= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MattG comments on Open thread, Sep. 21 - Sep. 27, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (133)
I'll bet you 10$ that within 5 years there will be a test for virtual reality in prisons, and that it will have some statistically significant positive effects.
I don't know about Lumifer, but I'd certainly be willing to take that bet.
I am not sure what that means.
In any case the my point is a bit different. I am rather amazed at the suggestion that locking someone up in a solitary cell so that she sees no human beings, not even a patch of sky or a blade of grass for her entire sentence can be compensated by a pair of VR goggles.
I mean, right now, no. But that's not really the point the post is trying to make (I think). The point is that in 50 years when VR has gone through the adoption curve and become ubiquitous, when as many people are on a metaverse as are one facebook, when haptics are mainstream and computing power has improved enough that we can render near photoreal experiences, then maybe, a proposal like the one in the post will be feasible.
The point of my bet (which, after reflection, was probably overconfident), is that there are dozens of steps to the future above, and that just because the end results seems unimaginable, it's not hard to imagine other, smaller things that are likely, and which when added up will lead to the unimaginable future of the post.
I think the OP wasn't trying to make a point. I think he is afraid of prisons (and specifically afraid of prison rape), so he decided to design a prison system which he, personally, would find tolerable. The only solution to his fears that he found was full isolation -- and the rest follows from there.
None of what you list will make this proposal feasible.
This seems non-obvious to me (obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have said it).
What's needed to make the proposal feasible is that VR is seen as a plausible substitue for in-person interaction, and that the cost of VR for every prisoner is less than the cost of the correspending physical actions. All of what I mentioned in the post goes towards those two things.
Not "seen", but "is". Do you think photorealistic VR can be a full and complete substitute for human interaction? Is it a problem that can be solved by pushing more pixels through the goggles?
Don't forget that your prison population isn't particularly smart, tends to have mental health issues, and you would like them to adequately function in the real world after release.
Why? All that it takes for policy change is perception, not reality.
What do you mean?
I mean, if a buerecrat thinks that VR is as good as normal social interaction for prisoners, and they think that it's cheaper, and they think that they'll get public support for this, they'll implement it as a policy. It doesn't matter whether VR is actually as good as normal social interaction, only the perception of it.
So are you arguing that it's a good idea, or are you just arguing that this passes the very low threshold of being an idea that some idiot will try once?