From: lishka@dxcern.cern.ch (Christopher Lishka)
Subject: Re: APPS: More inflated claims?  (was: Cancun Installation ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1993 11:10:32 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics



In <20riju$bfk@news.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@stein.u.washington.edu
(Robert Jacobson) writes:

>Crossposted from the WELL's (192.132.30.2) vr conference:


	> "Cancun's Virtual Reality Mega-Attraction To Feature
	> Immersive Dolphin Interaction"

	[...Much description of facilities deleted...]

The facility being built in Cancun sounds very interesting.  However,
my bullsh*t meter started acting up at the follwing paragraph.  Having
studied artificial intelligence in college, I am a bit sensitive to
overblown claims that use cool-sounding words to gain attention.  In
college I took neurobiology classes (along with computer science
courses) to enhance my understanding of artificial neural networks,
and subsequently discovered that a lot of the claims by AI researchers
were stretched.  Now my antennae are beginning to wave frantically at
some of the claims in the "virtual reality industry".

	> To realistically simulate dolphin contact, specifically the
	> intense acoustic echolocation that dolphins often direct
	> towards swimmers, AquaThought has developed neurotechnology
	> which actually engages the participant's entire nervous
	> system and sensory mechanics in the immersive environment.

What exactly >is< the "neurotechnology" in use here?  "Engages the
participant's entire nervours system [...]?"  What do they do, remove
all of your neurons and dip them in some sort of solution for direct
stimulation? ;-)

Seriously, "entire nervous system" seems like so much hype, as does
"neurotechnology".  A full VR body-suit + head-mounted-display + good
stereo "3d" sound would not necessarily engage the "entire nervous
system".  Are they doing virtual scent and taste as well?
"Teledildonics"?  It seems a bit exagerated to me....

Can anybody fill in some hard facts to these claims?

I remember not so long ago (less than ten years) when the AI field
went through a phase of exaggerated claims.  According to industry
pundits, by now we were >supposed< to have full voice recognition,
vehicles which drove themselves, sophisticated "intelligent" aids to
fighter pilots, plus all of the promises of the Fifth Generation
Project.  We don't have these, and it cost the AI field heavily in
public perception.  This does not meant that AI hasn't made progress;
indeed, many good tools and findings have developed from AI research,
but what >has< been achieved looks very insignificant compared to the
inflated claims in the past.  The hype overshadowed the reality, and
good research and findings seemed to fall by the wayside.

Now it is beginning to look like the Virtual Reality/Worlds field is
travelling down the same path.  Two examples in the last month are the
VictorMaxx propaganda and now the "neurotechnology" and "entire
nervous system" engagement.  This inflated hype may sell systems
>now<, but if it keeps up, ten years down the line the general public
may feel the same way about VR that it does now about AI.  As
Newsweek/Europe just recently noticed, the prefixes that used to be
used to indicate "high techology" were "astro-" and "techno-".  The
new jargon prefix to use is "cyber-".  And where not so long ago every
second software company seemed to claim "artificial intelligence"
somewhere on the packaging, now "virtual reality" is beginning to be
used the same way.  Is history repeating itself once again?

							.oO Chris Oo.
-- 
 It takes love over gold,                                  Christopher Lishka
 And mind over matter,                                     PPE Division, CERN
 To do what you do that you must.                         lishka@dxcern.cern.ch
                     -- Dire Straits                         vxaluw::lishka