VR technology is mature in the industrial field. Artificial intelligence is a fantasy.

Yaron Lanier said that VR technology is very successful in the industrial field, and its application examples will surpass the consumer-grade virtual reality market. Virtual reality has matured in the industrial market. In this "post- Jobs" era, more innovation and application are needed.

Jaron Lanier is recognized as the founder of virtual reality and has a tremendous influence on the development of the contemporary technology industry. Lanier's work is considered the foundation of virtual reality technology. He promoted the development of immersive avatars, virtual reality heads and accessories, and participated in the early exploration of medical imaging and surgical simulation techniques. He also promoted the big concept of "virtual reality."

Yaron Lanier

Lanier is not only a programmer and inventor, but also a prolific writer and technical critic. His recent book, The Dawn of New Things, reviews his growing experiences in New Mexico, pioneering virtual reality in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, and working with prominent scholars, critics, scientists, and developers.

Lanier recently accepted an interview with Business Insider, talking about his new book, the debate on the influence of social media in the industry, the decision to move from Google to Microsoft, and whether artificial intelligence will eventually cause human destruction.

The following is the main content of the interview:

Q: In the past year, we have seen the expected changes in the consumer-grade virtual reality market and the overall virtual reality technology. What do you want to say about the skeptics of virtual reality technology?

Lanier: We can separate the virtual reality. First, one aspect of virtual reality is in the industrial sector, not the consumer market. This market is completely successful.

Can tell a story in my life. In this book, you will see about the surgical simulator. This product dates back to the 1980s, and I have worked with many people to develop surgical simulators, such as Dr. Joe Rosen from Stanford Medical School. In the past few years, my wife has been fighting cancer and doing many operations. One of the most difficult operations was performed by a Rosen student who practiced using a surgical simulator.

Since I pay more attention to the application of virtual reality than the consumer market, I have no doubt that virtual reality has arrived. For me, this is great. This is a mature technology. I am proud of what we have achieved. However, I am also focusing on the consumer market, starting with Power Glove, which is of interest to many people.

Q: In the consumer-grade virtual reality market, Sony PS VR's sales are leading, while virtual reality and augmented reality applications have also attracted a lot of interest in the gaming arena. What do you think about the development of these markets?

Lanier: Sony's head display has achieved some success, and the combination of mobile phones and brackets has also gained industry acceptance, such as in the journalism industry. The New York Times is a pioneer in this field. "Pokemon Go" is also worthy of attention. The game is rough and has just reached the standard of usability, but still attracts a lot of players. This lets us know how mixed reality can be applied in a wider range of situations. People like this game, which is reasonable. I feel that we did a good job.

For me, the new market should be like this. In this "post-Jobs" era, everyone expects a heavy product like the iPhone, but we don't see much of it.

Q: You participated in the Microsoft HoloLens heads-up project, so I would like to ask Magic Leap, one of the competitors of this product. Some investors compare Magic Leap's technology to the multi-touch that just emerged, the core selling point of the iPhone. What do you think of Magic Leap?

Lanier: I am eager to see the delivery and sale of Magic Leap. I think it's good for everyone, I hope they can come up with a great product. I don't know if they have such expectations, but my hope is like this. No matter what product you have, you can't have only one supplier. You can have the most innovative suppliers, have leading suppliers, but not just one supplier. A supplier cannot form a market.

Q: You have been working at Microsoft for about 10 years. What is the specific situation?

Lanier: It depends on how you calculate. I have never thought of working in a Microsoft lab before, but it is really something that is beyond my expectations and very exciting. In the 1990s, I was a critic of Microsoft. I have always been a radical purist to a certain extent. For people like me, Microsoft is the target of firing.

Why am I going to work at Microsoft? The situation is very simple. Sergey Brin told me at the time, "We don't want anyone to write controversial articles," because I have been writing tech review articles for a long time. For a long time, I have been worried that technology will turn us into evil zombies. Sergey said to me: "Don't be like this, Google people won't do this." My response is, is that really the case? Then I went to ask Bill Gates. He replied, "You can't say bad things about us that we haven't said before. We don't care. Why don't you come to our lab? They are really cool." I Think, this sounds good. So I went to see it. I found that this is really great.

Q: You mentioned that Silicon Valley lacks the diversity of cognitive styles. So will this loss affect the technological creation of Silicon Valley?

Lanier: I think sometimes. If the tool developers are similar to our engineers, then these tools will become more useful. This is not always the case, but overall it seems that this is a principle. What engineers design is more useful to people like these engineers, which has become a social effect that benefits some classes and disadvantages.

Q: In your first book, "You are not a tool," you talked about how technology can hurt us and that computers don't represent human values. The book has been around for nearly 10 years. Has your opinion changed?

Lanier: My point of view is always changing. I am always interested in reviewing what I have written and see if I can make them better. But the overall principle still plagues me, that is, facing everyone, our digital system is not good enough. I still think that is the case.

Q: Programmers deliberately use addictive technology to make users addicted to products. What do you think of it?

Lanier: This is an open secret. Maureen Dowd once published an interview with me in The New York Times, and we talked about it. The next day, Sean Parker, whom I know, acknowledged this.

This is a long and interesting history dating back to the 19th century. At that time, behavioral science rose and the biology was studied as a machine. Behavioralists have a feeling that I think it is somewhat similar to some current hackers who think they are God. They feel like God, they have the key to everything and can control everyone.

In the 1950s, Norbert Wiener, one of the founders of computer science after Turing and von Neumann, wrote a book, How Humans Use Humans. In this book, he points out that computers (then a new device, only in some laboratories) can play the role of a human researcher in one of the experiments. If you have a computer that can read what someone is doing and then stimulate, then you can change his behavior in a predictable way.

He believes that computers can have incredible social consequences. The end of the book is shocking: "The important thing about this book is that this assumption may seem horrible, but in order for this hypothesis to become a reality, it must form a global computing power that connects through wireless technology. Everyone on the planet, and these people carry their own equipment. This is obviously impossible."

These behaviorists are good at using algorithms to change human behavior. They found that noisy feedback was better than consistent feedback. This means that if you press a button to get treatment, your brain will become more fascinated once the treatment is not working. The reason is that the brain wants to understand the world, and if there are exceptions, the brain will try to figure out and build a better model. So, you can use this way to grab the brain.

The results of behavioralists have changed the gambling industry to make it what it is today: an industry based on algorithms and manipulating humanity. People are driven by emotions, and emotions are a more effective way to attract us. Negative emotions are more likely to affect you than positive emotions. Positive emotions are softer and harder to nurture. This is an unfortunate imbalance. So according to Sean Parker, these types of programs are intentionally placed in Facebook's design. I have not participated in Facebook, but my memories of those days are somewhat different. I don't think that these people are evil geniuses, deliberately using the evil side of human nature to manipulate the world. What they do is to maximize the efficiency of the algorithm for some purpose.

Q: Is this the purpose of user participation?

Lanier: This is perhaps the biggest tragedy in computer history. There was a kind movement in the 1980s, trying to make everything free. The campaign started with free software, followed by free music, free news and other free services. But at the same time, this is different from what people call the government to do, or socialist solutions. If you want entrepreneurship and capitalism, and want to be free, then these two things are contradictory.

There is only one solution, advertising. Advertising has become a standard model of online information, which is a bit crazy. The problem is that if you start an ad, then gradually, the ad will try to change people's behavior. This is not because of any evil plans, just because they are trying to improve the efficiency of the algorithm, maximize the value of shareholders, and the computer becomes faster and faster, and the algorithm becomes more efficient.

The second problem is the people involved in this system. Because everything is free, what reward can you get? In the end, the system will make a bastard, because if the bastard can attract your attention, then this is what you have to do. Because of the cognitive bias, that is, negative emotions can attract more attention, such bastards will be more concerned. People who try to subvert and destroy can be more effective in attracting attention than those who want to build and protect.

Q: The model you expect is that you want to see users paying for their own data, rather than letting Facebook and Google sell the data to advertisers?

Lanier: Yes, my idea is that you need to pay a small fee to use Facebook. We should pay for what we like. Netflix has proven that this is feasible. The user said, "I am willing to pay for it", and suddenly you see something better. I don't support the idea of ​​volunteering because it doesn't make us better. Many people will say that young people or the poor can't afford it, and I am sympathetic. Of course, we have to consider this too. But usually, people are willing to pay a small fee, and then they will have the opportunity to make money. If someone is a super contributor on a social network and brings a lot of content, then you should get paid.

For example, what Google is doing now is centralized control. They will say that some of YouTube’s stars should be paid because they like him, not others. This is ridiculous. In fact, this should be marketized. It is a gradual curve and should not be an arbitration rule. If you can bring people different games and attract attention, then the situation will be better.

Q: You have an 11-year-old daughter. Do you monitor her interaction with technology?

Lanier: I am very lucky because I will let my daughter use a smartphone. I am in a good situation and the problem is solved by myself. I don't think she is too involved in technology products. This seems to have a certain correlation: the more parents participate in the technology industry, the more cautious they are about the interaction of children with technology products. Many parents in Silicon Valley are interested in finding anti-technical environments for their children, such as the Waldorf School, but I hope we don't have to go there.

Q: People are addicted to technology or rely too much on technology. Do you think there is any problem with this?

Lanier: This is going to be specific. It's not necessarily a bad thing to use a certain amount of technology, and people will read a lot of books. Just using technology is not a problem. When we discuss addiction, we should analyze the specific things. For behavioral addiction, this is a noisy feedback loop. I think that such a closed feedback loop is not normal and should not exist.

Q: There are many different perspectives on artificial intelligence. Some people, such as Elon Musk, believe that we should doubt artificial intelligence because artificial intelligence may ultimately control us. Others, such as Mark Zuckerberg, argue that artificial intelligence is not insidious. What is your opinion?

Lanier: My position is unusual, but it is completely correct. From my point of view, there is no artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is just computer engineering. If you choose any number of different algorithms, then say, "This is not just a program, but a person, an independent entity." This is the story you just wanted to tell. This fantasy really attracts a lot of people, and then you call it artificial intelligence. Once you do this, it will change the story, just like you are creating life, as if you are God. I think this will make you a worse engineer, because if you think you are creating something, then you have to respect it, not as a mere tool.

The actual work related to artificial intelligence, including mathematics, as well as the drivers and sensors in the robot, are very attractive to me, and I have contributed to it. This is no problem.

Q: In your book, you describe artificial intelligence as a wrapper that wraps what we develop.

Lanier: Yes, you can say that. Artificial intelligence is an illusion that you can apply it to a variety of things. The problem with artificial intelligence is that we give too much respect to the things we artificially develop, but we are not responsible for them, but design them as much as possible.

The original concept of artificial intelligence came from Alan Turing, and understanding Turing's life helped to understand the idea of ​​artificial intelligence, because he proposed the concept of artificial intelligence and the Turing test in the last weeks of his life before committing suicide. For Turing, I think his theory is a form of expressing one's own pain. For others, this is more like a religion.

I believe that our responsibility as an engineer is to develop engineering as perfectly as possible. If you want to do this, you must treat what you are developing as a product. You can't respect it in a deified way. As we discussed earlier, behavioralists use humans as machines to try to manipulate humans with the cycle of addiction. This is to treat people as machines. For artificial intelligence, you will treat the machine as a human. Both are wrong.