[FoRK] Project Glass

Bill Kearney wkearney99 at hotmail.com
Fri Apr 6 12:05:24 PDT 2012

> The opposite is true, non-aligned VR has a continous vector towards
> real AR, aka Artificial Reality. Augmented Reality is a dead end, however.
> Augmented Reality always assumes a monkey in the loop. Artificial Reality
> doesn't.

Be as disdainful as you like, but it's the monkey in the loop that pays 
the bills.  Artificial reality would still need real money to run it 
(bitcoin and venture funny money aside).  The monkey has a life 
(pathetic though it may be), getting him to use AR has to find a way to 
overlay onto that.  Not the other way around, VR tried that and has not 
met with success.  Augment their life and profit from it.  If that 
builds potential for other artificial reality or VR-oriented 
opportunities, great, but that's not going to build mass appeal.

> Again, you're using different words for the same thing. Anchor a SL
> world to physical terrain with a HUD and it's exactly AR.

No.  At some point bringing the (perceived) nonsense that is VR to the 
real world, via AR, may well have great potential.  But augmenting what 
the monkey does now, without pretending it's some sort "virtual game" is 
a key difference.

> However, implementations per se do not result in novelty. What I'm looking
> for is concepts that will become implementations some 20, 30, 50 years hence.
> The concepts I'm not yet aware of, I mean.
> What do you think does exist today that will become great in 50 years?

I'm guessing you meant "doesn't exist today", in an implemented state, 
yes?  Well, I can't say I've got a prediction ready for that.


More information about the FoRK mailing list