From: neuron@milton.u.washington.edu (Fernando Diaz)
Subject: SOC:Implications of VR
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 23:04:42 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar5.230442.8692@u.washington.edu>
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle



To:sci.virtual-worlds
Cc:melliott@ics.uci.edu
Subject: SOC:Social Implications of VR
Organisation: Human Interface Technology Laboratory, Seattle

>I am a graduate student in the computer science Ph.D. program at the
>University of California at Irvine.  ...

>I am interested in responses to the following questions:
 

Hello Margaret,

  I am responding to your inquiry on the implications of VR.  I hope that you 
can send me a copy of your report.

  I work at the HITLab as a research assistant.  My work entails many levels
of "world" design and implementation.  Some of the issues I deal with include
the behavior modeling of world entities, design of world experiences, and
developing computing environments for other world designers.

>1) How do you characterize VR?
 
  To me VR is still an abstract concept that has different masks for
different people.  I am still trying to remove that mask and see if there is
a face.  I charactarize VR as the different masks that I have seen.  

  There is a practical look of VR that encompasses the notion of what hardware
& software are neccesary for immersion, interactivity, and applications.

  There is the philosophy of cyberspace and the cyberculture that exists within
this maleable universe.  See. Benedikt, Michael  "CYBERSPACE First Steps"

  Then there are the many diciplines that contribute to VR.  These are the
computer scientists, the artistic designers, the psychologists, the engineers,
the business professionals, the mathematicians, the philosophers, 
the educators, and the many specialists (Alifers, AIers, ethologists, chaos,
acoustics, etc.).  Each of these diciplines has shown me a different look of
the VR with a thousand faces.

>2) Do you think it has positive applications for the future?

  This question seems useless to me. As a PHD student you can do better.

  If you need an answer it is yes, no, maybe.

>3) What deleterious effects might false expectations have on VR's
>development in society?  Do we have a social responsibility
>as scientists/engineers to accurately portray VR's potential to
>the general public?

  I have seen this hype v.s expectations problem with other technologies.  I
remember when PCs and networking were going to be the catalysts for the
"paperless office".  We all know this was not the case.  Can you tell me which
computer developers could accurately portray the potential of computers to
the general puclic?  The hype has not stopped developers from implementing
their vision of computing, and hype has not stopped computer users from
surpassing all expectations of what could be done with computers.

  I have given over 30 VR demos to students, visiting professionals, and
members of the general public.  These range from 10 to 60 years of age.
Even with the low resolution of the eyephones, and the limited interactivity
of the various "worlds"; each VR participant has responded favorably with the
experience.  What we do get is great suggestions on improving the experience,
and lots of great ideas for new "worlds".  

  From what I have seen of hardware developments, the "quality" of VR is only
going to get better.  In five years the work we are doing now will seem like
the old "Pong" game.  I do not think of this statement as hype because I have
seem what type of VR was going on five years ago and what is in the works now.
When we demo VR we don't make excuses for our system.  "This is what we have
now, an over here is what we are working on for the future.  How do you like
it?".

  I do not think there exists an "accurate" picture of VR's potential.  VR is 
not the answer to concepts such as the "paperless office".  VR is an evolving
tool.  This tool just happens to shift many paradigms for me.  I can now
understand complex models of the real world not in terms of data analysis, but 
in terms of experiences.  It is a tool that holds me while it's driving the 
nail.  I get to be immersed in the experience.
 
  As for the social responsibility that scientists/engineers have, I don't 
think any one dicipline will be able to dictate what we can and can't do with
VR.  Be as choosy as when you buy a car.  There will always be lemons out
there.  I know of many proposed applications of VR that could be "socially"
unacceptable.  Just as unacceptable as drugs, illicit sex, crime, war, etc...
(you get my point?).  No one group has been able to take "social" 
responsibility for the potential of computers in these "unacceptable" 
endeavors.  This side of human nature will always be with us.

Sincerely
Fernando Diaz
neuron@hitl.washington.edu

"neurotransmitters turn me on and make me high"