Thoughts on the AR/VR Policy Conference.
(there's a text limit to a post, so an article it is!)
I've had my schedule open up a bit recently. While it would be wise to take some time to reflect, I was compelled to listen to the recording of the AR/VR Policy Conference hosted by Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and the XR Association and I took copious notes. I'd like to share what I took away in bullet points from this event. Brace yourselves, these are the opinions of a Florida Man. If you know me, you know I try to give you my honest take, as I see it. First, there's no way I could ever get a funded trip to go to anything like this, and share my dissonant views with these colleagues. So throughout watching, I felt like my destiny was being drawn up far away in DC, like so many other Americans disillusioned by that district. I have a feeling thousands of others in the industry are too busy keeping the doors open to break away. Awesome work if you are an XR policy analyst (I'd do it, but I ain't getting anywhere near DC if I can help it). I'm debugging a rotation in my JavaScript for WebXR right now--limited resources.. but I was compelled to closely watch this anyway. Which, overall, I think this was a very productive gathering worth repeating often despite the salty bullet points you are about to read.
-I still remember when Ellysse Dick made the rounds on a few podcasts on behalf of ITIF. At that time, Kent Bye had questions about the funding sources. It was the sternest words I'd ever heard from that gentle soul. I boycott where she works now, but I understand things take money to run. And I still remember her making the case that culturally, we should just adapt to having cameras pointed at our face at all times. No, I decline the facial recognition at the airport out of principle. This isn't China. Stop trying to make America like China.
-The beginning of the day was filled with an attitude that if we do not reach for a government solution now, many decisions will be made for us by others. I get the feeling many of the attendees are comfortable with government involvement at any opportunity without hesitation. They nearly arrive on what used to make the US a hotbed for innovation when discussing the ever broadening EU attempts to govern every aspect of life: a light touch from government, liberty. I was a little surprised by Senator Blackburn's speech. I think there are some First and Tenth Amendment concerns about what she proposed. I definitely felt an agenda to arrive at a global governance regarding XR, sidestepping representation when possible.
-I read that GAO report. While there are few very solid and sustaining use cases of XR in the federal government, a very large proportion of them were technology demonstrations: an irritation in the DOD for me, as I don't want more demos to colonels and generals; I want implementation. Headsets broken from overuse.
-I want to know more about the Department of Commerce's supply chain studies. XR hardware is a global operation. It's a challenge to know what parts come from where!
-Always be suspicious when a government does things for national security. Time and again, inalienable rights are trampled on when there is a crisis. Be careful not to encourage it. One panelist admitted there are no comprehensive solutions, just trade-offs. What trade-offs do we accept?
-I'm writing a book review of Our Next Reality. It's impossible not to like Alvin, but nobody has a problem with the head of the Chinese (now "World") market for an XR company talking at a US policy gathering? That aside, I was relieved when he mentioned having LLM's on the device. So many parts of his book call for centralized solutions, which are inherently vulnerable to attack and tyranny. And that's a key philosophical orientation I chaff against: everything much be always online, connected, communicating. The digital divide was discussed, suggesting connection is a human right. Well, how about the right to be disconnected? Buy that ice cream without a digital trail with foldable cash? We never discuss this freedom. Alvin showed that glasses are getting lighter and draw less energy. Why are we such in a hurry to make XR like cell phones, a device we all admit to having a love/hate relationship to it. Louis says we should move to talking to our devices. Who else is listening? There's a reason we got rid of our Alexa and I have a dab of glue in my smart watch and TV remote microphones.
-COVID changed my views on a lot of things. I was a bit more "get-a-long" about many subjects, ignoring the details of how we know what we know. Coming from a background in modeling and simulation, there was a policy trend that disturbed me as the pandemic continued: more decisions were based off modeling, and fewer with randomized control studies. While the immersive manufacturing discussion was great, I worried about modeling for the purposes of having an intentional outcome. Then when the plan hits reality, the result isn't desirable, but the people involved are already paid. I agree to the benefits from lowering costs, reducing project time, etc., but you just have to do it honestly and be open to failure when you model.
-The presentation about ToxMod was downright dystopian. I'm never going to play Among US VR. Every sound you make is recorded and evaluated by the AI agent and reported to the staff. You get a Chinese social credit score while you play the game. There is nothing objective about "hate speech". It's always subjectively defined and can change at a whim. It's a model where you are always kept off balance. Egg shells. Immediate threats, fraud, and libel are much more defined. In game, if you say the wrong thing, which you may have an idea of what that is, but not precisely, you can be banned from the game. Every utterance in the game is being scrutinized. I don't feel welcome in a place like that, even if everything is harmonious. Then the speaker suggested rewarding good behavior--feels like picking up garbage in the Chinese village after work. I think we need version of Sweet Baby Inc Detected for these AI moderation services. I get the arguments for them, but is this really the future we want? I will admit the ability to age restrict voices and use prefabbed statements makes a lot of sense.
-The panelist who had data about children who aren't confident about their identity with their family retreating into VR touched a nerve. I'm just going to leave that one for now. As mentioned, not sure what the bounds are on LinkedIn these days, hate speech and all. There was a good discussion on when is the earliest appropriate age to start wearing XR hardware and also about the addictive nature of XR. I also liked hearing about the quandary: if you need to prove you are an adult, you must submit ID, and now that company is liable holding identifiable information. Not an easy problem to solve!
-The fireside chat with Qualcomm had some takeaways. I just find it odd how people can ideate so many amazing things about the future without immediately then thinking about how it can go off the rails. There was a discussion about a corporate Ministry of Truth for AI, and a dystopian offering of an AI agent that is your digital twin that can do all sorts of things you don't want to do. Interesting idea, but this surrender of agency just doesn't sit well with me. Once again, a call for having the LLM on the device was given, and then I thought, can this thing betray me? Do I lose my Fifth Amendment rights by having an ever-watching AI near me at all times?
-Something about digital twins that always bugged me. A simulation is never a perfect representation of the actual thing. I think we need more discussions on the level of detail. The lightning talk on the subject was still a good discussion.
-Looks like the FDA has the same kind of problems the DOD has: they don't know how to regulate XR because it's too new and breaks previous paradigms. As a panelist said, it wasn't until he traveled to the FDA an put the headset on the regulator, the regulator still just didn't "get it".
Conclusion:
And that's the real problem with writing any policy for XR: we're hurtling at break neck speed into the future. What I would recommend is to determine what values and principles are still uniformly shared by our continuously fracturing polity and shape how we move ahead with these are our outside-in tracking source. English common law works in a counter-intuitive way. If there isn't a law, you proceed as you desire. Only until a court is brought in to answer a question on the matter of law is the issue addressed. I didn't like the overall feel of this talk that this scary future we are hurtling towards demands immediate top down governance, where the globe has a large say for the sake of interoperability. I'm in Florida, not Sudan. Many of these matters are cultural, and start within the family, then move outward to society. That's how this Florida Man orients his life and his relationship with technology.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to put the alligator in the trash can and roll him back to the water; he's on the cul du sac again.