Virtual Environments: Is one life enough?

John was suffering from the beginnings of flu so asked the class to be patient and let me know if I get delirious and wander off the point. I had a comforting drink to keep the tickle from my throat and we opened the class with some feedback on the visit to Virtual Ability a few weeks ago.

Everyone agreed that it made you aware of the potential SL has for very real social engagement in ways you hadn’t previously considered. You were also impressed by the amazing stories told by the community members we met. Of particular interest was the fact that two of them had met in SL and since married in both SL and RL. The opportunity for independent and fulfilling engagement between the members was notable. This went some way to explaining the enduring popularity of SL despite the ageing technology. Despite the low-res avatars and the cartoon-like environment the sense of immersion supports genuine social engagement.

Over the 16 or so years that SL has been in existence the number of communities that have grown up is remarkable and their embeddedness seems to ensure a positive future for the virtual world. The financial viability of such environments remains an open question. Philip Rosedale, the original developer of SL who left the company in 2010, moved on in 2013 to start a new venture known as High Fidelity with the aim of providing a higher quality interface (more realistic avatars with facial expressions reflecting the user’s own and 3D audio). But, it has taken until now to get into serious beta testing.

John’s avatar in Philip Rosedale’s High Fidelity virtual world.

There is a plethora of other virtual world platforms catering to different market segments and interest groups but, the future of virtual worlds remains an open question for the time being.

We spoke about how virtual worlds might become a more regular form of communication and interaction, referring to books, movies and games that explore the idea such as Ready Player One and Pokemon. Dogboy and Kebab referred to the YouTube comedy sketch about an online doctor by Foil Arms and Hog that aptly highlights the shortcomings of technology. John referred back to the discussion on McLuhan which warned that our tools don’t simply help society but also have an very real impact and will change who and what we are. As the conversation moved on to Artificial Intelligence (AI) he referred to the famous Turing Test that the University of Reading claims was passed by a chatbot called Eugene in 2014.

We tried predicting the kinds of jobs that are under threat by robots and AI: anything that has a repetitive element, whether physical or intellectual or that requires the recalling facts from a vast store of knowledge or information. It seems that the creative abilities of humans are the most difficult to automate and might, therefore, be the least susceptible to AI. The creative process and the ability to generate content of value is, of course, the most elusive of human activities. Creativity is a natural ability and is one of the attributes that sets us apart from other animals, coupled with intelligence it is the reason the human race has developed with such sophistication to its current state. We have access to the widest possible set of accessible tools and anyone can reach a global audience. Now, as we shall see next week, the challenge is to save the planet from ourselves and our endless creative abilities.