
Google Glass in 10 years: the view from dystopia - ms-rm
http://pandodaily.com/2013/05/25/google-glass-in-10-years-the-view-from-dystopia/
======
mtgx
I assume he wanted the readers to now think negatively about this future. I
kind of like it. Plus, that's not just the "Google world". It's the Internet.
Do you think you can just unplug from the Internet 10 years from now? Can you
do it now? It's only going to get harder, especially for new generations that
are born with it.

What does worry me about the future, is governments having _total knowledge_
about every single person, no matter what they are doing, who they are, and
what service they are using. Do you really think they will need Google for
this? Sure, in a way companies like Facebook and Google are making their jobs
a lot easier. But do you think this will matter when they will have quantum
computers? They will be able to get signals from a billion actions you've done
on the Internet, regardless of what service you used. Gmail and Facebook usage
will just be some of the signals.

And what happens when governments have total knowledge about everyone, whether
it's legal or not? What happens when the governments can predict with quantum
computers the potential of committing every type of crime for every single
person? Maybe you have a 0.0000001% to be a terrorist. Maybe a 1% chance to
beat someone, and maybe a 5% chance to smoke pot. Do they arrest you now, or
do they wait until the quantum computers predict it's 10%?

These discussions about privacy breaches from companies seem like mainly a
distraction from the real issues to me. It reminds me of the outrage of gun
owners who "want to defend against an oppressive government" and "protect the
2nd amendment", but don't make a sound when the government cancels the 4th,
5th or even the 1st amendment. Or the 6 months outrage of the media over
Benghazi, while covering the AP spying story for like 3 days.

Google can't physically harm you or destroy your life. Governments can. I
would worry more about that. _A lot_ more.

~~~
bilbo0s
I think the "hive mind" can destroy your life.

A few weeks back I think, there was a story on HN about a mobile App that
would help you in boycotting companies and products by scanning the product's
bar code while you are in a grocery store. I immediately thought, "Wow... this
would be much better as a Glass app that just puts a big X over every product
you reach for whose purchase would support a company which acts in a fashion
contrary to some user defined view! Or even if the product has ingredients
that are incompatible with your child's allergies!"

And the app WOULD be better if it operated like that. The issue is that you
can take that a step further right? You, as a manager in a corporation, could
look at resumes and have a big X come up whenever you look at one from some
guy with bad credit. Going even further you could have a big X come up
whenever you look at one from a guy with questionable comments in the online
forums he participates in. You see, he tried to hide behind pseudonyms, but it
was all noodled out by a new service running ultra powerful analytics software
on ultra powerful computing grids. Or the analytics service may go quantum,
who knows? (And all that wouldn't even be necessary if your ISP is the same as
the analytics service provider. Like if you use ... say ... Google Fiber.)

Material point is this...

now your job prospects have been impacted.

That's not all though...

You see, our hypothetical guys are, understandably, bummed about not getting
that big job. So they go to the local bar to listen to a local band and relax
for a while. Only the people in the bar see a huge "KKK" or "New Black
Panther" label over the guy who made all the questionable comments on the
internet. (Via a new dating service that most young women have decided they
need because, let's face it, it's dangerous out there.) Don't misunderstand
me, the service also operates in a good way. For instance, an ex-convict with
the rape conviction would have VERY bad luck because the Glass would put an
"EX CONVICT: SEXUAL ASSAULT" label over him.

The interesting thing, however, is this... wherever you are, these labels can
potentially be displayed via facial recognition software combined with you
telling your name to the guy looking at you through the Glass. The grocery
store, the health club, your kid's school play, etc. All because of some
comments you may have made on CNN forums a decade ago about say ... Hurricane
Katrina victims. Or immigrants. Or white people. Or asians. Or men. You get
the picture.

It's critical to realize one very important thing... and that is that there is
no technology, in my limited recollection, that's ever failed to be developed
on ethical grounds. This is why I tell young people whenever I get the chance,
take great care in what you post on the internet. The content... even the TONE
of the post could contribute to your "profile summary" in a detrimental
fashion. This stuff really will affect your future a lot more than many people
realize. And in a great many more WAYS than many people realize.

And that leads them to make questionable assumptions...

like assuming Google, or the information on the internet in general, can do
them no harm.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
You are basically making the case that more information is bad. You also
assume that humans will not augment themselves to become more rational with
this data - which may or may not be true.

My take is that the more that is laid bare, the easier it will be for all of
us to finally become completely truthful and finally eliminate once and for
all the different masks we wear allowing us to all be where we are most
comfortable.

So right now there is some person who is secretly leading a double life with a
separate family and is also secretly into Pokemon and loves listening to
Justin Beiber. No one knows about this because they hide their music in a
hidden folder, go to sporting events and take a visit to Argentina once a
month to visit the second family while ostensibly on "business."

This person would be mocked, disgraced and the like for their thoughts and
behaviors by different disparate groups.

If instead this was all made open to everyone there would be a social demand
that would likely end up synching that persons interests and desires with
their actions.

I am ok with ending social mores and hangups.

~~~
bilbo0s
"...You are basically making the case that more information is bad..."

No not at all.

In fact, I specifically mention that having more information readily available
works out to one's BENEFIT in many cases. Like the girl who might otherwise be
taking a risk on a dangerous guy. Or the grocery shopper who gets immediate
feedback that a certain cereal will aggravate her child's allergies.

My only point is that this information cuts both ways, and we should be
teaching young people how to operate successfully in this new information
context.

The fact is, if you, me or anyone else sees a black guy with a "New Black
Panther" label over him... we will deal with him in a different fashion than
we would deal with a black guy without that label. And for our own safety...
we should. Similarly for "KKK". This is the reality of the information
context. It will not change humans at the core... it will only change the
amount of information available to... and analyzable by... the human.

In other words... I doubt mores and hangups will go away. Mores, hangups,
fantasy and wonder are what make up the Human. And it is important for people
to be mindful of all of the potential issues they may run into when dealing
with the Human in an age of ubiquitous information.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
>Mores, hangups, fantasy and wonder are what make up the Human

True statement. Hence why a group of us are trying to transcend that humanity.

------
pvnick
Wow! I've always had a thing for dystopian literature, and the world this
article presents actually seems plausible. Two ideas I particularly found
intriguing:

-The idea of using an avatar to mask your true physical appearance. This seems like an appealing idea since changing your avatar on a settings panel is easier than keeping well-groomed and presentable. Perhaps citizens of the Google Glass world no longer feel the need to stay healthy and attractive? Could this level the playing field and take sexual attractiveness out of the picture altogether? Never again would someone be "out of your league." Will all our loving relationships be calculated and planned based on some OkCupid-esque compatibility algorithm? Perhaps a side-effect of this is a higher rate of sustainable marriages and a decreased divorce rate. So not completely bad and creepy.

-The way the author claims "You know you have free will, but don’t feel like you need it." I've felt for a while that the more realistic dystopian future is closer to Brave New World than to 1984, in which people willingly give up their freedom rather than have it snatched away from them. Instead of saying "You know you have free will, but it doesn't really feel like it," Pananberg opts for the phrasing "don't feel like you need it." It seems to suggest that free will in a Google Glass world is a burden, and that giving up that freedom to a benevolent intelligence just _feels easier_.

Either way, when I finished the article I pressed the "like" button, sending
the event to my Facebook Timeline so that all my friends can stay connected
with the things I find interesting and so that Facebook's Hadoop clusters can
factor it into their advertising algorithms, allowing the company to more
intelligently display products I would be interested in buying. I'll tell you
one thing, that no longer includes Google Glass.

~~~
rz2k
_A Brave New World_ does seem more modern than _1984_ even though it was
written nearly 20 years earlier. I suppose it's because international politics
right now resemble the early 1932 mood more closely than the mood in 1949.

The audience _A Brave New World_ was written for probably didn't think that
their countries faced existential threats or that much could happen that would
radically change the world order. Reading texts around the early responses to
the Great Depression you get a sense of a great dissatisfaction with the
status quo, and that advocates of both fascist and of communist policies
thought their biggest threat was the obstinance of the status quo rather than
revolutionary change in the "wrong" direction. The dystopia of _A Brave New
World_ seems to have come about by a gradual but unstoppable transformation.

The _1984_ audience on the other hand would accept a larger domain of world-
changing possibilities, but perhaps have been conditioned to war, and have
acknowledged that habituation toward a perpetual state of war was a tool for
autocratic government, just as much as a government unchallenged by external
threats had freedom to become autocratic. Though the _1984_ world has war
depicted as distant and a routine part of life, it was a key part of the
story, and difference between the two stories might be summed up as the
difference between a peacetime dystopia and a wartime dystopia.

You can probably find both trends in our own time. The people who dream of
"9/12" as a better world, see the spirit surrounding national trauma as
amenable to getting their way. Then on the other end, when you hear
congressmen discussing regulations on the internet, they get hysterical about
the lack of deference people creating new stuff have. I suppose the
congressional smugness around how everything would be okay if we didn't have
disobedient progress is more an example of what radicals in the 1930s feared,
but it does typify the challenges that peacetime societies face.

Anyway, that was a long way to get at the point that I agree with you that _A
Brave New World_ is a more plausible scenario than _1984_ right now at least.
However, what you described as appealing struck me as pretty specifically what
made _A Brave New World_ a dystopia.

Sexual attractiveness is a part of sexual attraction. Furthermore it is a
source of pleasure and enjoyment for people, not just a way that they are
excluded. In _A Brave New World_ sexual relationships were very low effort—and
I think that was the problem. Even if the algorithm were good enough not to
just link you up with someone who is similar, but also found traits that are
good complements, the unpredictable process of meeting someone who may not be
perfect for you and the struggle and effort involved is pretty important.

~~~
pvnick
Thank you for taking the time to read my comment and construct a well-thought-
out reply.

>Sexual attractiveness is a part of sexual attraction. Furthermore it is a
source of pleasure and enjoyment for people, not just a way that they are
excluded. In A Brave New World sexual relationships were very low effort—and I
think that was the problem. Even if the algorithm were good enough not to just
link you up with someone who is similar, but also found traits that are good
complements, the unpredictable process of meeting someone who may not be
perfect for you and the struggle and effort involved is pretty important.

I completely agree and would prefer it to stay this way (although my dating
skills could probably use some improvement). While writing my comment I was
trying to avoid too many kneejerk value judgements and instead explore the
possible outcomes of the described scenario. But yeah, like you said, all that
uncomfortable stuff is really important, and sexual attractiveness is
generally an indicator of good health and reproductive viability, so
disregarding it would seem unwise.

------
danabramov
>The biophysio meter has been gauging the mood in the room, color coding them
for convenience. Personally, you’ve always found that red hot conversations
give you a headache while ice blue ones bore you to tears. The computer is
able to pick up all the sounds in the room and sift through the conversations.
You seek a color combination somewhat in the middle, a group of people not
talking about sports or fashion.

Actually, I want this.

~~~
anonymous
+1.

I always hate it when I enter a party and the violent cacophony of five or
even ten simultaneous conversations hits me at once. And even when I find a
group of people I can stand, there's this awful noise all around. It would be
pretty awesome if glass could not only find the people for me, but also
actively filter everybody else, so I can talk in relative quiet.

~~~
angersock
Why not simply stay home, eat Doritos, drink Mountain Dew, and surf IRC?

Sounds like you want all of the social without the part where you interact
with society.

~~~
anonymous
Because, insane as it sounds, I'm better at talking face to face, than typing
over IRC. I just want it not so loud and obnoxious. Also, Doritos and Mountain
Dew taste awful and are bad for you. I'd rather have a salad.

~~~
angersock
What if it was a salad... _made out of Doritos_! :D

~~~
anonymous
I like the way you think. We should meet in a quiet place where no-one can
hear you scream. I mean, where we can't hear no-one screaming all the time.

------
angersock
How awful.

What exactly is the purpose of being here if all you are doing is somewhat
stochastically deciding between a few sterile choices presented to you by a
computer? Why bother interacting with people who's life experience is
basically just ads and the most agreeable-seeming things they elected to
participate in from their preferred social network?

How utterly fucking boring.

It's enough to make me want to live in a cabin in the woods with nothing but a
28.8 and some old Irix box to keep me and my dogs company. >:(

~~~
Blahah
What? That's the opposite of what I take from the story (although the author
was clearly intending it as dystopian). The Glass in the story is not removing
options, it's adding them. It's just layering information over the real world
to provide a deeper, not shallower, experience. Why do people feel that the
boundaries of their limited un-enhanced experience are somehow desirable?

~~~
angersock
It's layering information which may or may not be correct, and given people's
natural laziness of decision it only increases the odds of filter bubbling--
that is not a deeper experience.

All you are doing is being empowered to ignore things which don't match your
advertising profile most closely, being empowered to ignore things outside
your comfort zone (in 10 years, I'm sure this will be popular with the yuppies
in SF who would like to even more easily ignore the homeless refugees of
gentrification).

A basic part of the human experience--of being a complete person--is learning
how to interact with other people who may or may not be easy to get along
with, and exploring new things and perspectives on life. Nowhere in this
vignette is there a suggestion that the Glass will help you learn to interact
with other people (because it is set to minimize the presentation of those you
aren't predisposed to get along with) or encounter new things (that aren't
carefully cultivated by the big data engines).

Let's not even go into the privacy concerns here (because clearly nobody gives
a chrome-plated fuck about _that_ anymore), or the unfortunate, darker sides
to this.

~~~
Blahah
Well, all the information we ever use may or not be correct. We use it
nevertheless and accept a certain false positive rate. It probably does
increase filter bubbling, but that is generally something people accept. One
can expose oneself to different viewpoints quite readily, and that's a
personal choice people can make.

I think that statement about getting along with difficult people being a basic
part of the human experience doesn't have to be true. It just happens to be
part of the human experience now. And in any case, while the story didn't
offer any glimpse of Glass helping you to encounter new things or learn to
interact with other people, there's no reason why it couldn't.

------
egypturnash
Suddenly, there are strange things in the hotel bar with you. Cartoon animals,
talking monsters. Is that a human-sized preying mantis cuddling with a buxom
triceratops girl? And wow, check out that pack of wolf-things. They're
flickering with colors and lights, all synchronized to the same beat. They're
a walking rave. And none of these strange-looking people have public profiles.

Must be one of those freaky avatar conventions going on in the same hotel.

~~~
iuguy
Sounds like a normal day in Second Life to me. Just steer clear of the
furries.

~~~
egypturnash
Too late. I've been one since somewhere in the early nineties.

And I gotta say, they throw the _best damn parties_.

~~~
iuguy
This is true. I watched the Great Gatsby the other day and I thought "Baz
Luhrman would have a field day if he ever went to a furry shindig".

------
stared
I think that when it comes to "the Google contact lenses dystopia" there is no
better comment than a short movie "Sight" <http://vimeo.com/46304267>. (It
starts with gamification of cucumber cutting.)

~~~
mikesaraf
Its funny that the game in the opening of "Sight", released 10 months ago, is
similar to one they had at Google IO this year.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqOluB4e-q4>

------
nsmartt
I'm particularly disturbed by the notion that I'll be a pariah if I don't have
some form of profile for people to check.

That sounds _very_ plausible to me, and we're already seeing it on a
significantly smaller scale.

------
personlurking
While it's likely I'd be the person not wearing Glass in 10 years, the
scenario in the article shows a world in which people would likely not judge a
person by their appearance, but rather what info comes up attached to their
profile(s). Good for INTPs who don't care for chit-chat.

~~~
pyre
Are you sure that not having a profile won't make you an NPC?

~~~
personlurking
I'm guessing you mean "non-player character" (just looked that up) but I'm not
sure what you're asking here...

I assume that one could not wear Glass in the future yet still have online
profiles (which others would perhaps still be able to see with facial rec. via
their Glass).

------
MrQuincle
Is that all for a dystopia? Technologies used to came with a risk incredibly
higher. Nuclear warfare, etc. We are now talking about "cyber warfare". I've
yet to see the first American killed by a Chinese or North-Korean hacker. And
I think the term "cyber warfare" is entirely inappropriate, and does not do
justice to the atrocities of a real war. If this is all what can be thought up
about the negative impact of Google glasses, we have nothing to worry about.

~~~
personlurking
In the film Surrogates, there's a device that, when discharged on 'avatars',
kills the real person operating the avatar. I wonder if cyber warfare of the
future entails this kind of thing. I would assume that being physically
connected to a(n implanted) device would allow for this but, then again, non-
implanted technology has been known to cause photosensitive epilepsy (like the
Pokeman seizures).

------
randallsquared
Dystopia? This sounds amazing! I assume that AdBlock will still exist, which
optionally removes the one thing I felt even slightly bad about in this
scenario.

~~~
zxcdw
Positives sound great, but how about negatives?

Kind of like modern food is toxic and unhealthy, but hey it's _cheap_ ,
there's _lots of it_ and well... It doesn't taste that bad! Thanks but no
thanks, I'll stick to lean meat, fish, seeds and berries even though it costs
me twice/thrice the money let alone preparation. And it can't be preserved as
well. But whatever, fuck the dystopian future. :)

~~~
randallsquared
I'm struck, though, that the title indicates the author thought he _was_
presenting the negatives!

------
Zigurd
This is actually a fairly optimistic projection. Consider how difficult it
would be for a secret policeman to infiltrate a dissident group in this kind
of environment.

The real dystopia comes with privileged groups being able to block
recognition.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I don't think so. All you need to do is be able to monitor everybody else.
Secret policemen not required anymore.

------
TravisLS
I'm surprised to see the attitude of this thread as so optimistic about this
potential future. Even ignoring the government / police state possibilities, I
found this terribly dystopian, and I imagine many others outside of the most
optimistic tech bubbles would agree.

While taken individually, many of the technologies presented in the story seem
to be useful or even fun, the world they create is inescapably bland. And it's
the inescapability of it that makes it so awful. While on the surface these
theoretical advances provide value, they also potentially destroy the
possibility of serendipitous interaction, of meeting someone incompatible, of
having your perspective changed, of connecting with someone intimately.

For me, the "problems" being solved by the tech in this story are much of what
makes life worth living. While building technology, I think it's important to
consider the effects and side effects of these things, and to focus on
technology that improves and enhances our lives, rather than takes them over.

------
molex333
This is a dream come true. Where do I sign up?

------
AndrewKemendo
>On your left is a woman you don’t know, but she’s a friend of a friend of
your cousin Irving’s roommate’s niece. Her name is Tina, a physics professor
at the local university, and she likes extreme skiing, origami and baking.
Tomorrow she’ll be giving a presentation. You can view her slides and video
now, if you’d like, and scan her bio. You don’t. You think it’s interesting
that her favorite author is Jane Austen and thirty-seven people “liked” a post
she penned on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. She’s sipping what the
computer deduces to be a green apple martini and your Google-powered submicro-
computer advertises a selection of snacks to go with it, as well as a choice
of vodkas and mixers, which you can order at the blink of an eye. Maybe later.

That sounds amazing! I would probably filter it to give me specific results
because I'm not as interested in some of those things than others.

------
josephpmay
This makes a number of assumptions that I think (based on historical trends)
will end up proving false.

The first is that the services we use today (Yelp, Facebook, Google, etc.)
will continue to be the dominate services of the future. Of course, the author
probably just used these names for convenience instead of inventing new
companies, but I have a feeling that the apps and services we'll be using 10
years from now don't exist today.

A more pressing false assumption is that all of these services (or whatever
services are being used) will harmoniously work together. Though we have
pretty strong inter-service collaboration currently (such Yelp telling us
which restaurants our Facebook friends like), it is not that often that these
platform relationships exist and even less common that everyone will be using
the same interconnected services.

Finally, the assumption that is both the most necessary for this reality to be
our future yet is also the most dubious is that with the dawn of quantum
computing, algorithms will be able to properly interpret and predict human
behavior. Thus far, algorithms fail pretty miserably at this (when was the
last time you actually wanted to buy something suggested to you by Amazon?)
and although the future resources available will have the capacity to
interpret human behavior, it will be much farther in the future before we
really will be able to utilize these available resources.

I still believe that always-on wearable computers with a constant information
stream is where the consumer technology industry is heading (I've been saying
this for years, and I don't necessarily think that Google will be the ones to
perfect this formula). However, before we reach a society like the one
predicted by this article, we (as computer scientists and mathematicians) need
to become much better at interpreting and predicting human behavior. I think
the first step in this is to understand how the brain works, which is probably
going to be the most exciting facit of biomedical research in the coming
decades.

------
weavejester
The article picks a curious line to end on:

 _"You know you have free will, but don’t feel like you need it."_

Which is odd, considering that the protagonist of the tale has done nothing
but make choices throughout the whole story.

~~~
rbanffy
When someone controls (and/or biases) the information feed you base your
decisions upon, your will is no longer completely free.

We used to call it news media ;-)

~~~
Blahah
But it's the protagonist's own past choices that ultimately control what
information he is fed. That, the environment, and some algorithms. Just like
in the real world, but with a more egocentric concentration.

------
mwcampbell
> The music from the wall speakers sounds tinny.

Would there even be loudspeakers in such a world? If we all wore computers
with earpieces, there would be no need for sound amplification as we know it
now. I, for one, would welcome the end of music played over loudspeakers in
public places, chosen according to someone else's idea of what music the
masses would like.

------
ireadqrcodes
I think he got the "You’re constantly logged into Facebook ..." wrong. It will
be google plus or something completely different

------
goostavos
A bit of an offshoot from the article, but is the quantum calculation speed
true, or just flowery journalist language?

Simultaneously being 0 and 1 at the same time? Solving problems faster than
imaginable?

Is it possible to understand the ideas behind quantum computing without having
a physics degree? Is there a good layman introduction somewhere?

~~~
wikke
In laymans terms:

If you have 0 and 1 as inputs you have to try all possible combinations to get
all possible results and choose an optimal one.

If you have all possible combinations of 0 and 1 at once you can just use the
optimal solution in one step.

------
linhmtran168
This will be the beginning of a world like in the Matrix. Gradually, it's
Glass (or Lenses, or whatever) will control what we want to see, to hear and
to choose. A world where everything is predictable to the computer and is
comfortable to our liking. Well, I don't like that world.

------
wittysense

        «For under the firm measure,
        The crude, too, is useful,
        That the pure may know itself.»
        -- Hoelderlin, The Titans
    

A la Heidegger. Given the sensationalism in tone of this writing, it seems
only Heidegger is appropriate as a forthright response.

In a sense, we see two very crude tools: public surveillance via legislation
or public surveillance via a device (which some "market") apparently demands.
In all of the ways we have come to know and love, these are both problematical
departures from a reality alluded to in the Internet Declaration of
Independence.

The old ways of thinking are an impasse. You must understand that the old ways
of thinking are an impasse. In Heidegger's terms, such an impasse can be
described by the fact that [we are the sign that is not read]. Moreover, that
we are still not thinking, yet we are underway to thinking.

    
    
        «And let not much-current habit force you into this way,
        to let roam sightless eyes and noise-cluttered ear
        and [tongue*], rather discriminate in reflection . . .»
    

I recently recall a short prose alluding to a fictional possible world,
wherein the denizens of its society were allotted so many words per day.

Debord may service as a modulation of Hedeigger's foreboding:

«The self-emancipation of our time is an emancipation from the material bases
of inverted truth. This “historic mission of establishing truth in the world”
can be carried out neither by the isolated individual nor by atomized and
manipulated masses, but only and always by the class that is able to dissolve
all classes by reducing all power to the de-alienating form of realized
democracy — to councils in which practical theory verifies itself and surveys
its own actions. This is possible only when individuals are “directly linked
to world history” and [dialogue*] arms itself to impose its own conditions.»

Heidegger is a bit more optimistic, as he essentially must be:

«"What is called thinking?" At the end we return to the question we asked at
first when we found out what our word "thinking" originally means. _Thanc_
means memory, thinking that recalls, thanks [interjecting "Likes"!].

But in the meantime we have learned to see that the essential nature of
thinking is determined by what there is to be thought about: the presence of
what is present, the Being of beings. Thinking is thinking only when it
_recalls_ in thought ἐόν, That which this word indicates properly and truly,
that is, unspoken, tacitly. And that is the duality of beings and Being. This
quality is what properly gives food for thought. And what is so given, is the
gift of what is most worthy of question.

Can thinking take this gift into its hands, that is, take it to heart, in
order to entrust it in λέγειν, in the telling statement, to the original
speech of language?»

