As part of the project within the Facebook Reality Labs, the social network has built a research device that will help understand how to build the software and hardware necessary for AR glasses.
Friday, September 18, 2020
100 Facebook employees to test future Augmented Reality glasses on US university campus
As part of the project within the Facebook Reality Labs, the social network has built a research device that will help understand how to build the software and hardware necessary for AR glasses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Things like this have me intrigued, but at the same time I cannot help but see a myriad of red flags regarding a number of issues. Obviously the development of wearable technology, particularly after the failure of Google Glass back in the day, is pretty neat. I respect that they want to use this tech to help support people with visual impairments, but I would like to press further and ask HOW they plan on using it to help visual impairments. Like a concrete layout of the intent of usage of this data. I also feel a need to press on the issues of consent. People could see someone wearing glasses with a white light, but would they know what those glasses are? What they are doing? Who could be seeing them at that time? And also what is stopping the wearer of the glasses to paint or tape over the light? What about if they rewire them to not even light up? This is a huge breach of people’s privacy, and they do not have other people’s consent to film them particularly in private spaces. Also, I’m not sure how many people are okay with Facebook having unpublicized recordings of them.
Facebook has been caught in the center of a storm that's been brewing over the past few years regarding data privacy and how user's data is handled by the company behind the scenes. Although the wall of text in this article that describes where and when this "Aria" can be used and also how consent plays into it, it's all too easy for one to look at this and say that the statements are almost platitudes. For example, if the product is meant to build maps of locations such as museums and airports, why not partner with such locations to do specific scanning of those types of places? Why is one of the allowable locations inside of a participant's home? I'm sure there are reasonable rebuttals to these questions from Facebook's point-of-view, but it is my belief that if they want to begin a project that hinges on scanning from something as inconspicuous as a pair of glasses, they need to increase their reputability with data handling. If I was chosen to be a participant in this project, I would decline, personally.
As Harrison mentions above, it’s kind of surprising that Facebook is spearheading this project - after so many scandals and issues with data-mining and breaches of confidentiality. The skeptic part of my brain believes that they issued the limitations of their usage to make others feel more at ease. If the technology is there - I want a step by step briefing of how exactly the data monitoring is stopping in these areas and at these different times. On a more optimistic note, the thought of using these glasses as mapping technology to create new, more accessible viewer experiences is really cool. I think it might be beneficial for the programmers to work specifically with different venues and locations to work on this mapping - just so that the process feels transparent, and it feels like it is being done in the interest of everyone involved.
I think Facebook is going too far. Facebook was started to connect people together, it’s a social network. They should not be in the business of technology development that does not relate back to their founding reasons. There are so many things wrong with this product. First, Facebook has not been known to be good stewards of users’ personal data, and neither has google for that matter. I would like to see a product like this designed, but not by Facebook (or Google). The social media website seems more and more to move into peoples lives and take over more areas where they really should not be. They already do a tremendous amount of data collection and tracking that makes me uncomfortable and with this product, I see the potential for abuse to far outweigh the positives. I love the idea of the mapping technology, especially as a way to help others who have impairments, but this type of technology in the hands of Facebook just doesn’t feel safe. For that reason, I’m out.
I agree with what a lot of people above me have said. This idea is fascinating and I think could be helpful for people with visual impairments. However, it still makes me feel nervous with data collecting. The article says the people they are training to use the glasses will be briefed on when and how to collect, but, you know, there is always the worst case scenario playing in your head. I am trying hard not to fall into slippery slope type thinking, and trying my hardest to think of the positives of this device, but it is very hard NOT to think like that when nowadays we are concerned with corporations mining our data. It would be ideal to have, like others have mentioned, a fully transparent description of how they work would maybe put some at ease. Also it would be nice to work with the museums and such one on one to map.
I am thoroughly impressed with Facebook in terms of how they are handling this new technology. I know it is only a matter of time before more wearable and integrated technology becomes a normal and widely available. They mention Google Glass and although it failed at the time, Google is still continuing to work on that technology but with the question of whether or not they will actually ever release something like it. The difference here is that the Google Glass was like a phone. It was going to be personal data and functions while what Facebook is doing is recording data… It is much more limited and thus a lot easier to create. I am really glad they are taking into account proper training for users and maintaining appropriate use as per law regulations and social standards. It makes me hopeful that this technology will one day become a useful tool whether or not Facebook is the one to release as a product or just for information gathering like they are doing now.
Given that most of the other comments are more about privacy concerns that this project represents, I will keep my concern statement brief and focus more on the potential applications that this technology could achieve. Obviously, Facebook is known for its overreach in data collection and mining, as well as its poor stewardship of said information. We should all be skeptical and wary of this initiative. That said, the potential impact for this kind of research and technology is incredible for accessibility! The design of a platforms equipped with the requisite sensors and processing power to take stock of its surroundings in real time is the first step towards creating wearable tech that can actively assist people who have hearing or vision impairments. It could generate closed captions on the fly and attribute it to the speakers, or guide someone across a busy intersection. It's already known that VR can actually 'restore' sight to people with certain kinds of vision impairment, so combining this research with further VR (and general extended reality) research could lead to huge discoveries and improvements in the field of accessibility tech!
Uh, no thank you. Maybe it is just that I have stayed outside of the high-tech innovation bubble for most of my life, but stuff like this neither excites me nor seems like an objectively good plan. For a group that has been rightfully shredded over its terrifying lack of data privacy, so maybe they should not be the ones that we let put these glasses into use. As many have highlighted, I absolutely support the effort of making accessible viewing experiences, but I think we would all rather this not happen at the expense of our own security. The idea of recording data is interesting, and not inherently bad. It is literally just the fact that a large, politically charged, capitalist organization, like Facebook, is spearheading the initiative. An excellent point that Sammy brought up is about consent. It is not just that the wearer needs to acknowledge and consent to the risks and where all this information will go, but also all of the folks on the other side.
I do agree with the other comments that it is problematic that a company like Facebook is leading this project, but when I read the article I was more intrigued by the technology objectively. I think that advancements in technology like these are exciting and open up a lot of potential. It is also so interesting to hear that CMU is personally involved with this test. This makes me wonder about the future and what advancements we will have that will be applicable to the art world. For example, in 10 years, what will theater look like if the public has an easy way to access AR technologies? It is incomprehensible to me right now which makes it even more exciting. The fact that I cannot even picture what will happen in the future regarding technology absolutely fascinates me and makes me feel as though the potential for countless new art mediums is limitless in my lifetime. This article also made me think about how helpful the beginnings of AR could be to people with disabilities. Just think about how helpful things like a constant real-time map or a program that reads aloud any text you look at. Yes, phones can already do these things, but the convenience and consistency of an accessory like glasses, which one can wear all day, would truly streamline these services.
While this project does sound interesting, the fact that there seems to be very little purpose outside of a potential AR or AI usage makes this project sound overall useless and just a waste of money. Adding onto the fact that Facebook is constantly in legal troubles with data, I'm pretty sure that whatever is said here regarding security isn't going to happen, whether it's by Facebook or the researchers. The fact that Carnegie Mellon agreed to help with this is also rather perplexing, because if there is a data issue or leak, will the University be at fault to? If there is testing on campus, how are you going to get the consent of all students? Honestly I'm not sure that creating "3D maps of museums and airports" is worth the potential legal troubles that CMU might get involved in dealing with Facebook, even if they can help the visually impaired. If it was any other company, I would be less cynical, but again, Facebook's history with security and data makes me leery on this project.
This project does push AR to new limits, and I think it would be interesting to see it used in educational purposes like museums and maps as said in the article. Being able to look around ancient grounds or different lands, waters, maybe even planets would push curiosity to new levels. However, it does concern me that it will collect data from the wearer's point of view. Especially with facebook leading this project, in a world where privacy is constantly violated and every big company is trying to collect data on everyone, it seems dangerous. They say that "research participants cannot view or listen to the raw data captured by the device," but it is quite hard to believe. It feels like this is another way companies like facebook are taking control of virtual identities and profiting off of our information. This is a no for me, it is too nervewracking and untrustworthy given the company and what is stated.
I am both excited and concerned about these glasses starting to collect raw information, which I am assuming is an audio and video recording, of the people around them. Although our phones have a microphone and a camera attached to them, for the majority of the day the will not get good audio nor video because it is sitting in my pocket. The idea that people will be walking around with a device on their face constantly recording makes me question when I will not be recorded. On the other hand, I do think augmented reality technology is very exciting and hopefully, we will be able to implement it in our lives sometime in the future. I could see augmented reality helping with distance learning, too. As you could make it appear that a professor is in a classroom or a professor is even in your room. The possibilities are quite fascinating.
This definitely confuses me slightly; what is the end goal for this project? I understand that they are testing Project Aria, and will help with AR and 3D mapping, but they specifically state that this is not a consumer product or prototype. Will this be for business use? Educational use? Or is it simply to test some of the technology, and create new products going forward? I do like the idea of 3D maps of museums and airports and such, that could be a really innovative way to allow “visitors”, especially when exhibits need to limit in-person numbers. And, as we’ve seen with the growing world of virtual theater, it could expand museums’ audiences across the globe for those who aren’t able to make the trip. I’m interested to see where this goes in the future, and what comes of the study with these new AR glasses.
Post a Comment