Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
Has anybody researched how to overcome that nausea factor? Or do
they just ignore it?
  

    
It may be largely a matter of motivation. Past experience as a flight
instructor (in gliders, which can often involve lots of tight circling
in thermal lift) show that many cases of motion sickness can disappear
after a small number of flights. Of course, not everybody is willing
to endure any sort of 'anti-nausea training.'  But a key factor is
prior knowledge that such physical reactions *can* be overcome with
a bit of practice, using the right procedures.

So serious research would be needed. In the case of flying, simply
asking the student to watch the horizon while circling tightly will
help. I have no idea what might help in the case of VR nausea.
  

    
Yeah, motivation is a big factor -- VR enthusiasts are
overwhelmingly white male gamers who love extreme immersion and
don't mind nausea as much, or may even think that's a positive part
of the experience. ("Dude that flying sim felt so real I almost
hurled!") 

In addition to a sex difference, there may be a racial component BTW
-- researcher Nick Yee pointed me to evidence that Asians are more
likely to get nauseous from extreme 3D/VR.

Anyway, my main takeaway with all this is that VR headset should NOT
be a central component of the Metaverse. (As opposed to one option
among many -- for most of us, immersion through a PC, console, or
smartphone app is just fine.)
  

    
> Has anybody researched how to overcome that nausea factor

Yes definitely. Also, Microsoft is researching the nausea/sex
factor. (No surprise, danah is a senior researcher at MS.) But
mainly the approach is focused on improving graphics quality.

I believe the nausea factor is a core reason why Apple's Vision Pro
is presented as an augmented reality experience, where virtual
objects are displayed as being part of the user's real world
context. (As opposed to putting the user in a completely virtual
environment.) Veteran VR developer Avi Bar-Zeev, who I interview in
the book, strongly agrees that danah's points about sex and VR
nausea need more research -- and he was a senior designer for the
Vision Pro.
  

    
(<29> slipped in while I was posting this...)

Some of the definitions of VR include 3D as an inherent aspect of
the experience - so are we saying we should make a distinction
between VR and the Metaverse? Can an experience be immersive without
being fully three dimensional?
  

    
> we should make a distinction between VR and the Metaverse?

Yes, absolutely. VR is only *one* way of attaining immersion in a
virtual world. Any device that displays 3D graphics is enough for
creating a "you are there" sense of immersion. Neal Stephenson
himself frequently says this -- the computer game Doom came out a
year after "Snow Crash", and playing it, he realized 3D graphics on
a PC was enough for the immersion he described in the novel.
  

    
> I believe the nausea factor is a core reason why Apple's Vision Pro
> is presented as an augmented reality experience...

Which may suggest a training scenario: Start with AR and gradually
transition to full VR at whatever pace works for a given user.
  

    
Yeah that's what I think Apple is doing. Also calling it the Vision
PRO and pricing it at $3500. That way they can go after high-end
developers and content creators who already work with multiple
screens, and slowly build off that niche.
  

    
Do you think there's sufficient market for a $3500 headset that
it'll be a success? I suppose Apple's done market research. Apple
says the device is meant to "introduce people to spatial computing,"
but I can't imagine that the buyers will be looking for an
introduction. I suspect they'd be experienced and have a pretty
solid use case for the device.

Note that they're not pitching the Vision Pro as a VR headset.
They're calling it a "spatial computer."

Incidentally, for some we might need a clarification of references
to 3D. When you say "any device that displays 3D graphics," you're
referring to graphics that appear to have depth but are actually 2
dimensional, correct? As you have with Second Life, which appears on
2-dimensional displays and requires no special equipment to
experience, but has a sense of depth and movement in space.
  

    
> They're calling it a "spatial computer."

Which is what one does to appeal to those who already know they
have problems that spatial computing can address.
  

    
> graphics that appear to have depth but are actually 2D
 
3D graphics on a 2D screen, yes -- so on a smartphone/tablet,
videogame console, or PC. Basically any experience where you can
move through and look around in a 3D scene in real time. 

> Do you think there's sufficient market for a $3500 headset that
it'll be a success? 

At least a niche basis, yes. Many professional developers and
content creators (programmers, video editors, artists, etc.) already
work on multiple screens at the same time because it's more
efficient. For instance, they'll edit code on one screen, and then
review the results on another screen. 

So I think the Vision Pro would appeal to people like that, since it
puts multiple screens into one device. And which doesn't require
them to work from a desk.

Folks like that tend to use a Mac Pro now -- and that thing costs
$6500!
  

    
Why do some advocates, like Palmer Luckey, argue that there's a
moral imperative to create the metaverse?
  

    
That's another shocking part of the book! 

Luckey and a lot of people in tech want to create the Metaverse so
poor people across the world can enjoy *virtual* versions of a
happy, comfortable life. 

And, well, I don't agree! A Metaverse worth fighting for should
actually benefit people in real life.
  

    
What are some of the ways a (or the) Metaverse can be beneficial IRL?
  

    
For starters: 

By fostering meaningful and diverse social connections across
demographics and around the world. This is one of the only platform
categories where it's very typical for people in different countries
and from very disparate age groups/backgrounds to become fast
friends/colleagues.

And because a metaverse platform by definition enables people to
monetize virtual content they create within it, to earn a decent
supplementary or full-time income.

Both things are already happening, the goal is to make the Metaverse
even more diverse and make income earning more equitable, with lower
barriers to entry.
  

    
There's conversation about "the Metaverse," but what I think I'm
seeing is several disconnected platforms, like Second Life, Meta,
Fortnite, and Roblox - I think those are the main ones you mention
in the book. 

And then there's Lamina1, described as "a Layer1 blockchain
optimized for the Open Metaverse" - I wonder what that refers to,
the "Open Metaverse"? Is there any serious thinking about networking
the various metaverse platforms, having them internetworking in some
way? Is that what Lamina1 is for?
  

    
> serious thinking about networking the various metaverse platforms,
having them internetworking in some way

Yes, there's a lot of industry-wide effort to try and agree on
protocol for an interoperable Open Metaverse. Neal thinks that will
be achieved by integrating various virtual worlds with his Lamina1
blockchain layer. But there are other approaches. Which is part of
the problem.

I spend a lot of time writing about how this is a misguided approach
to interoperability, since it's applying a web model to very
disparate virtual worlds. It's more feasible just to make user
log-ins and their friend networks interoperable. Community is mainly
what matters!
  

    
Cory Doctorow advocates "adversarial interoperability," explained
here:
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability>
It's where you "create a new product or service that plugs into the
existing ones without the permission of the companies that make
them." Is this happening with any of the Metaverse platforms? I
suppose what you suggest (re logins and friend networks) could be
achieved that way.
  

    
Are there existing communities/groups of people that are taking advantage
of these forms of communication?
  

    
Discord has basically become the backchannel for the Metaverse --
it's where virtual communities across many multiple platforms meet
and communicate with each other outside the virtual world. (Though
not adversarial in Cory's sense.) My guess is Discord accounts will
become the de facto standard for managing user identity and
communities across platforms.
  

    
What forms of collaboration are happening better or uniquely in metaverse
experiences?
  

    
Cool question. 

Adding on, what are the current concerns and safeguards about
control and ownership of platforms by corporations or possibly by
governments?
  

    
>  better or uniquely in metaverse experiences

As an example of "better": Supportive trans and military veteran
communities are quite common in metaverse platforms, because the
ability to meet anonymously through customizable avatars enables a
chance to express themselves and communicate in ways that would be
difficult or often physically dangerous IRL.

As an example of "uniquely": Highly diverse, international
communities/collaborative groups that rarely exist elsewhere,
certainly not on that scale. It's very common to have friends /
colleagues in metaverse platforms from around the world, in very
different age groups/economic backgrounds/races/etc. And that's also
very unique to how we engage on the Internet, where it's mainly
through our social networks that are mostly IRL friends / family.
  

    
It seems plausible that ability to use non-text based communications makes
for a more attractive forum of communication, do you see evidence that is
true?
  

    
> what are the current concerns and safeguards about
control and ownership of platforms by corporations 

The biggest concern has been about Meta's VR-driven vision of the
Metaverse which is basically a naked play to have troves extremely
sensitive user data -- essentially knowing what people think and
desire on a real time basic.

Fortunately, Meta has almost completely failed in its Metaverse
goals for reasons I explain in the book!

The next big controversy will probably be around Roblox's growing
dominance of the market and the fact that its main user base is
kids, who are effectively creating content for a huge for-profit
corporation. But so far Roblox is mostly off the radar of government
bodies, which is wild. A US government research body recently
interviewed me about Metaverse concerns that legislators should know
about, and didn't even bring up Roblox -- I had to raise the topic!