[HN Gopher] Cyborgs vs. rooms, two visions for the future of com...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Cyborgs vs. rooms, two visions for the future of computing
        
       Author : surprisetalk
       Score  : 19 points
       Date   : 2025-10-19 13:16 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (interconnected.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (interconnected.org)
        
       | exmadscientist wrote:
       | One of the other important points about rooms and cyborgs is what
       | partial participation looks like.
       | 
       | If I don't like the room, I'm able to get up and leave. It might
       | be difficult and annoying, and I might have to end up in the
       | middle of the woods or desert or something, but I can do it.
       | (Yes, we are increasingly making this harder and harder to do, by
       | cyborging "the system" itself -- think things like the demise of
       | cash, or the requirements for digital ID cards, or ... -- but you
       | get the idea.)
       | 
       | If I'm a cyborg, how do I leave? Can I leave? Do I even control
       | myself anymore? Being a cyborg sounds great if I control my
       | "wetware". Which I probably do not. (Do you control the computing
       | device you're reading this message on? Really? The Linux kernel
       | being open source might be really nice (it _is_ really nice), but
       | even if you have the de jure ability to control it, do you have
       | the practical ability to do so? And then there 's the hardware.
       | Any way you trace the hardware, you'll end up with quartz wafers
       | from Spruce Pine. Do you have _any_ way to replicate that?) There
       | is no way in hell I 'd want to be someone else's cyborg, which
       | means that with the state of the tech world, I don't want to be a
       | cyborg at all.
        
         | hrimfaxi wrote:
         | I don't think the average person can appreciate the
         | implications of trusting trust in a cyborg/augment world.
        
       | moffkalast wrote:
       | Ok the visitor cursors are really something else, it's unnerving.
       | Super cool though.
        
         | VegaKH wrote:
         | I hated that. I didn't find it cool, just weird and
         | distracting.
        
         | strix_varius wrote:
         | ...and now the site is down. Hope the cursors were worth it!
        
           | ge96 wrote:
           | what if... cursor using a cursor
        
         | gwbas1c wrote:
         | I used the F12 debugger to find the websocket, and then I
         | blocked the cursorparty domain.
        
         | Animats wrote:
         | There's a "quiet mode" switch at the upper right to turn that
         | off. At first, I thought it was something that led to more
         | info, but apparently not.
         | 
         | The author seems to have smashed the "AI" and "metaverse"
         | concepts together to create - what?
        
       | riffic wrote:
       | This ultimately looks like the good old Centralization /
       | Decentralization Pendulum playing out over and over and over
       | again (Mainframes gave way to Personal Computers which gave way
       | to Client/Server architecture to Mobile devices to Cloud to yet
       | another neverending pendulum swing).
       | 
       | Keep up, please?
        
       | gwbas1c wrote:
       | I don't think it has to be either-or.
       | 
       | I suspect wearables will be cheaper than augmented rooms, so they
       | will probably "win" in the sense that mobile phones outnumber
       | desktop computers.
       | 
       | That being said, I suspect the experience of being in an
       | augmented room will be "worth it" and many people will pay big
       | bucks for them.
        
         | rapind wrote:
         | Agreed, and rooms is obviously going to be out of reach for
         | most of the world's population.
        
       | lsy wrote:
       | I think this leaves out what is probably the most likely future
       | for this technology, having a similar destiny to most
       | technologies as a _tool_. Both of these visions assume (I think
       | incorrectly) a trend towards ubiquity, where either every
       | interaction _you_ as a person have is mediated by computers, or
       | where within a certain  "room" every interaction _anyone_ has is
       | mediated by computers.
       | 
       | But it seems more likely that like other technologies developed
       | by humanity, we will see that computers are not efficient for, or
       | extensible to, every task, and people will naturally tend to
       | reach for computers where they are helpful and be disinclined to
       | do so when they aren't helpful. Some computers will be in rooms,
       | some will get carried around or worn, some will be integrated
       | into infrastructure.
       | 
       | Similar to the automobile, steam powered motors, and electricity,
       | we may predict a future where the technology totally pervades our
       | lives, but in reality we eventually develop a sort of
       | infrastructure that delimits the tool's use to a certain extent,
       | whether it is narrow or wide. If that's the case then the work
       | for the field is less about shoving the tech into every
       | interaction, and more about developing better abstractions to
       | allow people to use compute in an empowering rather than a
       | disempowering way.
        
       | moralestapia wrote:
       | I believe both will happen and each one will develop its own
       | cult-like following.
       | 
       | If I had to choose today, I'd 100% go for the rooms. I don't
       | really like wearing anything, and I like the idea of being able
       | to just "walk out" of it, kind of like when I close my laptop.
       | Only problem is tech might become omnipresent (it kind of already
       | is) so one would not be able to just "leave".
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-10-22 23:01 UTC)