Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
[flagged]
Eliseann 1662 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite



From http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html : "please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait."

A more better title for this submission would be "Why Smart Glasses Might Not Make You Smarter: A Q&A with Steve Mann"

---

The article references Google Glass by Mann's concern that a device which fully replaces the user's vision can cause confusion if the camera is offset from the user's eye. Google Glass doesn't replace the user's view of the world, so I doubt it would exhibit the negative behaviors he discusses.


FYI it also appears that the submitter is the author (Elise Ackerman). Not that there is anything wrong with that in itself, but this feels more like someone using a sensational title to generate clicks.

While we're at it, it also looks like Steve Mann's wikipedia page is written almost entirely by Steve Mann.


Just for fun here are the URLs posted by Eliseann; and the users posting the ieee.org URL.

(http://imgur.com/a/FRtJR)


> Why Smart Glasses Might Not Make You Smarter: A Q&A with wearable-computer pioneer Steve Mann

80 character limit means you need to trim 14 (15?) characters.


Good catch; changed to shorten the subtitle.

  >>> len("Why Smart Glasses Might Not Make You Smarter: A Q&A with Steve Mann")
  67


I don't think he fully understands the form factor of Google Glass - from the way he describes it as his "generation one" it seems as if he's thinking of it as a vision replacement like his glasses. Actually they're a small screen in the top-right of your vision which you don't look through, so these negative effects wouldn't apply.


  Another thing I did was create glasses that allowed me
  to see in different spectral bands. I could see where
  people had recently walked because the ground was still warm.
Holy crap. Gimme.


The title suggest (to me) that Steve Mann is talking trash about Google Glass, and also suggests (to me) that there is a technical reason why Google's version of computer prostheses specifically can cause brain damage.

It doesn't seem inappropriate to consider this "linkbait"


Flagged for hysterical link bait.


Its damaging only if you take the glasses off - you're trained for the glasses and make mistakes/feel disoriented for a while. Its not clear this is much of a problem - you'll retrain, right?


It seems to me that is correct.

I would be more concerned about the other ways I might "get use to" this sort of augmentation. Ignoring all the optic advantages/disadvantages, what sort of information might I start using this sort of device for, and how crippled might I feel as soon as I no longer have the device on? Having my phone battery run dead while I'm out in public is bad enough, and I only look at that a couple of times an hour.


And only, it seems, if you re-arrange the relative positions of your "eyes".



Hmm,

I seems like the more personal that computing gets, the more direct physiological impact it can have, especially on the brain and the eyes but also the hands/muscular-skeletal system.

The saving grace of phones and tablets might be that people use them intermittently - a tablet isn't something people really work on. And certainly, working on an "ordinary" computer has an impact on people's "mind-body processes".

So glasses do seem like they could windup with huge unexpected impacts as per the article (well, unexpected unless people test very carefully as they go along).

The problem is that anything that a consumer product company sells is going to have to have the "just put it on and go" property. How you reconcile that will something that has the potential to rewire the brain's "low level" perception routines will, uh, interesting to see. This is especially in "light" of how people will like expect to wear their glasses all the time.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: