The most important parts of Intel’s new Vaunt smart glasses are the pieces that were left out.
There is no camera to creep people out, no button to push, no gesture area to swipe, no glowing LCD screen, no weird arm floating in front of the lens, no speaker, and no microphone (for now).
From the outside, the Vaunt glasses look just like eyeglasses. When you’re wearing them, you see a stream of information on what looks like a screen - but it’s actually being projected onto your retina.
This looks amazing. I'm not entirely sure if I, personally, have any use for this, but such basic, simple, handsfree information could be invaluable to, for instance, construction workers, farmers, police officers, or other people who do hard, dangerous work with their hands.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2007-02-18
Member since:2015-01-06
Member since:2011-01-28
jpkx1984,
You know, I am not happy that we've created an incentive to hide information in the first place. At some point we as a society should consider ditching the notion that having information is cheating and instead encourage it as a legitimate tool to advance human capacity. Instead of grading us in an information void without tools & material, education should try and find ways to keep students challenged with technology. Rather than training our brains to do tedious repetitive tasks, we could focus on higher level abstractions and maximize our benefit from computers. If traditional classwork becomes too trivial with technology, then maybe classwork itself needs to evolve.
It's just a thought, maybe one day not allowing technology on tests will be considered Luddite
Member since:2007-02-18
While I completely agree that our current methods of assessment can do with some assessment themselves, I think there are still benefits from training our brains to be able to do the hard work.
Imagine if we recovered and retaught the medieval techniques for memorization, like the mind-palace. You can actually learn to be very creative by figuring out how your own brain works.
Timed tests/exams for specific subjects rarely occur in the workplace so it's funny how people think they can assess anything remotely close to workplace performance.
Member since:2011-01-28
kwan_e,
Yes of course, I didn't mean to imply otherwise, haha. IMHO the goal of offloading things to tech is to free our brains to become more proficient at more advanced topics and maximizing our potential. Encouraging the use of tools in the classroom and on tests could, in effect, allow us to redefine what's "hard".
It's true, there's alot to be said for creativity, I never felt like my school or university did a great job at encouraging it. In many instances I even felt punished for going out of the box. I guess we could debate whether the use of artificial aides enhances or stifles creativity, but I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive. I also wonder about the drugs that many musicians/artists use to expand their creativity, I don't know if they have merit?
This resonates with me. Regurgitating facts for a test is completely irrelevant to anything I've done on the job. Could just be me, but I kind of wish I experienced more real world scenarios in my educational years. Real world isn't all roses of course, but I might have been better prepared to set expectations and evaluate job opportunities.
Member since:2014-08-28
I think both of you are kind of missing the point(s) on memorizing & cheating:
(1) The big issue is not having access to facts but having somebody else take the exam at the other end of the line. Or several somebodies working in parallel… That in effect negates the purpose of testing (i.e. neither the ability to memorize, nor the ability to find/interpret facts of the person taking the exam is being tested – just their ability to copy.)
(2) Memorizing stuff does have its virtues – at the very least, speed of recall. Don’t take my word for it, just try reading any text while looking up every other word in a dictionary because you do not have to memorize words. You need a minimum amount of memorized info to carry out a meaningful conversation in any language (English, Martian, math, physics...)
(3) Back to cheating – at least until such technology becomes ubiquitous (or is school-provided), the ability of some students to afford better tech should not be allowed to give them an advantage during tests. When using external info on a test is allowed, it should happen in a controlled and equitable manner.
Finally, on creativity: I think it is overrated in the context of studying. While I do try to encourage thinking (and I do teach from time to time), creativity must come after you’ve learned a sufficient part of what others have done, so that you can push the boundaries. Otherwise it is just random rambling about – you might stumble on something interesting but most probably will not. (Same applies about drugs and music – I guess there are a lot more users than genius artists. It is just we do not pay attention to the negative cases.)
Member since:2007-02-18
Uh no, I was pretty much on the side of learning memorization.
Then you missed the point of creativity. There is no order to acquiring creativity. Saying it must happen after something else is to miss the point entirely. Creativity is not subject specific. It's the most general thing.
Creativity is not even about pushing boundaries. You can work within a predetermined framework and still be creative. In fact, most creativity comes from having to work within limits and current knowledge.
Member since:2011-01-28
PeterS,
(1) The big issue is not having access to facts but having somebody else take the exam at the other end of the line. Or several somebodies working in parallel… That in effect negates the purpose of testing (i.e. neither the ability to memorize, nor the ability to find/interpret facts of the person taking the exam is being tested – just their ability to copy.)
Who says we missed the point? In another post I agreed with Brenden that it would be bad for students not to do their own work. I know that tests need to be fair. But one fact I don't think we can ignore here is that one way or another the technology is making it's way to the market (ie these smart glasses, mini projectors, digital tattoos, etc). The risks of cheating are increasing regardless of whether exams allow technology or not.
I had considered this, and it is true that speed can be important, however I see no reason it wouldn't just be factored into training and testing. Only the results matter in the end, right? I wouldn't punish doctors who get the same answers in the same timeframes through different means.
I assumed this would be a given, but yes absolutely it needs to be done fairly.
Bare in mind I didn't specifically have doctors in mind in my original post, but as an experiment I think it could be interesting to have doctors trained under both schools of thought to see how well each group performs at treating patients
Edited 2018-02-09 02:32 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
I'm reading right now a book of ~scifi novels "The Wind's Twelve Quarters" by Ursula K. Le Guin. In it, the author writes (I'm translating back from PL to EN...): "people who expand counciousness with the help of life, and not drugs, usually have more interesting things to tell"
Member since:2011-01-28
zima,
(my emphasis)
I don't know if it means anything, but most people will find stars like ozzy ozborne and steve jobs much more interesting than people like me.
https://www.thefix.com/content/steve-jobs-think-different-and-lsd-91...
The legacy of the legendary Apple genius is quickly being drafted by a worshipful worldwide media. But most obituaries omit his longtime love for LSD.
Of course, cherry picking celebrity examples is inherently biased. Yet I don't have to look that far in my personal life to find proponents of mind-altering drugs, some of whom make a better living than me. Based on that I find it hard to rationally criticize them for it.
Member since:2005-07-06
Arguably, Steve Jobs or Ozzy Ozborne are examples in support of Le Guin text that I quoted - each of them had, first and foremost, a rather rich life.
Probably most examples of drug users are negative though... (at least I knew most of such examples)
PS. And of course "The Wind's Twelve Quarters" is a book of short stories, not novels like I said (it was late and I mistakenly used "false friends" PL-EN word pair 
)
Edited 2018-02-13 17:30 UTC
Member since:2006-02-02
In high school, my physics instructor always had a sheet on the back of the test with all the equations and constants we'd need to solve the test questions (and usually a number of extraneous equations and constants).
His philosophy (and this was pre-internet), was that with things like the CRC handbook available, memorizing equations was a waste of time-- understanding the problem, and thus knowing *which* equations to use, was more important.
Member since:2007-02-18
In Western Australia, at least around my era of the TEE (the university entrance exam), all exams allowed anyone to take in one A4 sheet with notes on one side. It was up to you to choose what to put on it.
Of course, we also had graphics calculators and there were no limits on what programs you had.
Member since:2005-11-16
Hi,
How would you feel knowing that the surgeon that's about to cut you open learnt nothing during medical school and only passed because their friend fed them the answers during their exams?
- Brendan
Member since:2011-01-28
Brendan,
Students still need to learn and surgeons would still need to be evaluated for competency, but why would it be a bad thing for them to learn and be evaluated based on the more realistic conditions that they'll see in the real world?
I think if they're denied the use of reference material on exams in medical school then there's a very serious risk that tests end up promoting the wrong skills and doctors will become proficient at memorizing answers for the tests but quickly forget it later on. I've seen it first hand how some people can get high grades by memorizing the answers and still be highly incompetent.
Arguably the best doctors will be the ones who can make the best diagnoses regardless of how they find it. To the extent that they're going to have access to technology on the job, then IMHO it makes the most sense for them to train and test with it so that finding answers among the mountains of knowledge becomes ingrained as second nature.
It occurs to me that I ignored the later part of your post "...because their friend fed them the answers during their exams?" and as such I may have answered a different question than the one you asked. Oops. I'll leave what I already wrote, but I do agree that everyone should do their own work!
Edited 2018-02-08 03:08 UTC
Member since:2009-12-10
Sometimes it is needed to learn the basics of a subject before you can build on top of it. This is in particular important in math.
Those tests can rarely be realistic as usually the basics are automated in computer programs and tools. If you allow someone to google the solution they will often find the answer, but that doesn't mean they understand why the answer works or could create it from scratch.
Member since:2011-01-28
dpJudas,
Those tests can rarely be realistic as usually the basics are automated in computer programs and tools. If you allow someone to google the solution they will often find the answer, but that doesn't mean they understand why the answer works or could create it from scratch.
Sure, I agree with that, we need to understand how pieces fit together, but I would suggest this is a already a pre-existing problem in the way schools teach today (or at least as I experienced it). Grading incentives can encourage short term memorization over analytical thinking.
I doubt most teachers were ever trained to teach effectively with computers, but I actually think given the right tools it could be highly effective in increasing understanding of the subject over traditional pencil and paper and one way presentations. Even when you've learned the material enough to solve problems on a math quiz, a solid understanding of how variables interact with each other can remain elusive. For example, I "learned" the euler equations and tayler series in school but it was vague and I didn't truly grasp them until later in life with better visualization tools at my disposal. I have more confidence in my own understanding of them than I had in school even though I was able to solve the equations.
For people like me who learn best with a hands on approach, there's simply no textbook alternative to using a spreadsheet/numerical analysis/cad program to truly interact with the data. Personally, I learn better with technology than without; I suspect many people are the same way. Moreover, those who mastered problem solving with technology will be far better situated for the professional world than someone who's merely book smart with formulas that can be looked up. I plan to teach my own kids complex math using computers, should they express any interest
You do raise valid concerns, but IMHO it's nevertheless a net benefit. Anyways, enough of my opinion, I was curious what others think, thank you for your opinion! I totally hijacked the conversation, but I don't have much to say about intel's smart glasses haha.
Member since:2007-02-18
Ben Carson (omg remember him?) proves that you can pass those tests and still not really be a good doctor, or intelligent.
Your example is actually a counter example to your point because it shows the assessment style is wrong for the job.
Surgeons, regardless of how well they pass exams, have to also demonstrate stamina and steadiness of the hand. Imagine how many people could be trained as surgeons if we assessed them based on how well they can perform long surgeries alone.
What we have now are overworked surgeons, because there aren't enough, leading to more and more mistakes, driving up insurance for both patient and surgeon, leading to even fewer people able to become surgeons. Surgeons already have a contingent of doctors and nurses working alongside, so what's one more person whose job is to know all the facts and can provide guidance during the surgery.
Member since:2008-07-15
Funny, you've just described education as it currently is, medical included. So I don't know, how do you feel about that?
Member since:2011-04-11
Funny, you've just described education as it currently is, medical included. So I don't know, how do you feel about that? "
I feel that you are wrong.
Ever spoken to a MD? They tend to know their shit and also understand how to apply their knowledge.
Before being put under ask your anesthesiologist what they use, how they use it, what they monitor and why and how they handle emergencies (allergic reactions, oxygen deprivation, heart problems++).
10+ years of training: know their shit.
Member since:2007-02-18
Member since:2011-01-28
Brendan,
I just saw this news article, and while it's only tangentially related and not a response to you, it reminded me of the discussion we were having. Apparently doctors working for some private insurance companies and responsible for approving and denying coverage do not understand the medical conditions and do not even look at patient records.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/11/health/aetna-california-investigation...
Questioned about Washington's condition, Iinuma said he wasn't sure what the drug of choice would be for people who suffer from his condition.
Iinuma further says he's not sure what the symptoms are for the disorder or what might happen if treatment is suddenly stopped for a patient.
"Do I know what happens?" the doctor said. "Again, I'm not sure. ... I don't treat it."
Iinuma said he never looked at a patient's medical records while at Aetna. He says that was Aetna protocol and that he based his decision off "pertinent information" provided to him by a nurse.
"Did you ever look at medical records?" Scott Glovsky, Washington's attorney, asked Iinuma in the deposition.
"No, I did not," the doctor says, shaking his head.
"So as part of your custom and practice in making decisions, you would rely on what the nurse had prepared for you?" Glovsky asks.
"Correct."
Iinuma said nearly all of his work was conducted online. Once in a while, he said, he might place a phone call to the nurse for more details.
How many times might he call a nurse over the course of a month?
"Zero to one," he said.
Yikes! How do you feel about that?
Member since:2007-04-18
Member since:
2014-01-08
Member since:2009-05-28
Member since:
2009-07-08
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2011-08-08
Member since:2006-07-14
Member since:2011-08-08
Member since:
2015-10-30
The funny thing is that the 'smart' branding doesn't exactly fit. They're a highly specialized display system, but there's no AI, no special functionality beyond the display, and to be honest not really all that much processing involved beyond the simple flattening to monochrome and planar distortion of the image to get it to look right (both of which are also done by regular displays). It's like calling a TV a 'smart TV' just because it's a rear-projection DLP system (which is essentially the equivalent of what these are doing based on how they're described).
Member since:
2005-09-08
Member since:2006-07-14
Member since:
2010-06-01
There are two categories of users for such hardware.
Private customers, and business users. No microphone, no speakers, and no camera is only acceptable to first category.
For business users microphone and camera enables remote work for smaller tasks. Think, factory worker asking more experience worker for advice on dealing with unusual work, or same worker asking somebody else for ACK of his part of the job, etc.
Member since:
2011-08-08
I'm simply not excited about "smart glasses". There's nothing it can offer than isn't already easily available to me by other devices, which, don't project images directly onto my retina. It's funny that the first application they show is gps. Really? Everything has built-in gps now. Every vehicle I own and my phone will either show me a map or speak directions to me. I guess that isn't good enough so now they've made glasses to do the same thing.
I'm not convinced "smart glasses" offer anything new or better. Intel doesn't seem to have an answer to that either and is relying on their "Early Access" program for developers to figure it out for them. Who wants to bet a Twitter feed app and a Facebook feed app will be among the first developed?
"Smart glasses" are a solution looking for a problem. I'll pass.