Karl Guttag analyzes the newly announced "Halliday" AR glasses, skeptical of their claimed capabilities. He argues that the demonstrated "AI features" like real-time language translation and object recognition are likely pre-programmed demos, not actual artificial intelligence. Guttag points to the lack of specific technical details, reliance on pre-recorded videos, and improbable battery life as evidence. He concludes that the Halliday glasses, while potentially impressive AR technology, are almost certainly overselling their AI integration and are more likely sophisticated augmented reality, not AI-powered, glasses.
Karl Guttag's blog post, "Halliday AR(Not?)/AI Glasses," delves into the intricacies of augmented reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI) as they pertain to potential future eyewear, taking inspiration from the fictional "Ready Player One" depiction of the "OASIS" and its interface through specialized glasses. Guttag argues that true AR, as envisioned in science fiction where computer-generated imagery seamlessly blends with the real world, is significantly more challenging to achieve than many anticipate, and is unlikely to manifest in the near future, especially in a lightweight, comfortable glasses form factor. He contends that the technological hurdles related to display technology, processing power, and battery life are substantial and will require breakthroughs beyond current capabilities.
The author dissects the concept of "AI glasses," differentiating it from true AR. He posits that while sophisticated AI assistance integrated into eyewear is a more achievable near-term goal, it would not constitute actual augmented reality. Instead, such glasses might provide information overlays, real-time translations, or object recognition, but without the immersive, visually integrated experience of genuine AR. Guttag illustrates this distinction by referencing current smart glasses which offer limited functionalities like displaying notifications or basic navigation information, which he argues are more akin to "heads-up displays" than true AR.
Furthermore, the blog post explores the complexities of generating realistic and contextually relevant augmented reality experiences. Guttag highlights the necessity for advanced scene understanding, object tracking, and real-time 3D modeling, all of which demand substantial computational resources. He emphasizes that achieving true AR requires not only displaying information within the user's field of view but seamlessly integrating it with the real world, accounting for lighting, depth, and occlusion.
Finally, the author touches upon the potential societal implications of ubiquitous AI-powered glasses, raising concerns about privacy and data security. He acknowledges the potential benefits of such technology, such as assisting individuals with disabilities or providing real-time information access, but also cautions against the possible misuse of personal data collected by these devices. The overall tone of the post suggests a cautious optimism towards the development of advanced eyewear technology, emphasizing the distinction between the hype surrounding AR and the more realistic near-term prospects of AI-assisted smart glasses. He encourages a more nuanced understanding of these technologies, separating the fantastical promises of science fiction from the practical limitations of current and near-future engineering realities.
Summary of Comments ( 7 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42830033
HN commenters discuss the practicality and potential invasiveness of the Halliday glasses. Several express skepticism about the claimed battery life, especially given the purported onboard processing power. Others question the usefulness of constant AR overlays and raise privacy concerns related to facial recognition and data collection. Some suggest alternative approaches, like bone conduction audio and smaller, simpler displays for notifications. The closed-source nature of the project also draws criticism, with some arguing it limits community development and fosters distrust. Finally, the high price point is mentioned as a significant barrier to entry.
The Hacker News post discussing Halliday AR/AI glasses generated several interesting comments, primarily focusing on the skepticism surrounding the product's claims and feasibility.
One commenter questioned the practicality of the glasses' purported ability to identify objects and people in real-time, highlighting the significant computational resources required for such a task and the limitations of current edge computing capabilities. They doubted whether the glasses could genuinely deliver on these promises given current technological constraints.
Another commenter expressed concerns about the privacy implications of constantly recording and analyzing the user's visual field. They questioned the security of the data collected and the potential for misuse, echoing a common apprehension surrounding always-on recording devices.
Skepticism about the claimed battery life also surfaced. A commenter pointed out the high energy demands of computer vision tasks and cast doubt on the feasibility of achieving the advertised battery life with existing technology.
Several commenters drew parallels between Halliday and other products making ambitious claims that ultimately failed to materialize. This historical context fueled further skepticism about Halliday's likelihood of success.
The overall sentiment in the comments leaned towards cautious pessimism. While some acknowledged the potential of AR and AI integration, the majority expressed doubts about Halliday's ability to overcome the significant technical hurdles and privacy concerns associated with its proposed functionality. The lack of concrete technical details and the reliance on marketing jargon contributed to this prevailing skepticism. Several commenters expressed a desire to see more substantial evidence before accepting the company's claims.