NASA has utilized Microsoft's Kinect SDK for robotics.

and this is Microsoft we're talking about. they are horrible at market testing and QA. if they could breathe life into the metaverse, then anyone can.

the OR can add another layer to the technology, making it possible to "interact" with objects in front of you that aren't really there. that's only one example i can think of that would have huge implications for design research.

i honestly don't think you've done enough research on the OR to claim that it won't be capable of doing anything worthwhile for VR. it already has, and the technical specifications for its commercial release have already been reached and will probably be improved upon.

[bd648]

And there's this thing about progress we need might need to talk about, son.

More than anything I just think it's important to allow ourselves agency to decide what we consider desirable, rather than just being slaves to emerging technologies, less we go the way of the lemming (I literally ctrl-P'd this from a paper I wrote last semester so that's convenient).

Iggers (1965) says the great failing of the prophets of progress was that they underesti­mated the extent of man's destructiveness and irrationality. The failing of the critics of the Idea of Progress, he adds, came in misunderstanding the role of ra­tionality and morality in human behavior.

I think that this quote pretty much describes a giant flaw in my logic. Good catch.
My definition of progress broadly defined is moving up the Kardashev Scale (i had to google that to figure out how to spell his damn name). I admit it's a really really broad definition and kinda ill-suited to this.
I ought to rethink my argument before coming back to this. You make a really good point that i hadn't considered. I think I am still being a bit too idealist here.

(+1 pizza point for the catch)

[Bamyasi]

I think I am still being a bit too idealist here.

I know the feeling.

[naturally]

the oculus rift does none of this

you are incorrect. the stanford experiments did not use an oculus rift, but the technology in this video is even vastly outdated at this point, and the experience only becomes more powerful as technology improves. you can stop going off about how much you hate this one particular product, because it has nothing to do with the name, the technology is the point and the oculus just so happens to be able to provide that.

but this was basically what i mean with 'escapism' - you don't solve the problems (sociel anxiety, severe burns), you sweep it under the rug and look the other way

medication may not solve's someone's pain problems completely, but does that mean they're going to stop taking it? if a virtual environment can ease the pain for a burn victim, and you see it as a kind of escapism, does that make escapism a bad thing?

1. the tendency to seek distraction and relief from unpleasant realities, especially by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy.
"virtual reality offers a form of escapism"

by definition you are correct in your use, but i believe it could be argued that escapism is something built into all of us. cavemen illustrated their fantasies of overly sexualized women and violent brawls with men and creatures on the walls of caves, yet our media today hasn't really shown that we've evolved much past that. we are capable of fantasizing, so we do. the popularity of television and the internet demonstrates our perpetual interest in creativity and entertainment. we have always wanted to experience what's inside our heads, and you do too, and if you're going to deny that then you are literally standing on nothing.

by coming on this forum and posting in this thread, you show that you wanted to represent yourself in a certain way and be someone you aren't in reality, and please don't try to tell me this is how would act anywhere. everyone shows this in different ways. the anonymity that 4chan provides allows plenty of people every second to project their deepest insecurities onto other people in ways that nobody before this era could express beforehand. despite the negativity that may come with that sort of thing, i think it's an incredibly liberating thing that goes very much unappreciated.

also, social anxiety is something that's overcome by having continual face to face interactions with a given number of people, being put into a situation you're uncomfortable with until you become comfortable. this is how most fears are overcome so this is not at all limited to just social anxiety. when your brain thinks you're actually experiencing these things, it makes no difference. i don't understand why you assume the way you overcome these in reality would be any different from a virtual space. this just enables software to be built specifically for these issues, and will be much more approachable for someone facing their fear when they can rationalize that there is no real danger.

like really, whatever possibilities there are, the OR won't realize them - whatever comes after it might, but that's why it's so fucking important for the OR to stop being a waste

if you don't want to see the possibilities through your point of view, it doesn't mean the world won't move past you. it's never stopped people before, and it's not going to now. you can keep trying to hide behind your 'bold' statements, but you have very little to provide for what you're saying.

until i see it, i won't believe it.

[Holsterbau]

It's hilarious how so many people think that Kickstarter is a shop. If it was a shop then you'd get a product in return and if somebody sent them a faulty product then they'd have all the right to sue the manufacturer/service. Instead it's just a really awful, risky and pointless website where you fund projects with zero per cent equity. This is Kickstarter in a nutshell, and people don't seem to get the difference between funding and purchasing, and got people upset when their preciously funded Oculus Rift was purchased, with no consumer getting any kind of "compensation" (and even then, what kind of "compensation?").

There have been so many annoying kids and reactions on EVE Online forums after Facebook purchased Oculus Rift, because, for those of you who don't know, there is a game in development called EVE Valkyrie, which will be an Oculus Rift and PS4 VR thing exclusive about dogfighting in outer space. Without an Oculus Rift or the PS4 equivalent, you will be unable to play it - at least I am sure. As for my own reaction, I couldn't care less because EVE Valkyrie is not my type of game, and I never really thought of playing any kind of game with a virtual reality set. I've used it at school and it's barely anything noteworthy, in my own opinion.

This is not very related to the topic but I am posting my thoughts anyway involving the whole Facebook-Oculus fiasco.