williamb@milton.u.washington.edu (William Bricken) (01/04/91)
Virtual Reality: Directions of Growth
Notes from the SIGGRAPH '90 Panel
Copyright (C) 1990 All Rights Reserved by William Bricken
William Bricken
Human Interface Technology Laboratory
University of Washington, FU-20
Seattle, WA 98125
9/10/90
william@hitl.vrnet.washington.edu
IX. COMING ATTRACTIONS
Here are the coming attractions, what I believe will be available by
the end of the decade:
public domain VR software
massive database access
fabric of space
negotiable group space
conversational programming
artificial life
crossvalidation of realities
HITL is electing to distribute its software in the public domain. We
hope to create a context for the growth of an industry and for the
understanding of alternative realities. We hope to encourage the
evolution of a shared software and hardware environment which will
permit researchers to share progress and results. The commercial
marketplace can then improve on public work, selling value-added
features like customer support, prebuilt worlds, faster hardware,
better algorithms, realer time.
VR requires a new approach to database management. We want to access
massive databases such as Landsat as a function of our perspective,
our location in the database. We expect to see interactive databases
which we can explore through movement. Already waiting is the entire
Earth to one meter resolution, the location of every aircraft and
ship, large hunks of the Moon, the human body down to the resolution
of a cell, the flow of the economy, the network of computation. We
have digital worlds to explore.
I have mentioned that space is an entity. Many interactions between
entities can be expressed as internal processes of the spaces which
include them. Gravity is a primary example; we can implement
simplistic local gravity by decrementing the Z component of the
velocity vector of each entity in a space at each time tick. Rules
that apply uniformly to every entity in a space instead can be
ascribed once to the space itself. The inclusive space enacts local
gravity by owning the locations of the entities it includes. We want
to be able to place fields in space, to have space maintain its local
version of continuity, gradient, and metric, to build space-filling
logics which branch as a function of location.
One advantage of customized environments is that we will have to be
explicit about what is shared. VR suggests an approach to cooperative
work in a computational environment: rather than assume communality
and specify differences, assume complete difference and specify what
is common. It may turn out to be fun to build communal, consensual
contexts, to negotiate the group space.
One consequence of autonomous entities is that they can respond to our
communications. With voice recognition, we will be able to speak to
virtual entities as a means of programming their structure and
behavior. "I want the green cube I'm looking at to double in size."
The cube has a sensor for voice. Its rulebased disposition matches
the vocal input to its own identity and to its size changing function.
If you have permission, it changes itself to your specification.
Another consequence of autonomous entities is that they may have their
own agenda. The coupling of the behaviors of several entities could
determine events. Rulebases that support emergent behavior are
tremendously difficult to construct. We hope that the programmable
environment of VR will provide autonomous entities with a context for
the growth of interesting virtual life.
Fundamentally, VR forms a new reality, at least to the extent that we
are willing to relax our minds. We will need to calibrate the effects
of transfer across worlds and across realities. VR is the first
empirical tool of metaphysics, it permits us to compare realities, to
ask which alternative reality is preferable for which tasks.
X. RISKS
Do virtual worlds pose significant risks? I have prepared a list of
what I believe are the issues and problems for VR:
descriptive confusion
lack of experience
cognitive remodeling
fluid self
sensory overload, sensory ecstasy
power and control
cultural adaptability
VR is seeking definition, it could be anything from email to a fully
surrounding, multi-sensory environment. We are struggling with
appropriate comparisons. VR is not a drug and is not physically
addictive. Drugs change our perspective from inside the body, VR
changes our external environment. VR may well be psychologically
addictive (that is, entertaining), just like all good media
experiences can be. And there is that constant tension between
physical responsibility and cognitive exploration. Is VR escapist?
Escapism means seeking diversion from physical reality. VR cannot
escape being escapism, VR is perfect escapism. Is VR theater, or
interactive drama, or is it more than art? Is it scientific
visualization, or physical simulation, or is it more than science? Is
it financial modeling, or the perfect sales tool, or is it more than
economics? It's a good idea to spend some time figuring out what VR
is.
To me, the greatest problem is that we have virtually no experience in
VR. There are perhaps around ten thousand VR non-virgins. But I
estimate that there are no more than fifty people who have spent
twenty hours in VR. All of this excitement is purely conceptually, we
have very little experience with what we are talking about. The first
item on the VR agenda must be to construct and distribute hundreds of
systems, so that many people can contribute to our understanding. We
should know at least something about the cognitive effects of VR
before it is a consumer item with the distribution of Nintendo. When
a representative of MCC asked the lab the best way to invest two
million research dollars in VR, the answer was clear: give away forty
$50,000 systems.
The most complex, and potentially dangerous, risk is what we are
calling cognitive remodeling. Those who spend a lot of time in VR
bring back to physical reality some strange habits, like navigating
across a room by pointing, like bumping into walls cause they aren't
just images, like dreaming in polygons. VR effects dreaming strongly,
it seems to provide tools for control of the dreamlife from within the
dream. VR changes mental models. Now, it is not dangerous that this
is happening, cause all intense work produces similar effects. Anyone
who has programmed all night will know that the programming slips into
dreams. The problem is not that these things happen, it is that we
don't have the faintest clue what is going on. We do not know the
borders between virtual and actual. We have not yet had the
opportunity to evaluate current theories of reality crossing.
And how will we react when we are able to redefine our bodies, swap
our perspectives, mix our senses. We will have the ability to map
arbitrarily across sensory input, self-image, and behavioral output.
What will a fluid self be like? We will need to understand the
cognitive and behavioral effects of transportable perspectives, of
programmable bodies, of synesthetic sensations, of exchangable body
parts, of inhabiting arbitrary objects, of masslessness, of negotiable
communality, of complete empowerment.
Are there limits to the degree of warpage our senses can tolerate?
This is, of course, an empirical question. What are the functional
constraints of sensory modification for enhanced productivity, for
enhanced enjoyment? Are there sensory pathways to insanity or to
ecstasy? Just which side of the monitor do you stand on?
We have been discussing a domain which emphasizes personal freedom.
VR could be used for horrible purposes, but that negative assumes that
we are strapped to a chair. So long as each individual has the
freedom to reach up and turn off the experience, VR itself is quite
benign. But how will authority respond to this frontier? VR is
interactive, but will I have the right to remove the virtual arches in
my prebuilt reality given away with each hamburger? Are
advertisements from the creator necessarily non-interactive? Where
are the edges of property and ownership in a world which is digital?
Will there be commodities? What are the rights of autonomous
computational entities? Will there be stability? Will there be a
Virtual Environmental Protection Agency? I don't know, but I
certainly look forward to negotiating the communal rules of personal
responsibility in cyberspace.
The biggest issue is how our culture will respond to this new reality.
We have amassed hundreds of years of favoritism for the objective, the
scientific. Our values, ethics, and aesthetics are predisposed toward
Objectivism. Is VR a better place for transacting information? How
will physical reality react to competition? What will socialization
without material consequence be like? What kind of intimacy will
arise from explicitly penetrating world views? What kind of cultures
will arise when the VR network is standardized? Are we like Columbus,
discovering a completely new land in an unexpected place? Is living
in VR necessarily pathological? These are indeed exciting times.james@TWG.COM (James Marshall) (01/17/91)
William Bricken says: > > [talk about the psychological and social dangers of VR...] > I agree absolutely, and more so. I think the potential danger of VR cannot even be imagined today. I never say much about it, because then I'm perceived as an anti-technologist (which I'm not). It's encouraging to hear other people discuss it. Truly, I think VR can be amazing. It gives us tremendous power over our environment. History has shown this power to be both rewarding and dangerous. I think any forum on VR should spend some of its time researching these potential problems. Hopefully, this will cause a firm social foundation for VR. Compare our situation to that of nuclear science 50 years ago. There was no social or philosophical preparation for its entry into the world, and the results are easy to see. Hopefully, we can avoid any crisis situation that might arise with VR (call me crazy, but I believe that much in the power of VR). Gotta go. Iraqi war started on the radio. -James Marshall james@twg.com