The problem I see with Dynamicland and similar ideas is that the internet exists now, and there's no going back. A physical, room-sized computer system might have worked in the early 90s, but not any more. Collaborating asynchronously with people across the world is something we do regularly now, and Dynamicland doesn't lend itself well to such collaboration.
The beauty of computers is that information is not tied to any physical manifestation. Several people can work on a document, one using the screen of their phone in Palo Alto, another using a braille display in Puerto Rico and yet another using voice control in Beijing, all at the same time. Once one person updates their representation of the document, all the other representations follow. The document isn't inherently pixels or sound waves or Braille dots, those are merely manifestations of some underlying, more fundamental structure that exists purely in the digital realm.
Dynamicland takes this flexibility away. Once we start keeping code in binders in a desk, those binders effectively become the code, every other representation must ultimately be derived from the contents of those binders. More importantly, there's no way to automatically reflect the manipulations made to those alternate representations on the paper contained in the binders. This basically undoes everything the internet has given us, making technology much more elitist and harder to access.
Personally I’m desperate for anything that would let the digital creative process escape the confines of the screen and engage my body more. It has become increasingly painful to sit in front of a screen for yet another repetitive, static round of manipulating those purely digital structures through the extremely limited affordances of keyboard and cursor control.
I’ve tried the UI options that are available today for a reasonable price: stylus and touchscreen like the MS Surface, VR like the Oculus Quest. Neither solves much for me, perhaps because of lack of applications.
If Dynamicland could end up producing something that makes my private work experience tangibly better, I’d be happy to accept that the trade-off is that collaboration becomes more difficult. (I don’t do realtime collaboration today anyway, even though it’s theoretically possible.)
This misses the point. Dynamicland is not trying to eliminate the internet or stop people in Palo Alto from collaborating with people in Beijing.
It is a small research project to explore what other ideas can be found in the vast space of unexplored possibilities.
You might as well say that someone writing in their paper diary takes away the communication flexibility of Facebook, or that someone moving their curtains around with motorized legos takes away the flexibility of an Alexa/Siri automated home, or that building a go-kart takes away the flexibility of the interstate highway system.
You are right that small research projects are inherently “elitist” in the sense that not everyone in the world can devote their attention to every researcher’s every idea and project. Doing some new niche thing takes significant time and work, and most people lead busy lives and largely engage with large-scale mass-market projects, by definition.
> [...] More importantly, there's no way to automatically reflect the manipulations made to those alternate representations on the paper contained in the binders. This basically undoes everything the internet has given us, making technology much more elitist and harder to access.
I think that "automatically reflecting the manipulations made to alternate representations" is exactly a core intention of DynamicLand. They're very much all about bringing computer interaction seamlessly into the intimate physical workspaces of humans.
Admittedly, in the very few clips and info we've seen, this isn't particularly dramatic. On the surface it's sort of like an inverted augmented-reality experience where the computer asserts itself in physical space. Whereas in regular AR, we assert ourselves in cyberspace. The project of DynamicLand, IMHO, has a much larger scope than regular AR. Will it be successful? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I am glad, however, that at least someone is trying this. I do hope that Brett Victor resumes his amazing lectures. They were really inspiring (this one in particular is a classic: https://youtu.be/8pTEmbeENF4).
You're using a lot of definite articles here: "the problem with Dynamicland", "the beauty of computers".
I think this is a pretty crushingly middle-brow dismissal of what is essentially a hugely ambitious tech demo that could evolve in thousands of ways and lead to all kinds of unforeseeable progress.
I mean how does Dynamicland take away from the Internet? Is the status quo the global maximum? Frankly after 2 years of WFH, I'm far from convinced that staring at screens (whether traditional or in a VR headset) is the pinnacle of collaborative computing.
The central question for Dynamicland is one of "media for thought," and therefore the specifics of this or that programming language (or "code") can't be that important.
What is important, however, is taking a more holistic approach to understanding how people think and how media can help in that process. People actually think with their whole bodies. There is a kinesthetic component to thinking that is important. Computing today -- be it the desktop or the tablet -- has given us tunnel vision in a sense.
Bret Victor appears to have dug himself down a rabbit hole that few want to follow.
I think I've seen seen this pattern with esteemed but overfunded creatives. No constraints, no outside pressures lets their ambition run rampant. Their project swells into a formless blob; a generic vision, an absent strategy, and infinite amount of time to do anything their hearts desire. Over the years, the participants conduct a disconnected, purposeless exploration that goes in circles. The everyday motions will revolve around the colossal, omnipresent but invisible pride of the project's "visionary". Kind of like planets around a blackhole.
Gall’s Law: “A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.”
I tend to be skeptical of long-term projects without intermediate artefacts on which we can provide feedback, iterate, and improve.
I get the concept that they want to work quietly to build something as part of a grand vision… it certainly is not doomed to failure, but as the gap between vision <> tangible implementation widens, so does the probability of widespread success.
Well it’s nice to get some insight into Dynamicland, even if it’s not very flattering.
I do wonder if the project is still under active development. I imagine it’s very frustrating to not have much to show after more than half a decade of development.
> I do wonder if the project is still under active development.
They've publicly acknowledged that they're still working but have been quiet.
> I imagine it’s very frustrating to not have much to show after more than half a decade of development.
Yes and No. I think, rightly so, they are concerned about pre-mature commercialization. Tech transfer in HCI-like domains can often be wrought with issues:
"The Dynamic Medium Group’s vision is rooted in the idea that the computer revolution of the ’70s and early ’80s was cut short, primarily by premature commercialization. While the computer as a medium was still unfolding its potential, and way before it could do so entirely, it was solidified into commercial products, thereby stifling its free growth. Once corporations had built their businesses on the ideas developed so far, they were only interested in incremental change that could easily be integrated into the products, rather than revolutionary new ideas.
Because of this cautionary tale and to avoid repeating history, the group is wary when it comes to public attention and deliberately reserved in what it shares. "
However, I do think that getting ongoing feedback & recognition of impact is important even in long-term research efforts. This was hinted at in Glen's note on why he left Dynamicland: http://glench.com/WhyIQuitTechAndBecameATherapist/
The saddest observation through all this is ... why don't academia or corporate research labs do this type of long-term, personal computing focused research anymore? It's never been easier to build a computer or an operating system, but nobody has the appetite for it anymore. Maybe people feel that operating systems and computers in their current form are here to stay forever. Maybe the most we can do is port things clumsily to VR or AR.
I think you reading into the workings of Dynamicland from my note is a little misguided. I made that note to talk about my own personal needs, not about how the lab worked.
Even though my personal interest no longer lies in pursuing it, Dynamicland to me remains the most visionary, furthest-thinking research on human-computer interaction that exists today. It really is a research project with a 100+ year vision.
on Glen's note: A few paragraphs in, I got a sense that person's sudden revelation and change in career was due to psychedelics. Searched for "LSD" ah, there it is. "In several sessions over months I took LSD alone in my house with an eyeshade on listening to music." There seems to be common writing patterns from people who've used psychedelics heavily.
Bret Victor: “Maybe it takes a hundred years. It was a hundred years from the invention of the printing press to books being part of the general culture.”
I've never seen Dynamicland before... HN surprises again. This is actually a very interesting experiment. How do we really blend computing power, and sensors with human activity? So many little things going on, and very little of it I've seen explored before - and honestly, having a computer that can scan, measure and visually project on anything in the work area is actually useful. Sometimes we get little glimpses of what life will be like in the distant future, and this seems more likely to be of great utility than, say environmental isolation style VR.
I remember reading about Dynamicland on hacker news, I think quite a while ago. A few years ago (pre-covid) I went to the very popular art exhibit "teamlab borderless" in Japan, which was fascinating. While I understand their goals are completely different, looking at Dynamicland again today they look pretty similar in some ways visually and how they approach making things interactive. Beyond the fact of using projectors (and sensors) it seems like they have some of the same philosophy.
From dynamicland's website
"A humane dynamic medium embraces the countless
ways in which human beings use their minds and bodies,
instead of cramming people into a tiny box of pixels."
One guest, after spending time at Dynamicland, held up
his smartphone and shouted, “This thing is a prison!”
From teamlab borderless "athletic forest exhibit" webpage
"Humans understand the world with their bodies and think with their bodies
Creating and telling stories that move people emotionally is not a skill that can be achieved only through repetitive training in writing compositions. Stories are spun from the experiences that are cultivated while exploring the world with our bodies.
Humans understand the world with their bodies and think with their bodies."
The beauty of computers is that information is not tied to any physical manifestation. Several people can work on a document, one using the screen of their phone in Palo Alto, another using a braille display in Puerto Rico and yet another using voice control in Beijing, all at the same time. Once one person updates their representation of the document, all the other representations follow. The document isn't inherently pixels or sound waves or Braille dots, those are merely manifestations of some underlying, more fundamental structure that exists purely in the digital realm.
Dynamicland takes this flexibility away. Once we start keeping code in binders in a desk, those binders effectively become the code, every other representation must ultimately be derived from the contents of those binders. More importantly, there's no way to automatically reflect the manipulations made to those alternate representations on the paper contained in the binders. This basically undoes everything the internet has given us, making technology much more elitist and harder to access.