Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Feb 2018 01:10 UTC
Intel

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.

Thread beginning with comment 653664
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Retinal projection
by Alfman on Wed 7th Feb 2018 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Retinal projection"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

kwan_e,

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.


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".

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.


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?


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.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Retinal projection
by PeterS on Thu 8th Feb 2018 23:05 in reply to "RE[4]: Retinal projection"
PeterS 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.)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Retinal projection
by kwan_e on Fri 9th Feb 2018 00:01 in reply to "RE[5]: Retinal projection"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I think both of you are kind of missing the point(s) on memorizing & cheating:


(2) Memorizing stuff does have its virtues


Uh no, I was pretty much on the side of learning memorization.

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.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Retinal projection
by Alfman on Fri 9th Feb 2018 02:16 in reply to "RE[5]: Retinal projection"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

PeterS,

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.)


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.

(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...)


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.

(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.


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

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Retinal projection
by zima on Mon 12th Feb 2018 00:25 in reply to "RE[4]: Retinal projection"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I also wonder about the drugs that many musicians/artists use to expand their creativity, I don't know if they have merit?

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"

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Retinal projection
by Alfman on Mon 12th Feb 2018 02:01 in reply to "RE[5]: Retinal projection"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

zima,

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"

(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...
Steve Jobs: LSD Was One of The Best Things I've Done in My Life
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.

Reply Parent Score: 2