In cases of AI-assisted plagiarism and similar issues, the interesting question is who is responsible, not in the legal sense, but in the broader context. Saying that it is all the author's fault is selling it short. What about the NYT editors? the AI model and its designers? The Guardian, if it allowed/sold its content for LLM training?
Just a quick note to say that it is not AI slop. That particular line is out of my PhD dissertation about the legal implications of VR, submitted over a decade ago. I'll take it as a compliment though, assuming you meant the piece is well researched.
It is not about the technology being cool (although I think it is). It is about its being intimately linked to human psychology, philosophy, and culture. That makes it, in my view, a very human technology. It allows us, in theory, to break out of our physical environment, bodies, and limitations.
> It allows us, in theory, to break out of our physical environment, bodies, and limitations.
Or one could, you know, go for a walk outside. There is a reason phrases like "go touch grass" have become popular, or that the prescient Nickelodeon ad from the 90s about putting down VR so you can experience the wonders of "actual reality" has gone viral again.
For the past 30 or so years we've seen an explosion of tech that was supposedly going to make humanity more connected, yet somehow in many ways I've seen the exact opposite happen.
Until I see folks "max out" on the amazing experiences available in our natural world, I'm extremely skeptical that VR is the solution to our natural limitations.
These are good points. I don’t think the dev side was the main issue, though. If they had managed to achieve a substantial user base, developers would have adapted and found ways around the limitations, as they always do.
The main issue is that the user experience is not good enough. The headset is heavy, glitchy, you bump into things, and you look awkward using it. It didn’t have to be like this, and it may still improve in the future.
A very light standalone headset that works out of the box, along with something like a compact treadmill setup you can put in the corner, could change things. If enough users start using this, developers will make do with any limitations.
Values are an integral part of tech design. I think that a lot of people don't use Chrome because of Google's tracking and profiling ecosystem, even though they feel it is a good browser. I prefer to use an open-source product, even if it may not be the best, just because I support open source as an idea. That is not weak.
people don’t use chrome because ads are annoying and because google ads on the front page led them into scam sites. Or because chrome is inefficient. That’s the only reason anyone seems to use brave or safari anyways.
Frankly, I am surprised this was not shut down by their legal counsel (assuming they have one and they actually asked). The legal exposure here is significant. This could be defamation, there are publicity rights issues, copyright, and maybe even criminal liability.
This reminds me of a story from the punch card era. A software company was moving offices. The movers were given a list of items to move. They asked about all the data and were told that the data has no weight. On moving day, the movers were surprised to find heavy boxes of punch cards. When they complained, the programmers told them that the data is in the holes.
Great, just a couple of really minor issues mentioned towards the end of the piece: if you stop taking GLP-1 drugs, you may experience a rebound addiction, and "prolonged use could, in theory, dampen motivational drive in some people". So basically, once you start taking these drugs, you can't stop, and they could make you a zombie. Maybe we should just stick with the original substance addictions.
reply