Talk:2010

The "fully immersive visual/auditory VR" strikes me as crack. The technologies that are "on time," I think would only be on time for the geek crowd.

One by one:


 * Images written directly to our retinas (retinal display)

Okay, this makes sense. Tech exists right now, costs $2,000 a headset, but it's only available industrially. (Why? I want to know.) Makes sense that, 2 product cycles or (I'm guessing) 2-3 years each, in the future, we'd have it. For geeks, that is. I'd say 2010-2012, but, okay.


 * Ubiquitous high bandwidth connection to the Internet at all times

Okay. We'll see if such a socialist vision is allowed to pass in the US, but Japan, South Korea, and other enlightened nations of the world, sure.


 * Electronics so tiny it's embedded in the environment, our clothing, our eyeglasses (embedded electronics)

The critical thing is if we get a self-configuring network and addressing system for the parts. But we're working on it today, and we expect something like this. I'd say 2010-2015.


 * Full immersion visual-auditory virtual reality

Sheer crack. Crack, crack, crack. This requires a brain-computer interface. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding; Surely he knows that "images written directly to our retinas" is a starting point for this kind of thing. If you had this, there's no point in the images-written-directly-to-our-retinas; it's no longer needed, if you have full immersion.


 * I think we just use the term immersion differently. It's not necessarily perfect illusion of being there, just immersion. Having very good glasses (with some depth of field), headphones and magnetic stimulation for the inner ear (to simulate acceleration, direction of gravity) would be immersive. Realistic VR by that time is highly likely (not indistinguishable yet, but close in some respect), so that's fine. Paranoid 17:20, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)


 * Augmented reality

Also crack.

Images written directly to our retinas is just a starting point. From there, the developers have to write the apps to use it.


 * You can have augmented reality using light glasses. It's bad that he doesn't quantify the forecasts (like in NISTEP's report - "mainstream use" vs. "development" vs "prototypes"), but I think that some augmented reality can be done quite well using just glasses (with a smallish projector). Paranoid 17:20, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

That said, limited augmented reality is realistic; For geeks and in dedicated businesses.

I'd give it 2015 before normal people are using the limited augmented reality capabilities.

I do wonder if Nintendo is planning AR in 2 generations of console, though- the natural successor to the new wand interface would 3D glasses. The cognitive dissonance between manipulating in the real world with a 3D interface, but sensing on a 2D screen away from the playing field, is just too much.
 * It really interesting to think about what can be killer-apps with primitive augmented reality. I.e. what would drive its adoption from the beginning to the level where it's a perfect blend. Paranoid 17:20, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)


 * Interaction with virtual personalities as a primary interface

Very likely for receptionists, corporate-customer interactions. No more phone tree. Some daily use computer software will work this way, as well, I think.

Virtual personalities only work for some kinds of specification work; In others, you're going to want to manually position (real or virtual) objects. Think of the difference between telling someone what to type, vs. typing yourself.

But I agree that more work will go into virtual personalities for computers, and we'll use them as an essential interface. I would say that it'll be much stronger by 2015, when every developer has had time to get accustomed to the semantic web, and have started developing serious apps that can interact with it. (And then, hand the keys over to the virtual personalities.)


 * Effective language technologies (natural language processing, speech recognition, speech synthesis)

Yes.

I'd be interested in what others have to say, or Ray Kurzweil's justifications. I'd also like to know, more specifly, what he means by "fully immersive." LionKimbro


 * Probably not what you understood by it. Here is a definition from Compact Oxford English Dictionary: "generating a three-dimensional image which appears to surround the user." It doesn't mean you can live there. :))) So, yes, it's a starting point, but it's acceptable to place it in 2010 (although I agree that shifting it a few years may make sense too). Paranoid 17:20, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Okay; 2010 sounds about right.
It's been a while since I looked at the AR field. I see that it's just booming now.

I agree that 2010 is a fair value, and I think by 2008, I may be personally playing with some of these things at home. By 2010, I think there will be non-geeks using it, and by 2012, I think we'll see some really startling things.

I realized that if you had 4 Nintendo controllers, and somehow strapped them to your calves and arms, you could get a pretty good sense of where the body is and what it's doing. You could play "upper body martial arts training" by affixing two to your upper arms, and then holding the other 2 in your respective hands.
 * You know, about 4 years ago I met with two Russian inventors, who made a virtual body suit (they also made the Virtual Sphere). It did motion capture without any cameras and was basically just tights with sensors sewn inside. And it costed a pittance. Sadly, those guys sucked at raising capital (and they didn't have enough cash to turn it into a mass-market product) and my investment bank decided not to proceed with this project. But the tech is already here (BTW, feel free to refer interested VCs to me) and you don't need to hold Nintendo controllers for that. :) Paranoid 00:40, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Powerful stuff, that is. This will release in 2006, and developers will be thinking about 3D-space user interface.


 * Using existing technology (that those "virtual" guys - Latypov brothers - had) and a few thousand bucks (ok, let's say 10 thousand) you can have Half-Life 2, full 3D control of the virtual body and walking (using legs) in any direction. This is what was easily possible 4+ years ago. And they also had some augmented reality products for TV. They were in the wrong place and too early. :( Paranoid 00:40, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed something; (side note) When I personally think about the future, I think of the imagination as a basic element: "Who is imagining what?" I haven't seen much role given to imagination in the forecast techniques you mentioned, but I think it's worth putting in there.

I know it may sound dumb to reference Metal Gear Solid, but I have to tell you: In it, one of the characters, Otto, tells the main player that the reason Japan is ahead in robotics, is because they had it in anime, in a very personal and favorable way. Because it was in anime, he dreamed about it, and when he grew older, he went into it.

Now again, perhaps it's best not to think of a video game as a source of ideas, but it's clear that at least someone else has thought this way, somewhere in the world. LionKimbro


 * No, this is a very good point. Since thinking is difficult (BTW, your book about note taking inspired me to do some meta-thinking), most people don't know how to do it, don't control it (such as with TRIZ), rely on external events to guide it, these factors become very important. Either you can think in a systemic way and come to surprising conclusions, or you need something (or someone) to show these conclusions to you. Every culture has this to some extent, Americans were exposed to some future in Star Wars/Trek too (but that was a long time ago, modern mass-culture doesn't seem as good as Japanese). Paranoid 00:40, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

How about things besides Technology?
Granted, technology tends to dominate changes in life these days, but the future isn't all about changes in technology, what about other things? What will politics look like in 2010? We might have to look further to get interesting changes in society. To me, 2010 is barely the future at all at this point. But you can still ask, for example, what effect might the Iraq war may have had? What other wars might have sparked? Will global warming hit more "tipping points"?

There are even some things about the world we can say for sure, but might have uncertain details. For example: There will be a new president of the US, who might it be? There's a reasonable chance that a bird flu pandemic will happen by 2010, what will have been the result? What kind of groundbreaking projects are due to finish by 2010 (like the really tall building in Dubai, due 2007, will another building outdo it by 2010)? Will space travel have more tourists? Will some company develop pills to cure AIDS or cancers?