It had to be designed in a social way, in the sense that five or six children interacting with a single object, settings like that. For K-12, I’m not aware of anything specific like the thing you offer here, in the K-12 curriculum that’s taking effect about a year and ...
Exactly.
For K-12, there are KPIs around digital and media literacy in K-12 curriculum but it’s not strictly vocational in the way that you displayed it. It’s more about...
If you do want to work directly with universities, it will have either to be private universities, or you will have to find yourself a way into fulfilling some specific Ministry of Education goals, which I’m not aware of anything corresponding to your plan, at this moment.
In Taiwan, public universities are not companies, in the strict sense. They are more like units in the Ministry of Education.
The contents are still going to be useful.
Like three or five years in the future.
Yes.
They shouldn’t be finding any details on the parts that my eyes are not looking but it’s not detailed enough in the parts that I actually look, which my eyes focused on and things like that.
Exactly. At some point, in the office next door, they’ve got all the VR devices and there’s an uncanny valley, like a period where the VR/AR gets almost good enough but not quite. Then, it does create a jarring experience for people who spend extended time in it because it’s ...
If we use that for communication, then it’s not actually represented in the other side. It’s mostly extrapolated...
Then I do worry about the current generation of VR/AR devices because it requires a lot of extrapolation to the person in the environment for their brains to fill in because the device doesn’t really know where my eyes are looking and the device doesn’t really capture my minor expressions.
One thing with your Human 2.0 vision, I think what your vision distinguishes between the Matrix-like scenario is that it enables humans to still feel useful in a society and focus people’s attention on each other instead of through some fake intermediaries, right? That was the main idea?
That’s exactly right because you are imagining 30-years of innovation.
Do you actually work with a neural lace lab?
No, it all makes perfect sense. Do you have a neural lace lab?
It would be challenging.
Really?
We can create the future. We don’t have to predict it.
HoloLens?
Environmental annotations.
We got a demo last time.
That’s OK.
Well then it’s not really gaze-controlled.
Not my eyeballs?
I have to move my head?
Sure.
It’s a phone?
What is this?
[laughs]
Everybody.
Perhaps we’re getting there. [laughs]
You don’t think social media is a dignified purpose within life?
It’s fine for me.
Of course.
Very good to see you again.
Nice meeting you again.
That’s great.
That’s fine. I don’t have anything else afterwards. [laughs]
Or advising, but yes.
Awesome.
Radically, actually.
Great.
How can I help? Oh, yeah. We’ll be recording this. We’ll make a transcript, and we’ll send it to you for editing for 10 days before publishing.
This happens every two months, and it’s been five years. So, you’ve come to the right thing.
This is an unconference, being there is no agenda. There’s just people pitching their solutions or the problems that they’re looking to solve. People wear badges outlining their expertise. Then there’s open space technology where people still like to go into corners of the project they’re interested in, and just ...
There will be, roughly speaking, maybe 50 active programmers, maybe 30-ish designers, but with many other people being just like you, are working on climate change, working on different kind of social issues and things like that.
It’s in the same place where I have my office hour. It’s the Taiwan Air Force round. It’s, I think, one of the coming Saturdays. It’s 200 people. There’s still 100 slots. Come to the hackathon.
