All posts from turtlethink.com

According to James Au’s Second Life blog, New World Notes, Philip Rosedale is “working towards creating a sentient artificial intelligence which exists in a virtual world.” Rosedale’s ambiguous new company LoveMachine lists as one of the three projects on its website: “The Brain. Can 10,000 computers become a person?” To that I would probably answer a simple “no.” Creating a successful Internet-based virtual world surely took a lot of boldness, ambition, and chutzpah, but not even that is in the same ballpark as creating an AGI! (The other company goals are almost equally lofty: Work. Software for companies to work better and faster. and Money. A digital replacement for world currencies.)

Virtual worlds are a natural setting for experimenting and testing various AI applications and appear especially suited for “general” intelligence development because of their broadness, openness and theoretical lack of limitations and rules. Ben Goertzel and his company, Novamente, have been working on virtual pets and the results are pretty interesting. So while projects such as these are something to get excited about, it’s hard not to dismiss bigheaded goals as worthless hype without seeing the real work that has gone into specific planning and execution – at least something that does not recall the infamous Underpants Gnome plan of 1)Collect underpants 2)??? 3)Profit. So while I don’t think much will come out of this, I have to issue the small warning that the distinction between “virtual” and “real” is pretty nonexistent. All that data is comprised of real code stored on real servers with real physical locations managed by real people… And again while I do remain skeptical of anyone achieving anything close to sentient intelligence anytime soon, I am also a bit concerned about singular commercial entities working secretly on a closed AGI system. Not involving all stakeholders – that is, ALL OF US – raises some ethical quandaries that at least need to be debated.
I would put someone like Philip Rosedale (proven record, visionary thinker, deep pockets and connections) pretty high on the list of people that could make some serious headway in the field, especially in potential commercial applications; he certainly tackles the big issues. Let’s just hope Philip Rosedale doesn’t resemble Watchmen’s Ozymandias…

[New World Notes - Philip Rosedale Attempting to Create Sentient Artificial Intelligence That Thinks and Dreams in Second Life!]

I have been “gathering my thoughts” for a post on the internet for things for a few months now. And I am still gathering my thoughts. I don’t want to stall writing, so I will simply throw out a couple of things I’ve recently been thinking about.
IoT
Mark Weiser, father of Ubiquitous Computing states: “the most profound technologies are those that disappear…they weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.” Weiser was essentially talking about the internet of things. When you consider technology being weaved, let’s think of it as networked into the fabric of everyday life. All things networked to one another and communicating. Devices acting as sensors for intelligent data collection. A system of systems. Real time cloud-based intelligence delivered to mobile applications. Your fridge talking to the washing machine talking to your community electricity grid and making intelligent energy decisions — all the while giving you real time data to do … well whatever you want to do with that data. Our world, both the natural environment and the one we have constructed, is being connected and data is being collected on nearly everything. Can we make this meaningful? The true definition of the internet of things will be defined by the community that begins to embrace it. People will decide want to do (or not to do) with all that rich data and control over the “things” in their lives.
Get Up To Speed
Read Write Web posted two great videos on the topic earlier this week. I highly recommend checking both out, one is a short introduction by IBM and the other is an EXCELLENT talk by Tim O’Reilly.

FabLabs and IoT
As I am currently based in a FabLab, I am seeing first hand the development of the internet of things and the (relative) ease at which people are able to make physically networked devices. People are creating personalized mechanical Twitter notifiers, web connected communication portals for pets, web connected DIY security systems and thousands of other hackers doing all kinds of fun projects [See Make Magazine for tons of examples].
FabLab’s will play an enormous role in the internet of things as personal manufacturing becomes more attainable. I recently attended MOMO# 15 (Mobile Mondays Amsterdam) and the topic was internet of things. Martijn Pannvis, from MOMO, built a nice demo at a FabLab to illustrate the concept to the audience. It was a wooden indicator that read information from Twitter. People in the audience had to tweet, with the hash tag (#momo ams), whether they thought the iPhone or Android was the mobile platform of the future. The wooden indicator was pulling information in real time and moved from left to right as people voted on Twitter (iPhone won). A nice example to illustrate the concept.
FabLab’s provide people with the tools to make almost anything. Today, people can email each other files half way around the globe and 3D print or CNC mill a product in a matter of hours. Microcontrollers like Arduino are proving incredible platforms for the development of electronics and interactivity. Open-source communities and online/offline forums are providing people with the knowledge on how to make almost anything. FabLabs, along with Hackerspaces, are at the center of this empowerment [see blog post on Hackerspace and FabLab]. I highly recommend watching Neil Gernshfeld’s talk on programming Bits and Atoms, which is directly tied to the future of fabbing the internet of things :

Virtual Worlds and IoT
Virtual Worlds were a particular interest of mine for a few years, and I did my thesis on Second Life and Healthcare. During my research, I often spoke about how virtual worlds were going to seamlessly weave themselves into the fabric of our daily lives (getting old yet?). When I was communicating this point to friends and colleagues, people could not picture this as a meaningful addition and considered it a mere disconnection from reality. I don’t think I saw it as clearly then as I do now, I believe the internet of things is what I was talking about. Where everything becomes hyper-real and connected. For every physical action there is a virtual representation. In the most basic sense, there is data associated with physical occurrences which turns digital. For some, this will simply mean numbers, codes, and for others it will mean avatars and graphical rich representations. The virtual world is simply an extension of the physical with full interoperability. Think augmented reality + internet of things.
Still Thinking…
It will be very interesting to see how the Internet of things will shape our future AND how we will shape our future with the internet of things. Everything having sensors and mass data logging brings up some serious and scary implications about privacy. As I said, I am still gathering my thoughts, so I will leave that for a different post.
I would love to know what others are thinking about this topic.

My first physical computing project is complete! The Auduino: A DIY synthesizer.

Auduino: DIY Arduino Synthesizer from Mark Kizelshteyn on Vimeo.
A fantastic project by the tinker.it (Arduino) team, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in getting into electronics, using Arduino or just wants to build a synth. All code, designs and schematics are open under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License. All files (designs, code et cetera) I used/made can be downloaded below.
A friend showed me his Auduino, and I needed to build one too! I decided to make a few modifications to the original. I added a switch that enables a light dependent resistor (LDR) to control the rate of the noise, which essentially means the more light that hits the resistor, the faster the tempo. When the switch is on, it disables the associated potentiometer and enables the LDR. It’s a fun addition and you get the chance to put your whole body (or just hand) into the synth.
I also did not want to commit to one mapping of the Auduino — I liked both the the smooth frequency and the stepped pentatonic mapping, so I added a switch to move between the two synthesiser parameters.
The code:

if (digitalRead(SWITCH)) {
// Smooth frequency mapping
//syncPhaseInc = mapPhaseInc(analogRead(SYNC_CONTROL)) / 4;
// Stepped mapping to MIDI notes: C, Db, D, Eb, E, F...
syncPhaseInc = mapMidi(analogRead(SYNC_CONTROL));
}
else {
// Stepped pentatonic mapping: D, E, G, A, B
syncPhaseInc = mapPentatonic(analogRead(SYNC_CONTROL));
}

This is the schematic for the way I wired my Auduino. I used Fritzing software, which is also a great beginner tool for prototyping your circuit board. Fritzing is a neat open source project, I recommend checking them out.

Lastly, I needed to design an enclosure, which was also a first. Inspired by enclosure extraordinaire, Xander (see his work at machinecollective.org), I designed a simple yet functional enclosure in Illustrator and cut it using a laser cutter. After two failed enclosures, the third one fit! I initially wanted to have it enclosed in black satin acrylic, but I ended up with a transparent enclosure so I could see the components. In retrospect, I should have stuck with the black as the transparency detracts from the minimilist aesthetic I sought. I have attached my designs here — feel free to use/modify (CC license).
How does it work?
Tinker.it explains: “Sound is generated by playing the same noise (‘grain’) repeatedly at very high speed. This merges into a tone that is an audible hybrid of the repetition rate and the original grain. It sounds quite similar to an oscillator with two resonating bandpass filters, although the different architecture means there are lots of additional interesting noises at parameter extremes. The grain consists of two triangular waves of adjustable frequency, and adjustable decay rate. This is based on FOF synthesis model, but using triangle waves instead of sine and using a rectangular window. The repetition rate is set by another control.”
Build one too! After spending the last few months at the CabFabLab, I have been become enamored by physical computing, and I have been reading makezine fairly religiously now. If you are just getting into this world, like me, it is a fun blog to read.
Resources:
- The Google group that details the project here.
- My minor edit to the code can be found here.
- My illustrator designs can be found here.
- My Fritzing file (schematic details) can be found here.

The attendees of Thursday night’s Bootstrapping and Agility meetup at Rotterdam witnessed the unveiling of a very neat idea that could very well change the game of business plan submissions. Though presented in a “tongue-in-cheek” manner, I believe the concept solves a very real problem: clear communication between entrepreneurs presenting new ventures and investors seeking new opportunities. Many ideas begin from a playful starting point; only when one takes a step back and really evaluates them is their actual merit realized.
The presentation comes from Peter Hilton (@PeterHilton) of Lunatech, part early stage VC firm and part software development company and the gracious hosts of the event. Inspired by the simplicity and success of the Creative Commons icons, which condense pages of information that no one ever reads into an easily-understandable symbol accompanied by a sentence of text, Peter proposes to apply that exact same logic to business plans. In reality many submitted business plans are simply not read by investors – they are too long, too boring, or too convoluted. Naturally, the entrepreneurs who write them want to go into as much detail as possible in their plans while the investors that read them just want to see the very core points.
This inherent rift that persists between investors and entrepreneurs is bridged by creating icon-based business plans, which condense a thick proposal to an easily-digestible single cover page. The system provides a way for entrepreneurs to present exactly what they are offering in a standardized common visual language. It has the potential to save a lot of time (and frustration) for both ends. Of course, this is not meant to replace a business plan, but rather act as an initial filter for at least getting the right ideas through the door.
Lunatech imagines this as a simple web app where users can check-off all the standard descriptions that apply to them, producing a final page of icons that can each be accompanied by no more than an additional 140 characters of descriptive text. This should be enough for any investor to know whether they want to meet with you or not, and to easily identify the strong and weak points of your proposal.
Peter’s entire presentation can be seen here. Please note that this is the first time this has been presented, it is in the very early stages, and they are still very much working on the concept.

History’s greatest grandmaster Garry Kasparov just wrote an in-depth review of Diego Rasskin-Gutman’s newly published “Chess Metaphors: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Mind” for the New York Review of Books. The article provides a spectacular summary of the history of computer chess programs and the AI engines that power them. What makes it a must-read, however, is Kasparov’s personal anecdotes about his own experiences playing computers, including, of course, his notorious loss to IBM’s Deep Blue in their 1997 rematch (Kasparov won the first match in 1996). This not only marked the first time a computer defeated a world chess champion, but was also seen around the world, for better or for worse, as the conclusive tipping point when raw machine intelligence overcame what we mere humans could handle.
Kasparov occupies an entirely unique post in the history of world chess champions – the tables turned during his guard. He started out in the mid-80s being able to beat the most sophisticated chess programs conclusively every single time; during the late-90s the exact reverse situation materialized. In fact, by the beginning of the new millennium $50 commercially available chess programs running on regular PCs could “crush most grandmasters” and when Kasparov last played two serious matches with such programs (in 2003) they both ended in a tie.
Of course Kasparov reminds as that just because computers can now decisively win at chess doesn’t mean that “chess is solved.” He writes:
“The number of legal chess positions is 1040, the number of different possible games, 10120. Authors have attempted various ways to convey this immensity, usually based on one of the few fields to regularly employ such exponents, astronomy…Diego Rasskin-Gutman points out that a player looking eight moves ahead is already presented with as many possible games as there are stars in the galaxy. Another staple…is to say there are more possible chess games than the number of atoms in the universe.”
Even if there were such a thing as “solving chess” – that is, both sides continuously playing the perfect game – these impressive numbers highlight how mathematically difficult, probably impossible it would be to actually accomplish this feat. And even if this were hypothetically possible, Kasparov notes the importance of not confusing narrow AI applications, such as playing chess, with general intelligence of the sort that allows humans to think, intuit, dream, walk up stairs, wash the dishes – to generally lead the kind of lives expected of (relatively) advanced sentient beings. Chess has been used for centuries as the ultimate metaphor for the mind, but Kasparov finally concludes that “perhaps chess is the wrong game for the times.”
Enter: Poker
Many players, including myself and several of my friends, started out playing poker directly from the chess world; yes the opportunity for profit is greater, but it is also because poker in many ways is more complex and challenging than chess. While chess is a 100% information game and entirely susceptible to computer calculation, poker is defined by hidden information and contains nuanced elements such as tells, bluffing, and emotional control which span distinct fields such as social psychology, risk-management, and game theory – all aspects that make it significantly more problematic both for players and AI programmers to master.
Something I have been advocating for several years, and it seems that Kasparov and others agree: Poker is where AI gaming researchers should be focused. Whereas chess programs can now consistently beat anyone in the world, no one has yet figured out how to beat advanced human players at poker. And it’s surely not for lack of effort – there are dozens of entities working on this problem every day. In fact, some claim that they have already built software that profitably beats online poker (for example: “How I Built a Working Poker Bot”). There are many others out there, and some make the claim that they are consistently winning. Of course it is difficult to assess the success of these programs – especially since many of them are likely not even public – yet I remain skeptical. It is probably possible to program something to beat the microlimits, but entering the realm of even mid-stakes amateur play is an entirely different ballgame.

I write this not to disregard people’s present efforts, but to encourage AI researchers to view the poker platform with the same enthusiasm and seriousness that I believe it deserves. The many disparate fields from which players must simultaneously draw information and the very social nature of the game make it perfectly suited for some truly interesting research of advanced gaming AI, and, dare I say it, even research dealing with problems of strong AI. At least it is surely more accurate than chess as a metaphor both of the mind and of the way humans interact with the world. A few brief reasons:

-Minds operate on heuristics, not algorithms.
-Our existence can be summed up as making choices in the face of limited information.
-We operate within a social context.
-Information that is presented to you may be false, and will surely be false >0% of the time.
-Individual instances of “chance” exist and do matter.
-There are limited resources and different entities have varying amounts of control over those resources.
-There are many variables from varying realms that go into making even the simplest decisions.

Let’s go beyond poker bots that can at best squeeze out profits playing for pennies, and begin thinking about a poker AI than can adapt to individual players, can make unwarranted bluffs only to establish a crazy image for uncertain future gains, can vary it’s playing style – in short, can outthink its opponents. Perhaps while venturing down this road of creating a social, competitive agent, one driven by the same impulses of survival and will towards progress that guide biological life, we will come one step closer to the birth of a true thinking machine. Just be careful: never trust a poker player.

[The Chess Master and the Computer, Garry Kasparov - New York Review of Books]
[Cylons Playing Poker via Anthony J. Cox]

Anatoly Zenkov created a Java application that monitors your mouse movement. I ran it for a few hours throughout the day while surfing the web, writing emails and working in illustrator. And this is what happened….

The lines are where I moved my mouse and the black circles are pointer stops (not clicks). You can run this little app and see what you can create by downloading it from Zenkov: Mac or PC. How does yours look?

3.6 Zettabytes is a wooden puzzle created by me and Mark Kizelshteyn that visually and haptically illustrates media consumption in the United States. The title refers to the total amount of information data absorbed by the country for the year 2008 as calculated by a recent study (December 2009) published by the Global Information Industry Center at the University of California, San Diego. A zettabye is equal to one sextillion = 10^21 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes, or roughly 5.1 trillion average PC hard drives of data!
The puzzle represents information consumption measured in hours [per American, per day] across seven major media categories — television, radio, print, phone, recorded music, computer, and videogames. Average time spent on each activity is mapped to the area of the brain; the total brain represents a 24-hour day while the surface area of each puzzle piece proportionally represents the time spent on that activity. Blank puzzle pieces signify time spent on anything else other than information consumption. Along with hours average data measured in gigabytes is also provided.

A 19th century phrenology diagram is employed as the basis for the puzzle. The juxtaposition between a familiar antique design and the absolutely contemporary, futuristic, almost unbelievable data that it communicates provides extra contrast for users to appreciate just how fully the modern-day media landscape has permeated our lives. When phrenology diagrams were first made this map/brain would have been almost completely blank, with maybe a tiny dot representing the very few citizens who had enough time to read books.
The board is made out of two pieces of 30 X 35 X 0.3 cm three-layer birch plywood and was cut with an Epilog Mini 24 Laser Cutter. Special thanks to the CabFabLab for making the project happen! More pictures after the jump.
Reference: Roger E. Bohn & James E. Short (2009). “How Much Information? 2009 Report on American Consumers.” Global Information Industry Center at the University of California, San Diego. – [pdf]

“At one time a computer was a job description rather than a machine. Before electronic computing machines, computer referred to the teams of people who operated simple mechanical calculating machines to solve complex problems. These human computers were programmed by their written instructions. Likewise, typesetting was once a career for a trained typesetter, laying up lead type, rather than an expected menu choice in any word-processing program. It may well be that in the world of personal fabrication it is the fate of engineering to similarly become a shared skill rather than a specialized career,” writes MIT professor, Neil Gershenfeld.
A bold statement of this sort is easy to dismiss – technological fads are thrown at us regularly, where the-next-big-thing announcements are just as frequent as their dismissals. Nonetheless, Gershenfeld identifies several compelling parallels. As the story of personal fabrication unfolds, its resemblance to the personal computing revolution is remarkable. Computers were bulky, big and expensive – not to be seen in the home, but they found their way in and became the center of our lives. Many, along with Gershenfeld, are arguing this will happen with bulky, big and expensive manufacturing equipment. Yes, we are talking about a Star Trek Replicator thingy on our desks.

[Hackerspace. Image from Alex Welsh of Wall Street Journal]
Let’s zoom out and position ourselves in the (re)new(ed) cultural trend of DIY (do-it-yourself). Justin Lahart in “Tinkering Makes Comeback Amid Crisis” gives an interesting overview of the reemerging DIY culture that has been the cornerstone of innovation. From the shift of garage tinkerers to successful entrepreneurs, there is something big happening — people are reclaiming their physical world and shaping it to fit their lives. Realizing that creativity is essential in ones success, many are finding this through the personalization of their world.
While Hackerspaces have recently been covered in the media, I want to focus on FabLabs which have been exponentially growing since 2005. I am discovering the incredible potential for FabLabs as I am starting to get my feet wet in a local lab. I have been blow away by the personal creative empowerment, the larger social meaning of such a movement and the contagious momentum it has.

[RepRap Workshop at FabLab. Image from XNDR, CabFabLab]
A few weeks ago, I finished Neil Gershenfeld’s book, Fab, which tells the detailed story of all fab-related things. Although it is from 2005 and much has changed, it is still an informative and worthwhile read. Gershenfeld argues how FabLabs and ultimately DIY culture are the future.
So, what is a FabLab?
A FabLab is an open workshop that contains a variety of modern prototyping machinery that can be used to create essentially anything. The FabLab program was devised by MIT professor Neil Gershenfeld. His course “How to create (almost) anything” was the impetus for FabLabs, which have now developed into a global network of (somewhat) standardized and largely open-source setups. From the South Bronx to Afghanistan to the Netherlands, Norway and India — Fablabs around the world are serving the needs and demands of local economies. While some lab users are dreaming up jewelry and art installations, others are creating food safety monitoring systems, wireless networks and RFID animal tags.
The movement is a disruptive technology that reclaims customization and pushes bulk production out the door. In Gershenfelds book, he brings up the concept of globalization being replaced by localization, whereby mass customization losses the “mass” piece. He argues that technology will start better reflecting our needs because it is going to be developed by and for us. We are heading toward a highly malleable physical world.
It is pretty incredible, but what does this all mean?
Gershenfeld states, “If you give people access to means to solve their own problems, it touches something very, very deep…somehow it goes back to nest-building, or mastering your own environment. There’s sort of this deep thing inside that most people don’t express that comes tumbling out when they get access to these tools.” The access to FabLabs is drawing attention from artists, entrepreneurs and engineers alike, and is at the root of this rapidly growing revolution — one where manufacturing and DIY are empowering communities. I have seen this first hand. Similar to a child getting her hands on a Lego kit and exploring what she can build, people are being given a chance to expand their creative potential.
The funny thing is that this future trend is moving towards the way things used to be. People were inventing, building and tinkering since the dawn of man. If you needed a tool or something for your house, you built it. Or went to your friend and got advice on how to build or acquire such a thing. But industrialization hit society and mass production took over. We became consumers rather than produces. But, we have reached the other side of that hump. Production is coming back to the garage. Well not only the garage, but also peoples desks, offices and schools. Society is being re-equipped with the tools and communities are leveraging the potential of these powerful technologies.
But, what is going to happen in just a few more years when the market continues to drive down the price and the ability of these machines continues to rapidly increase. (And off course what good is a technology blog with out mentioning Moore’s Law).
What do you think?
If you are interested in this topic, I highly recommend watching Neil Gershenfeld’s Ted Talk. This is a great little video showing the diverse and global FabLab community. Check it out. Lastly, The CabFabLab has an excellent photo stream of all FabLab related projects. These images offer a really good insight at what is possible. Check it out here.

STAGE 3: “THE FINAL FIVE”
Best of BIW: Year 1 Festival!
August 7, 2009- August 23, 2009

Its hard to believe that Brooklyn is Watching, a mixed-reality art project co-developed by Jay Van Buren and Popcha!, has surpassed the ripe old age of one – how exciting! What’s even better is the five finalists from the Best of Year 1 Festival (selected by a panel of five guest judges), have taken over the main room at Jack the Pelican Presents in Brooklyn, NY, as well as also being displayed at Odyssey in Second Life.
I had the chance of attending the kick-off party last week, and let me tell you, the space looks spectacular! The five finalists are each presented on a small LCD; the attached headphones stream BIW podcasters’ commentary and ambient music, really allowing a sense of immersion with the artwork. Guests are strongly encouraged to vote for their favorite piece, as the winner of this tally will win the coveted Golden Eyeball Award!

Another fun part of the evening was taking a group photo of some of the Brooklyn is Watching artists in Second Life; check out the photostream here. It was great to see such an enthusiastic turnout, and I’m glad this emerging, experimental art form is getting the attention it deserves. As a side note, the gallery’s artist-in-residence, Gregory de la Haba, has a spectacular display in the back room.
Don’t fear that you missed the opener, there are some great events coming up:
SATURDAY, 8/15/09, 6:00 — Virtual Artists in Panel Discussion
A group of academics and artists will engage in a panel discussion regarding themes such as design strategies for large virtual spaces in Second Life. Pavig Lok who was responsible in part for the design of Greenies will present his ideas and first hand experiences. Lori Landay from Berklee College of Music will discuss what she considers to be the difference between virtual art and art that is shown in the virtual world. Stacey Fox will talk about her experiences with promoting virtual art in the Department of Visual Art at Kansas University.
SUNDAY, 8/16/09, 7:00 — Lecture with One of the Pioneers of the Metaverse World
Jerry Paffendorf, an artist and entrepreneur who lovingly refers to Brooklyn as Silicon Ghetto, will share personal adventures and new ideas combining virtual worlds, art, business, the web and what’s happening with Crazy Company and the LOVELAND project to collaboratively own land and create a new city on a grid of a million inches in Detroit.
About Brooklyn is Watching:
Brooklyn is Watching, conceived of by Jay Van Buren, executed as a collaboration with Boris Kizelshteyn and the Popcha! development team in February 2008, is a breakthrough relational art project that invites interaction between the two thriving art communities of Second Life and Williamsburg, Brooklyn accentuating the power relations between and among them. It consists of a series of inter-related spaces for artists, audiences, and participants. The primary spaces are a square parcel of land (sim) in Second Life where artists are invited to leave their work for one week (when it is automatically returned), and an alcove in the Williamsburg art gallery–Jack the Pelican Presents where the sim can be viewed on a large monitor and entered via an avatar.
[Brooklyn is Watching]
[Popcha!]

Volume 2, Number 2 of the Journal of Virtual Worlds Research came online today. It’s an entire issue dedicated to healthcare innovation within the virtual domain and includes a lot of great resources for healthcare professionals looking to utilize emerging technology to help solve unique health-related problems. Best of all, all the articles are available for free!

Dr. Maged Kamel Boulos, the journal’s Associate Editor and professor at the University of Plymouth, UK, summarizes the issue:
Though Second Life has existed since 2002 and there are even other virtual worlds that predate it, most in the health sector are only recently starting to migrate to such platforms, as the technology is gradually maturating and rapidly becoming more affordable and popular. This special issue of JVWR on the theme of ‘3D Virtual Worlds for Health and Healthcare’ provides a good sampler of how healthcare organizations, groups and individuals are currently using virtual worlds…for a range of clinical and health-related purposes. Topics covered in this issue include: the use of virtual worlds in healthcare higher education, including in ‘virtual patients’ game-based learning simulations, with examples from both the UK and the US; the growth and direction of healthcare support groups in virtual worlds; the development of a virtual worlds’ coping skills game to prevent post-hospitalization smoking relapse in tobacco dependent cancer patients; and an examination of how the attitude and appearance of an individual’s avatar might result in positive changes in her/his real life in relation to obesity, which is one of the most serious public health problems of the 21st century.

Though I’m delighted to see so much work being done within academia, I am most excited to see the transition from research to real life application in a field that will surely witness exponential growth in the next several years. It cannot be long until we hear an announcement of a well-funded professional venture that tackles one or more specific healthcare issues using virtual world and other emerging technologies. At a time when our nation is facing a healthcare problem of gargantuan proportions, we need to turn to innovative technologies that can streamline medical care and shed billions of dollars in costs. However, beyond electronic medical records, there hasn’t been much discussion in the mainstream media about emerging healthcare technologies nor any serious and dedicated provisions in Obama’s proposal. The challenge of bridging the gap between cutting-edge academic findings and real-life social policies is one that spans every field, yet if we don’t figure out innovative and cost-effective solutions soon, healthcare costs will become the straw that finally breaks America’s back.
Readers interested in this topic who might have missed it previously, check out Popcha! principal and TurtleThink founder Mark Kizelshteyn’s award-winning research regarding therapeutic uses of virtual worlds for elderly, disabled, and convalescent people [link]. Needless to say we are all very excited for advancements in this field!
[JVWR Vol 2, No 2: 3D Virtual Worlds for Health and Healthcare]
image courtesy of TaranRampersad

TechCrunch points us to SPRXmobile, the startup behind Layar, the mobile augmented reality browser for Android. The company is opening up its API by handing out keys to a number of developers. Developers can fill out a request here to gain access to the API.

As Tech Crunch notes ” Without a decent amount of usable layers, none of these AR browsers are going to see mainstream adoption any time soon, and Layar is the first to attempt luring third-party developers into creating layers on top of their system by means of an extensive API.”
This is a great step for AR — as the race to develop the best platform with maximum content while also supporting an array of devices. We are going to see some create stuff come out of this API opening.