The San Junipero episode of Black Mirror nailed it--limiting people's time in VR to avoid "side effects". That show is just hauntingly prescient with its straddle between what's possible now and what's just-slightly-out-of-reach.
Growing numbers of people preferring an alternative reality is scary to me. And the idea that it may cause a psychological break with reality for a significant number of people is even scarier--as if we need more people disassociated and thus capable of committing heinous or anti-social acts.
Strange that we're just cruising into this with little alarm. Stranger still that we don't find any issue with a relatively small number of people literally jockeying to redefine reality for the masses for commercial gain.
> Stranger still that we don't find any issue with a relatively small number of people literally jockeying to redefine reality for the masses for commercial gain.
That's unusually harsh. A lot of people involved in VR love it and want others to experience it. You make it sound like they are spreading a virus.
I don't think it's harsh at all, but I'm not quite sure which part raises an issue for you. If you're saying that they are motivated by their desire to "spread their love" much more than the economic benefit they seek, then why not do this in a non-profit fashion?
But, I won't quibble with that point. I mean, I do think that the economic benefit sets up the potential to "taint" the benovolenct love fest, but my much bigger point is WRT the very idea that a relative few people would redefine reality for everyone else by any motivation. It's an incredible amount of power to hand over and I think it warrants caution.
That they are seeking to profit from it simply underscores this point and adds an additional "Dystopian Future Sci-fi Creep Factor".
Would the same argument work against cinema? Surely the difference between VR and film is one of degree rather than a categorical change.
I think there will be negative and positive aspects if/when VR becomes mass market but it's the opening up of a new creative medium and on the whole that has always been a net benefit for humanity.
>Surely the difference between VR and film is one of degree rather than a categorical change.
Degree matters. And, naming them both media doesn't make them qualitatively the same to begin with.
>I think there will be negative and positive aspects
Respectfully, one can use that argument to wave off any concern about anything. But, here, experiencing lasting and disturbing dissociative effects after walking away from the interaction is not the same as feeling momentarily sad after watching a film.
>that has always been a net benefit for humanity.
I'm not sure if that's categorically true but, there is certainly no rule that says it must always be so, irrespective of the actual medium or environment.
And, I think it's safe to say we are in uncharted waters here. We've never had a medium that competes with reality so effectively or whose effects are more akin to doing psychadelic drugs than reading a book or watching film.
I'm not willing to declare that a net positive just yet.
Growing numbers of people preferring an alternative reality is scary to me. And the idea that it may cause a psychological break with reality for a significant number of people is even scarier--as if we need more people disassociated and thus capable of committing heinous or anti-social acts.
Strange that we're just cruising into this with little alarm. Stranger still that we don't find any issue with a relatively small number of people literally jockeying to redefine reality for the masses for commercial gain.
The times they are a changin'.