Luke Robert Mason: You’re in for a real treat this evening. I am blessed to be able to wel­come Jaron Lanier to Virtual Futures. My name is Luke Robert Mason, and for those of you here for the first time, which is pret­ty much Jaron and nobody else, the Virtual Futures Conference occurred at the University of Warwick in the mid-90s, and to quote its cofounder it arose at a tip­ping point in the tech­nol­o­giza­tion of first-world cultures.

Now, whilst it was most often por­trayed as a techno-positivist fes­ti­val of accel­er­a­tionism towards a posthu­man future, the Glastonbury of cyber­cul­ture” as The Guardian put it, its actu­al aim hid­den behind the brushed steel, the sil­i­con, the jar­gon, the design­er drugs, the charis­mat­ic prophets and the tech­no par­ties was much more sober and much more urgent. What Virtual Futures did was try to cast a crit­i­cal eye the phe­nom­e­nal changes in how humans and non­hu­mans engage with emerg­ing sci­en­tif­ic the­o­ry and tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ment. This salon series com­pletes the conference’s aim to bury the 20th cen­tu­ry and begin work on the 21st. So, let’s begin.

Luke Robert Mason: For this crowd, Jaron Lanier needs no intro­duc­tion. Our dis­tin­guished guest is cred­it­ed as invent­ing the iPhone. Except it was­n’t the iPhone, the small smart com­put­ing device made by Apple, it was the EyePhone, or E‑Y-E-phone, quite lit­er­al­ly a phone for your eyes.

His new book Dawn of the New Everything tells the sto­ry of this device and the VR start­up that cre­at­ed it, VPL Research Inc., a com­pa­ny that Jaron found­ed in 1984. Anyone notice the trou­bling irony? Nineteen…eighty…four.

Often cred­it­ed as hav­ing coined the term vir­tu­al real­i­ty,” it is Jaron that we have to thank or per­haps chas­tise for the vir­tu­al insan­i­ty that’s been plagu­ing all cul­ture of late. As the VR indus­try promis­es enhanced worlds in which we’re all gam­ing with each oth­er, Jaron’s book reveals VR’s dan­ger­ous poten­tial in allow­ing us to game each oth­er. Or, be gamed by more prob­lem­at­ic exter­nal pow­er structures.

But this is not a dry book of dystopi­an tech­no­log­i­cal pre­dic­tions, it is hope­ful and it is hyper­linked. And when you read it you’ll know what I mean by that. This book is a man­i­festo for world­build­ing. And what’s so clear is that Jaron tru­ly and deeply under­stands what it real­ly takes to devel­op immer­sive and more impor­tant­ly, sat­is­fy­ing, expe­ri­ences in VR. And that’s not because he’s an accom­plished com­put­er sci­en­tist or tech­nol­o­gist, although those things are true, but it’s because he’s deeply con­nect­ed to what it means to be human.

So to help us under­stand the new every­thing, please put your hands togeth­er, stamp your feet, go wild, and join me in wel­com­ing Jaron Lanier to Virtual Futures.

Jaron Lanier: Hi! 

Mason: So Jaron, I want to start at the begin­ning of the end. I want to start in the 80s when you moved to Silicon Valley. Because when it comes to the Internet, we got what we want­ed but it was­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly what we thought it was going to be. How did you envi­sion cyberspace?

Lanier: Oh gosh. Well, I mean… That’s quite a hell of a ques­tion, because it’s a, it’s a big thing. Cyberspace is a par­tic­u­lar word that was made up by Bill Gibson, who writes books. And around the time we actu­al­ly— [com­ment from audi­ence about using his micro­phone] Oh, god. Alright here, how about that? Is that good? Can you hear? 

Yeah, so around the time we incor­po­rat­ed VPL, Bill pub­lished a book called Neuromancer that I’m sure peo­ple remem­ber. And so the rule used to every­body has to come up with their own names, so there were a zil­lion names in cur­ren­cy for what we end­ed up call­ing vir­tu­al real­i­ty, which was my lit­tle ver­sion of it. 

And Bill… Oh God you know. Something I feel like I can’t ful­ly tell this sto­ry with­out his per­mis­sion because some of it’s very personal.

Mason: We’re among friends.

Lanier: Yeah. But I’ll leave out some of it. But he took not only— He was writ­ing in I think an extreme­ly impor­tant and won­der­ful dystopi­an tra­di­tion about this very thing. Much of it English, which I— How many peo­ple have read The Machine Stops by E.M. Forster? Oh, please…

Mason: That’s dis­ap­point­ing for [inaudi­ble].

Lanier: Oh come on, peo­ple. Come on. Get with it. 

Alright. So this was writ­ten some­thing like 110 years ago. And it’s a sci­ence fic­tion novel­la. And this is the fel­low you know who wrote Room with a View— Can you guys still hear me, by the way? Is this is close enough? Yeah? No?

Audience Member: Not very well, no.

Lanier: Here, I’ll just kiss this stu­pid piece of foam, for you. Is that dystopi­an enough for you? Is this what it was all for? 

Okay, so. So any­way. So I for­get if it was…it’s some­thing like 1907, 1908, 1909, some­thing like that. E.M. Forster writes this novel­la, and he describes a pop­u­la­tion addict­ed to these screens con­nect­ed to giant glob­al com­put­ers. And the screens are hexag­o­nal, sug­gest­ing that the peo­ple have become like a bee­hive, like a hive mind. And they talk about top­ics and they do lit­tle video calls. And they all get kind of lost and every­thing becomes a lit­tle unre­al, and you get the feel­ing that they’re all sub­ject to this pow­er struc­ture. And then there’s a crash. It’s not very reli­able machine. There’s a crash and all these peo­ple die, and they final­ly crawl out out of their cubi­cles and they see the sun, Oh my god, the sun. Reality.”

Anyway. This was 110 years ago. And in a way he nailed it. I mean, all of the dystopi­an sci­ence fic­tion lit­er­a­ture since then, whether it’s the feel­ies, or the Matrix, or so many oth­ers, are in a sense echoes of The Machine Stops, so you ought to read this thing. I mean if you’re inter­est­ed in this world.

And in a sense I thought Neuromancer was in the tra­di­tion. It was anoth­er… That The Machine Stops is such a pro­found work it actu­al­ly cre­at­ed its own lit­er­ary genre that con­tin­ues to this day and I thought Neuromancer was some­thing like a cross between William Gibson and E.M. Forster or some­thing like that. But it was also much more than that but that’s a sto­ry for anoth­er time.

Anyway. I used to argue with Bill about Neuromancer. Because he would send me scenes he was writ­ing. He’d been writ­ing short sto­ries in the same style before­hand. And at that time, my thing was vir­tu­al real­i­ty could either end up as the most beau­ti­ful medi­um that brings peo­ple togeth­er and helps bridge the ever-mysterious inter­per­son­al gap. It could be the great­est form for art ever. It could be this thing that makes imag­i­na­tion more val­ued. It could make it pos­si­ble to extend some of the more lumi­nous aspects of child­hood into life with­out los­ing them into the rest of one’s life. There were all these hopes I had for it. I hoped it could be a bea­con of empa­thy that would help peo­ple behave better.

But, it could also turn out to be the creepi­est thing of all time because it could be the ulti­mate Skinner box. Do you know what I mean by Skinner box? Everybody know that ref­er­ence? Okay. Because I nev­er know these days what any­body knows.

So it could be like this mind con­trol hor­ri­ble thing that could be real­ly awful. It could be the creepi­est inven­tion ever. And I thought it would flip one way or the oth­er and if we kind of set the right tone at the start, that might help set it on the pos­i­tive course. So I used to call up Bill and bug him. And I’d say, Bill, your stuff’s so creepy! You have to make it nicer!”

And I’m not real­ly good at doing voic­es but at that time he still had this incred­i­bly strong Tennessee Southern accent. It was like, Well Jaron, you know—” I can’t do it, but any­way he would say you know, I’m a writer! I write what I write. I can’t change it for this pro­gram of yours even though it’s very nice.”

But when we start­ed to get VR stuff work­ing around oh, I don’t know, 84-ish or some­thing like that, he would come by. Which was hard at that time. I don’t know if— He was stuck in Canada, because he’d gone there to avoid being draft­ed into Vietnam. So it was hard— His sit­u­a­tion was dif­fi­cult at that time. But any­way, we’d get togeth­er and he would say, You know, if I had it all to do over I would just work on this tech instead of being a writer.” 

And I’d say, Be a writer.” But then I said, Okay, but hey. If you want to come work, you know…”

And he was like, Uh…maybe I’ll be a writer,” after he saw the real­i­ties of Silicon Valley, where you work all night and you just com­plete­ly work your­self to the bone on and on and on. 

Anyway. So at that time so long ago, the way I thought about it is it could flip either way and what we had to do is just kind of say the right incan­ta­tions, just get it set on a good course. And where I am today on it— Is this answer­ing your ques­tion at all, or have I totally—

Mason: I’m enjoy­ing the sto­ries, so I’m going to let you con­tin­ue. But Jaron, the ques­tion I was going to ask you was with regards to the Internet itself. So cyber­space is what Gibson envi­sioned, but the Internet, do you believe went off course?

Lanier: Well, yeah. I mean, kin­da obvi­ous­ly. I mean… Let us count the ways. I mean, under the cur­rent Internet as it exists right now, before we even talk about our own sit­u­a­tion in the United States, I’ll men­tion that what’s called in the trade shit­post­ing” seems to’ve played a crit­i­cal role in foment­ing the Rohingya cri­sis, in desta­bi­liz­ing some parts of India, some oth­er issues in parts of Africa—particularly Sudan. And so there are peo­ple dying who do not have the ben­e­fit of an advanced soci­ety or sta­ble gov­ern­ment as a back­up. So out in the wild it’s absolute­ly deadly.

I could also talk about the absolute­ly extreme and unten­able wealth and pow­er con­cen­tra­tion that’s been engen­dered by the dig­i­tal net­works, that mir­rors late 19th-century Gilded Era’s but is prob­a­bly worse, and is absolute­ly unsus­tain­able and head­ed off a cliff. 

I could also men­tion the desta­bi­liza­tion of democ­ra­cies all over the world that before social net­work­ing as we know it showed up, we had thought that once coun­tries went demo­c­ra­t­ic they would tend to stay that way and per­fect it. And instead we see the United States, Turkey, Egypt, Austria…I mean who knows.

I hate to even say these names because I want to be wrong. Like I mean it’s hor­ri­fy­ing to even think of this. Just speak­ing of the United States, it’s a thing we nev­er expect­ed and it’s a ter­ror, and it’s…I don’t know where it’ll end. I don’t know how bad it’ll get. And it’s very clear­ly relat­ed to what’s hap­pened with dig­i­tal net­works. So I would describe it as an abject fail­ure. It’s…the pro­gram of my gen­er­a­tion of com­put­er sci­en­tists has failed. So…

Mason: Well, John Perry Barlow said in The Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace that this should not be a con­struc­tion project. And yet it has become a pub­lic con­struc­tion project. Is it time, Jaron, for a demolition.

Lanier: Mm. Well, my take on it—oh god. This is a tough one. Barlow and I are on oppo­site sides of inter­pret­ing this, and I think it’s kind of bro­ken his heart and I don’t know what to do about that. We were kin­da back at the time, too.

Okay so here’s what I think hap­pened. What I think hap­pened… And this is not to lay blame on any­body, because I don’t think any­body real­ly knew for sure how this stuff would work. This was all rather mys­te­ri­ous and exper­i­men­tal. But what I think hap­pened it was, back in the 90s and into the turn of the cen­tu­ry, there was an extreme­ly strong sen­si­bil­i­ty that things should be free. That infor­ma­tion should be able to move with­out restric­tions relat­ed to pay­ment. There should be free music. Email should be free.

For instance, in the 90s there was this con­tro­ver­sy about whether some kind of tiny home­o­path­ic amount of postage might be good on mail. And the rea­son for it was very sim­ply— I mean, there was an imme­di­ate rea­son and there was a long-term rea­son. The imme­di­ate rea­son was that even the slight­est amount of postage would shut down spam, which is already a gigan­tic prob­lem, right. So it’s one thing if you spam like mil­lions of peo­ple, even a tiny amount of postage cost some mon­ey, right. 

But then the longer-term thing is that if there was some sort of com­merce built in from the start, then even­tu­al­ly when the robots start doing more and peo­ple take on new roles at least there’s a chance they could get paid instead of becom­ing wards of the state. So it holds out some kind of hope for that option which would­n’t be there if some kind of pay­ment was­n’t gen­er­al­ized, right.

So those were the two rea­sons. But this idea that things should be free total­ly swamped that. People were just very very like, sort of mil­i­tant­ly dog­mat­ic about it, and many still are. But here’s the prob­lem. We then cre­at­ed this kind of super-open Internet where every­thing can be free, noth­ing’s traced, you can make copies of any­thing. And I can get back to this whole idea of being able to make open copies of things just means that noth­ing has con­text any­more. You don’t know where any­thing came from and that— The orig­i­nal idea for social net­work­ing was to not make copies because copies are an inef­fi­cien­cy any­way and you just trace back to the orig­i­nal, both for pay­ment and for con­text so you would know what things are. 

[To audi­ence:] So when was the first design for a dig­i­tal net­work? What year? 1960

Audience Member: 1969?

Lanier: 1960. And it was by Ted Nelson at Harvard. Yeah. He did­n’t call it Xanadu yet, but he designed one in 60 and it was the first one. The pack­et switch idea pre­dat­ed it but there was­n’t an archi­tec­ture. And in that one, you did­n’t copy because copy­ing seemed like an uncon­scionable expense. Instead you traced back to ori­gins. But his rea­son­ing for that was extreme­ly sound, which is then every­thing has con­text and some­body can’t mis­rep­re­sent some­body else’s con­text and appro­pri­ate it. Plus if you want to have cap­i­tal­ism peo­ple can be paid. And if you don’t want cap­i­tal­ism you don’t have to, but it’s an option. So it increas­es your options. So that was his argu­ment in 1960, and so that was absolute­ly reject­ed by this feel­ing that things must be free. 

And this idea that things must be free had mer­it. I mean, I under­stand the argu­ments. There were a series of things that had hap­pened that… Well, I men­tioned Bill was avoid­ing the draft. There were a lot of peo­ple that felt that the abil­i­ty to hide was the most impor­tant thing ever in free­dom. And so they ignored oth­er things that might also be impor­tant. That’s the short answer to how it happened,

But any­way. So we cre­at­ed this net­work design where every­thing’s free, every­thing’s copy­able, con­text is lost. But then we thrust it for­ward into— And the we” is spe­cif­ic peo­ple, many of whom are very straight. Al Gore essen­tial­ly did invent it as a polit­i­cal project. Just to be clear that was actu­al­ly what hap­pened. You might not even know that con­tro­ver­sy, but— [inaudi­ble audi­ence com­ment] The pipes thing was some­body else’s com­ment. But any­way. That was a Bush comment. 

We thrust this open net­work into a cap­i­tal­ist con­text where the larg­er soci­ety was still in one where you had to pay for rent and where you were expect­ed to start cor­po­ra­tions, and if some­body put mon­ey into some­thing they want­ed a prof­it and all of this. And we made a very raw Internet that did­n’t do much. It did­n’t have iden­ti­ty mech­a­nisms, it did­n’t have pay­ment mech­a­nisms, it did­n’t have per­sis­tence mech­a­nisms, it did­n’t have…really much of any­thing. It was just this very raw thing.

So the ques­tion is what do you do? So even­tu­al­ly some­body invent­ed the World Wide Web on top of it, and… A British thing. How about that, yet anoth­er local thing. Tim Berners-Lee. Well, he did it in Switzerland, so. I don’t know. 

Mason: Well, we have cur­rent issues with Europe, but.

Lanier: No no, I would like to fin­ish. Sorry no, you don’t get anoth­er ques­tion yet. I need to fin­ish this. 

So here’s what hap­pened. If you tell peo­ple you’re going to have this super-open, absolute­ly non-commercial, money-free thing, but it has to sur­vive in this envi­ron­ment that’s based on mon­ey, where it has to make mon­ey, how does any­body square that cir­cle? How does any­body do any­thing? And so com­pa­nies like Google that came along, in my view were backed into a cor­ner. There was exact­ly one busi­ness plan avail­able to them, which was adver­tis­ing. And adver­tis­ing does­n’t sound so bad until you remem­ber what all of that cau­tion­ary lit­er­a­ture point­ed out for so many years (I should also men­tion Norbert Wiener, who’s an impor­tant fig­ure in cau­tion­ary lit­er­a­ture.), which is that in a cyber­net­ic struc­ture, if you have a com­put­er mea­sur­ing peo­ple and then pro­vid­ing feed­back based on that mea­sure­ment, you are no longer offer­ing them per­sua­sive com­mu­ni­ca­tion. Its like a rat in a Skinner box. You’re mod­i­fy­ing their behav­ior and you’re addict­ing them. You’re doing both of those things. And you’re doing it inevitably, irrev­o­ca­bly. And so essen­tial­ly what we said is the only thing you’re allowed to do on the Internet is build a behav­ior mod­i­fi­ca­tion empire, every­thing else is dis­al­lowed. So it was a project in a way of the left that cre­at­ed an author­i­tar­i­an Internet. And I think it back­fired hor­ri­bly and I think it was dis­as­trous. And that’s the thing that needs to be undone.

Mason: So to some degree, Jaron, it was log­i­cal that this would be the out­come. Why do you think we’re see­ing now the indi­vid­u­als who were there at the begin­ning start­ing to come out against some of these, as you call them, behav­ior mod­i­fi­ca­tion empires? Both Ev Williams, and only a week ago Sean Parker, have both tried to step up to be the Cassandra of Silicon Valley and go, Well, we knew this was going to happen.” 

Lanier: You know… I need to ask Sean about that. The day before he said this thing about how, Oh yeah, we inten­tion­al­ly set up this addic­tion loop,” there was a piece, an inter­view of me by Maureen Dowd in The New York Times about that mech­a­nism, and it’s pos­si­ble that it was tied.

But this has been an open secret. Everybody’s kind of known that this was hap­pen­ing. And I think peo­ple have to come out against it because the world’s being destroyed. It’s a mat­ter of sur­vival. I mean, it’s real­ly becom­ing so dangerous.

Mason: So then the ques­tion becomes how? So how do we divorce these plat­forms from the non­hu­man agency of cap­i­tal­ism which has mor­phed them into these prob­lem­at­ic enti­ties, these behav­ioral mod­i­fi­ca­tion empires, as you call them?

Lanier: Yeah… Well, see this is the trick, isn’t it? I’ll make a few obser­va­tions. One obser­va­tion is that if we want to live in a cap­i­tal­ist soci­ety and if some­body has a pro­gram that they think is bet­ter than cap­i­tal­ism, I’m not ide­o­log­i­cal­ly opposed to such a thing, it’s just not gonna hap­pen in three sec­onds. So, just for the moment in the short term we have to sur­vive in a cap­i­tal­ist soci­ety. And so we have to think about how there can be busi­ness­es that don’t rely on behav­ior modification. 

And for­tu­nate­ly there are a lot of them. I mean, for instance, um… Oh god, I don’t know where to begin. Of the giant tech com­pa­nies there’s only two that do it. Google and Facebook do it. Facebook more so. Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and many oth­ers actu­al­ly sell goods and ser­vices. And you might feel that they should be crit­i­cized for var­i­ous things, and you might very well be right that they should be. But not for that, alright. I mean, they might have lit­tle exper­i­ments in that direc­tion but they don’t really…that’s not their main thing. 

So it’s real­ly two big com­pa­nies and most­ly one big com­pa­ny, and then a few small­er com­pa­nies, that are fail­ing as busi­ness­es. I mean Twitter as a busi­ness is this real­ly wob­bly thing. So it should want to try dif­fer­ent busi­ness ideas. And it’s not hard to imag­ine what these might look like. So if there were like a hun­dred thou­sand com­pa­nies doing it that would be hard­er, but it’s real­ly kind of boils down to just a hand­ful that need to be changed. 

Could that be done by reg­u­la­tors? Maybe. I think what makes more sense is to try to just kin­da cajole the com­pa­nies, just say, What you’re doing is real­ly stu­pid. You’re decent peo­ple of good will. Just do some­thing different.” 

And the way they transform—like you could imag­ine a tran­si­tion— There are a bunch of dif­fer­ent paths, but the one that I think is the eas­i­est and makes the most sense is Facebook says, Hey you know, if you have pop­u­lar posts we’re gonna start pay­ing you. And then grad­u­al­ly we’re going to also start charg­ing you but a very low amount, and if you’re poor, noth­ing. But if you’re not poor at least a lit­tle tiny bit.” So this is get­ting back to like dig­i­tal postage. And we’re going to grad­u­al­ly start refus­ing peo­ple who want pay to manip­u­late you. And then we have a tar­get that in five years or what­ev­er it is, this thing will become a mon­e­tized social net­work instead of a manipulation-based one. And there’ll be no hid­den third par­ties who’re pay­ing to affect what you expe­ri­ence. And boom, done. And then Putin has to go cry in a corner.

Mason: So do you think where we are now is just a pass­ing fad? Do you think this will come to pass and we’ll look back on these twenty-five years where we end­ed up with social media and go, Ha, weren’t they so sil­ly to build it that way?”

Lanier: Well that’s cer­tain­ly what I want. I want this peri­od to be remem­bered like a bizarre bad dream that we passed through. I want this to be remem­bered like oth­er stu­pid things that’ve hap­pened as just this his­tor­i­cal peri­od that was just incred­i­bly strange that we try to teach kids about and won­der if we’re real­ly doing it well enough. I want it to be like that.

But I don’t know, though. I mean, this could get a lot worse before it gets bet­ter. I just— I don’t know where it’s going. It’s not clear how bad things are going to get in the US. But it’s bad. It’s real­ly bad. It’s scary. I mean, I live in Berkeley, California, and peri­od­i­cal­ly right wing demon­stra­tors come to try to pro­voke fights. And some­thing’s hap­pened which has nev­er hap­pened before, which is once in a while on these days when they’re com­ing and hop­ing for a fight, there’ll be these guys like in pick-ups dri­ving round and they’ll pre­tend to swerve at you if you look left­ist. And then they’ll cut back and just go off. But it’s a weird, scary thing. And peo­ple have start­ed just stay­ing in their homes. It’s like a thing that has nev­er hap­pened before. So it’s bad. It’s real­ly bad. And all these peo­ple live in this oth­er real­i­ty which was cre­at­ed by— If they’re old enough it was cre­at­ed on cable news, but this pop­u­la­tion it’s all social media.

Mason: Well let’s start talk­ing about oth­er real­i­ties. Because the sit­u­a­tion we’re in with the fake news and the way in which peo­ple’s per­cep­tion is manip­u­lat­ed by these empires is a form of vir­tu­al real­i­ty, is it not?

Lanier: No…

Mason: No?

Lanier: No, I mean I— Well, I mean lis­ten, I don’t own the term or any­thing so you have as much right to define it as any­one. But it cer­tain­ly isn’t… It does­n’t cor­re­spond to any of the ways I use it. If you want to use the term to refer to an instru­men­ta­tion strat­e­gy or some­thing like that, that’s okay. If you want to use it for mar­ket­ing your prod­uct or some­thing, I guess whatever. 

But if you want to talk about it in broad­er philo­soph­i­cal terms, what I hope we’re talk­ing about is a medi­um of per­son­al expres­sion that might be used by mys­te­ri­ous third par­ties but so far has­n’t been because it’s so nascent. I mean, what I hope is that this peri­od of the dark­ness of social media will help us sort this out before vir­tu­al real­i­ty becomes more com­mon­place. Because it’s going to be much more potent than this real­ly crude stuff like you know, Facebook on a phone, which is real­ly not much of any­thing com­pared to what’ll come, you know.

Hey by the way, you’re all smart, hip peo­ple, right? Will you delete your accounts?

Audience Member: Facebook?

Lanier: Yeah. Get rid of it, it’s stu­pid. You don’t need it. You think you need it but it’s an arti­fi­cial addic­tion. Just get rid of the stu­pid thing. Like come on.

Mason: Get rid of Facebook, but if you are fol­low­ing this con­ver­sa­tion on Twitter—

Lanier: Oh, Twitter too. Get rid of Twitter. Twitter’s real­ly stu­pid. Just stop it.

No, actu­al­ly— Let me say a cou­ple things about that. What hap­pens on Twitter and Facebook might be quite beau­ti­ful and amaz­ing. I’ll give you an exam­ple. In the US there was a move­ment that start­ed on social media called Black Lives Matter that brought aware­ness to a phe­nom­e­non— This is anoth­er thing, it was kind of an open secret and any­body who knew any­thing knew it was going on. But some­how it just shift­ed into some­thing that was an open open secret that peo­ple actu­al­ly talked about. It made it more real. And this was this hor­ri­ble phe­nom­e­non of unarmed black kids sud­den­ly get­ting killed after a traf­fic stop, over and over and over again, the police not being pros­e­cut­ed. And it was like this nation­al blood sport or some­thing, it was this hor­ri­ble thing.

So there was this move­ment to raise aware­ness about it and to try to reform police depart­ment. So, Black Twitter is a form of lit­er­a­ture. It’s a beau­ti­ful thing. It’s a legit­i­mate­ly extra­or­di­nary lit­er­ary phe­nom­e­non. And it was fun when like, Trump engages with it and they total­ly run rings around him, black Twitter users. So it’s cool.

But here’s the thing, though. At the same time that peo­ple are using Twitter for some­thing like Black Lives Matter, or cur­rent­ly for #MeToo, there’s this oth­er thing going on which is that the algo­rithms, with­out any evil genius direct­ing them, the algo­rithms are putting peo­ple into bins who were doing this. And then what they’re doing is they’re auto­mat­i­cal­ly with­out any evil genius direct­ing them, test­ing what it’s like when oth­er peo­ple react to peo­ple from those bins who are in say, Black Lives Matter or #MeToo or what­ev­er. And then the algo­rithms are nat­u­ral­ly tuned to fur­ther what’s called engage­ment,” which we might more prop­er­ly called addiction.

And so if there’s some­thing from Black Lives Matter or #MeToo that then upsets some oth­er group, the algo­rithms will all auto­mat­i­cal­ly opti­mize that to upset them as much as pos­si­ble, and vice ver­sa. So now the peo­ple are auto­mat­i­cal­ly, with­out any evil genius direct­ing them, form­ing them­selves into groups. And then what hap­pens is adver­tis­ers or sabo­teurs or weird bil­lion­aires with a stu­pid agen­da or you know, Russian infor­ma­tion warriors—whatever it is. They come along and they use the Facebook tool and they say, Oh, what can I buy? What can I buy?”

And then this thing is like super opti­mized. It’s a super bar­gain. So like, Yeah!” So they do that, then they push it even more, and it goes more and more. So the inter­est­ing thing is that Black Lives Matter, through its suc­cess, under­mined itself because of this struc­ture. It’s a dirty trick. It’s a dirty dirty trick. At the very moment that you’re suc­ceed­ing, you’re build­ing in your fail­ure. And you will suf­fer in the polls. You will cre­ate a soci­etal reac­tion against you, par­tic­u­lar­ly if you start out in a minor­i­ty posi­tion or in a rel­a­tive­ly unem­pow­ered posi­tion. It’s a fun­da­men­tal­ly impos­si­ble game.

Now, I hope that that’ll be proven some­what wrong in the American elec­tions. That it’s just so out­ra­geous that we’ll be able to gath­er enough steam, but I’m not sure. This mech­a­nism intrin­si­cal­ly undoes and inverts social progress. It’s a social progress invert­er, and it’s built in and there’s no way to fix it with­out chang­ing the busi­ness structure.

Mason: Well this time around, Jaron, real­i­ty is at stake because it may go into these vir­tu­al real­i­ty realms. And we look at things like Facebook social VR and I have to ask what did you think of that when you saw Oculus pur­chased by Facebook in 2014? Did you go, Great! They’re buy­ing these com­pa­nies. My dream will come true.” Or did you go, Oh god, no. Hell no.”

Lanier: Yeah. I had real­ly mixed feel­ings. I mean, I was kin­da hap­py in a way because it’s was… I mean, I like to see peo­ple enjoy VR. I like to see peo­ple feel that it’s worth invest­ing in. Oculus in par­tic­u­lar was stu­dents of a friend of mine who cre­at­ed a start­up out of his class, Mark Bolas? Are you aware of him? Mark Bolas was then a pro­fes­sor at University of Southern California. And his stu­dent projects includ­ed cre­at­ing the card­board view­er that Google adver­tis­es as Google Cardboard or what­ev­er they call it, and the Oculus Rift. And I thought you know, this is cool. Like, VR’s fash­ion­able and peo­ple like mon­ey so this’ll— I mean obvi­ous­ly I was enthused about that. I thought I thought then and I still believe that Facebook will change its busi­ness plan before it’s too late. So I still kin­da believe that, you know. I real­ly do.

Mason: Most peo­ple have their first vir­tu­al real­i­ty expe­ri­ence with the Oculus. They lose their VRginity to the Oculus Rift. But you lost your VRginity back in the 1980s. There was the ear­ly days when you were deal­ing with these very very clunky devices. What was it like to cre­ate those sorts of brand new vir­tu­al real­i­ty devices?

Lanier: Well I mean, just to be clear. Like the EyePhone… The bet­ter of the two EyePhone mod­els was every bit as good as a cur­rent Oculus Rift or Vive or some­thing. They were just super expen­sive. But yeah, we had to make them. We had to think about like how do you actu­al­ly man­u­fac­ture this thing? How would you… Nobody had ever made any­thing like that before. Nobody had made the wide angle opti­cal thing and fig­ured out how to mount it on a head and how to mount it on dif­fer­ent kinds of peo­ple’s heads, and just the whole busi­ness. We had to invent a prod­uct category.

Mason: And then you say in the book the won­der­ful thing about these big clunky pieces of hard­ware is it makes the VR more ethical.

Lanier: Yeah, absolute­ly. So the deal here— So what is the dif­fer­ence between a magi­cian and a char­la­tan? The dif­fer­ence is that the magi­cian announces the trick, right. And in fact you can even know how a trick works and appre­ci­ate a magi­cian even more­so, right? So the deceit isn’t the core of mag­ic, right, it’s the artistry.

And so I think the ques­tion is how do you announce the trick in vir­tu­al real­i­ty? You must announce the trick. And this incli­na­tion that many peo­ple seem to have to want to make the devices as invis­i­ble as pos­si­ble, or even to sort of just be in VR are all the time, strikes me as being both pre­pos­ter­ous and miss­ing the point, and also uneth­i­cal because it it then fails to announce. 

I call it pre­pos­ter­ous because like, to me VR is beau­ti­ful. Like, a well-crafted vir­tu­al world expe­ri­ence can be extra­or­di­nary. And then to say, Oh, this should just be on all the time,” it’s like some­body telling me, Oh, you like clas­si­cal music? We’ll just leave it on all the time.” And, Oh, you like wine? Well you should drink it alll the time all day long.” I mean it’s just like, not the way you treat some­thing you love. It just makes no sense at all to me.

Mason: A lot of peo­ple fear that vir­tu­al real­i­ty is going to dimin­ish their expe­ri­ence of the world but you believe that it’s going to height­en perception.

Lanier: Right. Well, back in the old days…I’m so old. But back like in the 80s, my favorite trick in giv­ing a VR demo was to put like a flower out on the table while some­body was in the VR expe­ri­ence. And then when they’d come out they’d look at this flower— You should try that. There’s this way that it sort of pops into hyper­re­al­i­ty because you start— You’ve giv­en your ner­vous sys­tem a chance to adjust to some­thing else, so it re-engages with this phys­i­cal world fresh­ened. And I think that’s the great­est joy of vir­tu­al real­i­ty, real­ly. That’s the very best thing there is.

Mason: But the sorts of VR expe­ri­ences that we’re get­ting today and the sorts of things that peo­ple think of vir­tu­al real­i­ty such as 360 video, that’s not real­ly VR, is it?

Lanier: Well, 360 video, which is anoth­er thing by the way we were doing at the time. We had a prod­uct called VideoSphere that achieved that back in the 80s. Although analog…tape…it was all very hard to do, but any­way. I think the spher­i­cal videos might turn into a genre of their own. Like that might be some­thing that per­sists but it’s impor­tant under­stand what it is and what it isn’t. I’m a lit­tle sad that it does­n’t have its own name and that it’s being called vir­tu­al real­i­ty because the prob­lem of course is that it’s not inter­ac­tive and it does­n’t— I think it real­ly does­n’t get to even the begin­ning of the core of the beau­ty of vir­tu­al reality.

But on the oth­er hand, some of them are very…they can be very good for what they are. And they can also be impor­tant. I mean I think as doc­u­men­tary and empathy-generating mech­a­nisms they have been impor­tant. There’ve been some very good ones made. 

The prob­lem is they could also be very effec­tive at lying. So once again we have to get the under­ly­ing eco­nom­ics and pow­er struc­ture right or what­ev­er good they can do will be nul­li­fied. But I’m not will­ing to just diss them. I think they’re a thing in their own right. I think they’re impor­tant. It’s like say­ing oh, for­get that black and white pho­tog­ra­phy, it’s just a pass­ing phase. I actu­al­ly think black and white pho­tog­ra­phy is a thing that per­sists because it has its own beau­ty, and some of these things have integri­ty and we should­n’t just think of them as only hav­ing val­ue because they’re on the way to some­thing else.

Mason: I mean, what is the sort of vir­tu­al real­i­ty expe­ri­ences that you are at least hop­ing for? What sort of words do you want to build?

Lanier: Well, for me… First of all let me men­tion there’s a lot of great work being done now, and I like to take the oppor­tu­ni­ty to men­tion younger design­ers. And so I’ll men­tion for instance Chris Milk, who did a work called [“Life of Us”] which is real­ly a lot… It’s a lot like the sort of thing I used to love the best. Your body morphs through evo­lu­tion­ary phas­es where you turn into dif­fer­ent crea­tures. And it’s social with oth­er peo­ple and it’s got a lot of ener­gy to it. He had to do it in a way that it’s a sort of a timed, sequen­tial expe­ri­ence because it’s intend­ed to be shown with docents in pub­lic places. So it’s not the sort of thing where you explore at your own pace. But I think it’s a suc­cess­ful… People have tried it? No, okay. Well, any­way I think it’s a real­ly good one.

As far as things I want to build, there’s… Oh god, I can men­tion some­thing. I’ll men­tion some oth­er things as we go through the con­ver­sa­tion. But what I notice now is that the small inde­pen­dent design­ers are in my opin­ion doing the best work. Although, some of the big stu­dios do good things, too. But a lot of the best qual­i­ties of VR come out in the small­est details that can be done by small teams work­ing with very lit­tle expense, actu­al­ly, if they’re careful. 

For myself, the goal I’ve always dreamed of the most is some sort of impro­visato­ry sys­tem where you’re inside and you play like vir­tu­al musi­cal instru­ments or some oth­er sort of thing. And by doing that you can change the world in any way and invent the world while you’re in it, and co-invent it with oth­er peo­ple so it becomes a shared inten­tion­al waking-state dream, as one used to say.

And the method of cre­at­ing tools that are capa­ble of that is still elu­sive. I’ve tried a lot of dif­fer­ent ways to do it, and I still believe it can be done. And I actu­al­ly have a whole thing in the book about that and the prospects for it. But that’s the thing I’d most love to see.

Mason: You talk about that prob­lem with the soft­ware that’s used to cre­ate vir­tu­al real­i­ty is often on a lap­top, on a two-dimensional lap­top, you can’t jump into VR and cre­ate just yet.

Lanier: Yeah, this thing of design­ing it in some pro­gram­ming lan­guage and then jump­ing in is…ridiculous. I mean that’s com­plete­ly miss­ing the point. 

And I should men­tion some­thing else. The way a lot of the com­pa­nies have set up stores where you down­load an expe­ri­ence and then you’re expe­ri­enc­ing it, is also wrong because it should be clos­er to like Skype than to Netflix. There should be live inter­ac­tions, but also there should be a role for live per­form­ers in it. There should be a whole new world of peo­ple who are sort of like pup­peteers, or dun­geon mas­ters or what­ev­er you might call them who are impro­visato­ry per­form­ers with­in vir­tu­al worlds, where that’s actu­al­ly the main point. Because that’s just much more appro­pri­ate to the medi­um than think­ing of it as a down­load. And I think that there’s been a real cat­e­go­ry error in the nascent vir­tu­al real­i­ty indus­try on that point.

Mason: Well why do you think we’ve run down this path of try­ing to re-present real­i­ty as it is and turn it into vir­tu­al worlds? Why do all these vir­tu­al worlds looks so famil­iar? Why aren’t we cre­at­ing oth­ered experiences?

Lanier: Well, I mean some— There are— As I say, I mean I think there are real­ly good design­er, so I should focus on them rather than the crap, of which there’s a lot. So I’ll men­tion Vi Hart. She does math expli­ca­tion vir­tu­al real­i­ty expe­ri­ences, but they’re extra­or­di­nary for learn­ing how to walk around in four-dimensional spaces or some­thing. And she has a won­der­ful group of peo­ple who build these things and they’re just fantastic. 

So I’ll men­tion anoth­er one. The thing is, let’s focus on the good stuff. I mean, why are there so many bad movies? I mean my god. I don’t think there’s any like, expla­na­tion need­ed for why there’s so much crap in any giv­en medi­um. I think that’s kind of—

Mason: But what I worry—

Lanier: Or maybe there is but it’s an old mys­tery, not a new one.

Mason: But where I wor­ry is peo­ple are com­ing to vir­tu­al real­i­ty and hav­ing these very kind of vapid expe­ri­ences where the agency is—especially in a 360 video—the agency is that of the direc­tor. They don’t get to have this kind of elat­ing, individualist—

Lanier: I know. It’s a big prob­lem, you know. I’m real­ly kind of bummed about that. I’m real­ly kind of bummed that a lot of peo­ple think they’ve expe­ri­enced vir­tu­al real­i­ty, and what they’ve actu­al­ly expe­ri­enced is some­thing that was pret­ty shod­dy. And that’s a drag.

But you know what? I mean… I just think that that’s what it’s like when a new medi­um comes along. I mean I think when cin­e­ma start­ed there was a lot of stu­pid stuff that peo­ple saw first, you know. I mean that’s hon­est­ly true. We like to remem­ber the high points but, there was actu­al­ly a lot of crap. 

For one of my ear­li­er books I start­ed look­ing at what books oth­er than the Bible were print­ed when the print­ing press became avail­able, and it was not all great. There was a lot of real­ly stu­pid stuff. So you know, I don’t know what moti­vates peo­ple to put all this work into mak­ing some­thing that’s real­ly shod­dy and stu­pid. But that’s true for like— You know, you look at a movie and like why—they had all this mon­ey. And then they threw it into this thing that you could tell that every­body who’s mak­ing it knows it’s a piece of crap. Like why? Why not to stop and say, Hey, we’re mak­ing a piece of crap. Let’s spend this mon­ey on mak­ing a bet­ter thing.” Like, why don’t they just stop for like— I don’t know why. I mean it’s like one of the great endur­ing mys­ter­ies. I just— I don’t get it but that’s what happens.

Mason: Well there’s tru­ly great vir­tu­al real­i­ty. And not great in terms of the con­tent but great in terms of what it’s able to do to the human indi­vid­ual. So we’ve already seen that vir­tu­al real­i­ty can be effec­tive at help­ing cure PTSD. It can be effec­tive as mor­phine at pain treat­ment. You can cre­ate empathy—

Lanier: Can I com­ment on both of those for a second?

Mason: Please, yeah.

Lanier: Yeah. Those are inter­est­ing to me in dif­fer­ent ways. On the PTSD treat­ment, this is a case where I was ini­tial­ly real­ly cyn­i­cal about it. When peo­ple start­ed doing research in that I thought, Oh this is just too cute.” This sounds like some­body just want­i­ng head­lines. It’s like, it’ll be real­ly catchy. Oh yeah, we’ll use VR to treat these things. But the clin­i­cal results came in and they were repli­cat­ed, and it turned out to be a real thing. So that was a case where I was a lit­tle too cynical. 

And then the oth­er one you men­tioned on pain relief. One of my stu­dents who’s now—she’s just become a pro­fes­sor in the med­ical school at Cornell in New York, Andrea Won, came up with an amaz­ing thing. Can I tell you about it?

Mason: Please. You can’t set it up like that and not tell us.

Lanier: Well I don’t know. So, every­body here will know the dif­fer­ence between what we can now call clas­si­cal occlu­sive vir­tu­al real­i­ty and mixture—also known as aug­ment­ed real­i­ty. So what she did is she took a pop­u­la­tion of peo­ple who had chron­ic pain but local­ized, and put them in social set­tings with mixed real­i­ty head­sets. Meaning that they still saw the phys­i­cal world but with extra stuff. And then they would paint on their bod­ies where the pain was. And it could look like a vir­tu­al tat­too or a Band Aid or some­thing. And then it actu­al­ly stuck with them. And to get that to hap­pen is a whole tech prob­lem. It’s not gonna hap­pen with an off-the-shelf HoloLens. But any­way, it hap­pened in the lab­o­ra­to­ry setting. 

And so they had these arti­fi­cial tat­toos that were per­sis­tent. And then grad­u­al­ly, over weeks and months, they start­ed to dis­si­pate, and we did­n’t tell them it was going to hap­pen. And then a sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant num­ber report­ed their pain dis­si­pat­ing. Isn’t that cool? Yeah.

And then just as a reminder, every time some­body iden­ti­fies a tech­nique of that kind, pre­cise­ly the oppo­site hor­ri­ble, sadis­tic ver­sion of it is also hypo­thet­i­cal­ly avail­able. So it all comes down to incen­tives, pow­er struc­tures, ethics, soci­ety. Like, there’s no such thing as a com­put­er that’s going to be eth­i­cal on your behalf, or kind on your behalf. That’s up to you—it’s up to all of us. So this is not like some panacea sto­ry. It’s actu­al­ly a chal­leng­ing sto­ry if you under­stand the whole dynamic.

Mason: I was going to ask, if we’ve proven that vir­tu­al real­i­ty has these won­der­ful egal­i­tar­i­an uses and changes the mind and changes the body, then can it be used to inverse­ly not just cure trau­ma but invoke trauma?—

Lanier: Hell yes.

Mason: Could real­i­ty be the ulti­mate mind con­trol device?

Lanier: Yeah. Virtual real­i­ty has the poten­tial to be the creepi­est inven­tion. That’s absolute­ly cor­rect. This has also been stud­ied. So I have a co-researcher and friend named Jeremy Bailenson at Stanford. And we’ve been study­ing how chang­ing avatars changes peo­ple. So here are some things that have been not only pub­lished in peer-reviewed jour­nals but repli­cat­ed in mul­ti­ple places.

One is you can make some­body more racist with­out them real­iz­ing you did it to them. You can make some­body less con­fi­dent in a nego­ti­a­tion with­out them real­iz­ing you did it to them. You can make some­body more like­ly to buy some­thing they don’t need with­out them real­iz­ing you did it to them. And the list goes on. 

Mason: So this sounds like Facebook again.

Lanier: Well see that’s the thing. That’s what must not be allowed to hap­pen. So Facebook sim­ply has to change its busi­ness plan before Oculus gets any good.

Mason: So what’s the solu­tion for that? Is it gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tion of VR and…?

Lanier: Well, I mean I think the solu­tion is just to talk like this until they’re shamed into doing it. I know that sounds crazy. But I think that’s— No, look at look at—you know Sean Parker is with the pro­gram. And I’m work­ing on Peter Thiel and we’ll even­tu­al­ly, like this thing is going to crum­ble. Because it just makes sense. It’s just like what’s hap­pen­ing is too stu­pid for peo­ple of good will who are not stu­pid to endure. Like they have to just change it.

Mason: I want to talk— Yeah, right. And the fact that there was silence is slight­ly dis­turb­ing, espe­cial­ly from this audi­ence. I was expect­ing every­body to leave and riot now. 

Look, this oth­er thing about VR… Do you think… The folks who see how effec­tive it is, they go back and say, You know, it’s just like…this thing like psy­che­delics.” You spent a lot of time I know with Timothy Leary, and they were talk­ing about cyberdelics. And that term is com­ing back into fash­ion recent­ly because it kind of proves the effi­ca­cy of VR. People say oh, it’s like a cyberdel­ic expe­ri­ence. And what you actu­al­ly get is like, 60s visu­als with 90s rave music over the top. [Lanier laughs] Well it’s…it’s terrible.

Lanier: That sounds like Burning Man.

Mason: Do you think Timothy Leary would be dis­gust­ed by the sorts of VR expe­ri­ences today? Would he go, This is not what I meant when I said cyberdelics! This isn’t a psy­che­del­ic expe­ri­ence, this is some­one’s bad fuck­ing trip.”

Lanier: Well, I have some fun­ny sto­ries about Tim in the book. I knew Tim pret­ty well. I used to— We had a lot of dif­fer­ent— We dis­agreed a lot. I mean, in a way I had a dia­logue with him that was a lit­tle like the one with Bill Gibson, where I… I kind of felt at the end of the day that the way he’d pre­sent­ed psy­che­delics maybe had back­fired, and maybe was­n’t so great. Because he was just super utopi­an about it. And…

There’s a fun­ny sto­ry about how I met Tim. so, I’d been com­plain­ing to Tim about— I’d been com­plain­ing but we’ve been com­mu­ni­cat­ing indi­rect­ly, most­ly through rants in like under­ground zines, which is what peo­ple used to do before there was an Internet, and there’d be like this zine in the back of a book store like this and it’d be ter­ri­bly print­ed and it would have like some poet­ry and weird art and stuff, and then…anyway. So we’d been com­plain­ing to each oth­er. And so final­ly he said, Okay, lets meet.”

I said, Great!”

And he said, Well, I have to teach this course in some­thing or oth­er in Esalen Institute.” Do you all know what that is? It was this super influ­en­tial kind of very utopian—it’s still there—sort of New Age insti­tute that’s locat­ed in the world’s most beau­ti­ful loca­tion on these cliffs above the ocean with nat­ur­al hot springs. And it’s where a lot of cul­tur­al trends start­ed that are asso­ci­at­ed with 60s or alter­na­tive cul­ture. And it’s been around for for quite awhile. But just a lot of lit­tle things like work­shops you might go to, or yoga, or food you might eat. A lot of stuff start­ed there. So it’s a real­ly big for­ma­tive place, culturally.

Anyway. So I said, Great. I can dri­ve down.” He was com­ing up from LA. I’ll dri­ve down and meet you at Esalen, and we can meet.” 

And he said, Well, actu­al­ly… I real­ly don’t want to teach this work­shop. So what I’ve done is I’ve hired this Timothy Leary imper­son­ator [audi­ence laugh­ter] and I’m going to smug­gle him in. He’s going to—” The guy who used to run it—or still runs it—is Michael Murphy. He’s a friend of mine still. And as as soon as he’s gone, I’m going to just have the imper­son­ator do the rest of my work­shop. And what I want you to do is smug­gle me out in the trunk of your car past their guard gate so that I can get out of doing this thing. And then smug­gle me back right at the end so I can get paid.”

And I was like, Suuure,” you know? Like, fine. Like, the stuff we do for mon­ey in Silicon Valley is a lot less dig­ni­fied than that… I might as well go for it. So. 

I had this real­ly super beat up jalopy that I’d had for­ev­er from New Mexico that… Oh, this is a whole— These sto­ries go on and on. But this thing, it was real­ly messed up. It did­n’t have back seats. It had hay in the back because I used it to move goats around and stuff. But the trunk was com­plete­ly filled with ear­ly com­put­ers, so I had to gath­er with a friend of mine at Stanford and we were like, dump­ing these com­put­ers that’d been worth a ton today. Like all these really—just to cre­ate enough space for him to sit there. And we were like well, would that fit Tim where we cre­at­ed this hole… 

And so I went down there and sure, he fit. Although these com­put­ers fell on him and he was like, Oh! Oh!” I think an old Apple Lisa fell on his head is what hap­pened, if you know what that is. 

Anyway. So I’m like all tense and like, I’ve nev­er smug­gled some­thing past a guard gate before. And I’m like, oh so like I’m gonna be in jail. This is going to be hor­ri­ble. I’m going to be a par­ty to fraud and some felony and my future’s gone… So I’m dri­ving up and there’s this guard gate and we’re dri­ving up to it. Hello, hello.”

And then there’s this total­ly stoned hip­pie guy who like can’t even look up, just like, Uhhhh…”

But like, [makes zoom­ing noise] Anyway, that’s how I met Tim.

Mason: So from that meet­ing you had, you know feel­ings for how he felt about VR.

Lanier: Oh oh oh. That’s right, you asked a seri­ous ques­tion. You’re con­fus­ing me.

Mason: I’m about to give up and hand it to our audi­ence in a sec­ond, but—

Lanier: That might be wise. I mean, it’s hard to real­ly know what Tim would have said. I know… Tim was a good guy. I mean, he want­ed the best for every­body. He um… I mean, I real­ly don’t know what— I think what he might say now is that boy, all those just, you know… I mean, the real­ly inter­est­ing ques­tion­s’s like, what would some­body like William Burroughs say. Because we’ve entered into a peri­od of such dark­ness. It’s… I don’t know. I mean I think he’d be heart­bro­ken the way we all are.

Mason: But is also a real oppor­tu­ni­ty with VR to imag­ine some of these alter­na­tive busi­ness mod­els that you’re talk­ing about. So the thing with the vir­tu­al real­i­ty plat­form is that its reliant on cap­tur­ing a degree of human data. And we may get to the stage where we’re cre­at­ing these expe­ri­ences through cap­tur­ing neu­ro data and bio data. Could vir­tu­al real­i­ty be the plat­form that reim­burs­es the indi­vid­ual in exchange for that sort of data?

Lanier: I’d like it. I mean…so here’s the thing. If data comes from you, and you’re in con­trol of it, and it has an influ­ence on what you expe­ri­ence, that’s one thing. If that is meshed with influ­ence from some unseen paid per­son who gets in the mid­dle of the loop and influ­ences what comes back to you as a result of your own data, that is manip­u­la­tion and that’s the end of human­i­ty. We can­not sur­vive that. 

So one of the things that’s for­tu­nate is that it’s very easy to define where the prob­lem is, because it’s an infor­ma­tion flow. There must not be an infor­ma­tion influ­ence from unknown third par­ties on how the feed­back loop works—that must be up to you. So that’s the first thing to say.

And then there’s a very nice fall­out from that, which is that’s also a path to endur­ing human dig­ni­ty as the tech­nol­o­gy gets bet­ter and bet­ter. And I’d just like to explain maybe a bit about that before we take ques­tions? Is that okay? 

Mason: Please, yeah.

Lanier: Right. So what’s been hap­pen­ing now is we steal data from peo­ple, and then we use the data to feed arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence algo­rithms. But because we call them arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence algo­rithms instead of just algo­rithms, we have to cre­ate this fan­ta­sy that these things are alive, that they’re free-standing. And so then we give this mes­sage to the peo­ple we just stole from, that they’re no longer need­ed and their only hope for sur­vival as the algo­rithms get bet­ter is that they’ll become wards of the state on basic income or some­thing. And it’s a very cru­el, stu­pid, demean­ing lie. 

The clear­est exam­ple I’ve found for intro­duc­ing this idea to peo­ple who haven’t heard it before is with lan­guage trans­la­tion. So the peo­ple who trans­late between lan­guages, like between English and German let’s say, they’ve seen a dras­tic reduc­tion in their life options. It’s sim­i­lar to what’s hap­pened to pho­tog­ra­phers, to record­ing musi­cians, to inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ists, to many oth­ers. And the rea­son why is that the stu­pid lit­tle trans­la­tions, like trans­lat­ing mem­os, can now be done auto­mat­i­cal­ly. And by the way I love these auto­mat­ic ser­vices. They’re not great. I don’t want to see my book trans­lat­ed by Bing Translate. But on the oth­er hand I’ll use it for a memo or something. 

But here’s the thing. In order for these auto­mat­ic sys­tems to work we have to steal tens of mil­lions of exam­ple phras­es, from all over the world, in all the lan­guages, from peo­ple who don’t know they’re being stolen from, who are nev­er acknowl­edged and nev­er paid. And we’re telling those peo­ple that they deserve to not be employed any­more because they’re no longer need­ed because they’re being replaced by automa­tion, when in fact they’re still need­ed and they’re still the basis of every­thing and it’s not an automa­tion, it’s just a new, bet­ter chan­nel­ing of what they do. 

So the dis­hon­esty in that is cru­el and hor­ri­ble but it’s also cre­at­ing an absolute­ly unnec­es­sary pes­simism about the future, that peo­ple won’t be need­ed when in fact they will be. It’s one of the things that gets me real­ly angry. Because there’s this dog­ma oh, it’s AI, we’re cre­at­ing AI.” That’s been at the root of my hos­til­i­ty towards like arti­fi­cial crea­tures and stuff, because it ulti­mate­ly does destroy not just human dig­ni­ty but just the basic mech­a­nisms of humans being able to make their way.

Luke Robert Mason: And on that note, we’re going to hand this back to some humans. And I’m going to do two things. I’m going to hand you a dif­fer­ent mic, Jaron, so you’re a lit­tle more comfortable.

Jaron Lanier: No no no, I’m good. I’m good. Is this—can you hear me? Yeah yeah, okay. Everything’s working.

Mason: Alright. The one next to you’s a lit­tle loud­er. I might trans­fer you over. So are there any ques­tions? Eva.

Eva Pascoe: Hi. Thank you very much for fan­tas­tic sto­ries. We had the plea­sure of host­ing you at Cybersalon a good few years ago when one of the ear­ly Aibo dogs had just been released. And I remem­ber you took a strong dis­like to the Aibo dog. 

Lanier: Mm hm.

Pascoe: What’s your view of Sony bring­ing it back, as they just announced?

Lanier: Well, um…I think they should be smashed. They should all be destroyed. I mean— No, this is real­ly a bad thing. I… If you believe in a robot dog, in the same breath you’re believ­ing that you’re worth­less in the future—that you’ll be replaced. It’s a form of sui­cide for you, for the rea­sons I just explained. It’s eco­nom­ic sui­cide and ulti­mate­ly it’s spir­i­tu­al sui­cide. And I feel that strong­ly about it.

Now, that said there could be spe­cial cas­es. So if there’s some­body that for what­ev­er rea­son is made hap­py by this device and it helps them because of their very spe­cial issues or prob­lems, of course I’m not going to start judg­ing peo­ple on an indi­vid­ual basis. 

But over­all it’s a real­ly bad idea. It’s a bad idea in the sense that… I don’t know, it’s just like— It’s tru­ly a…it’s an anti-human idea. I expressed a the­o­ry the oth­er day in a piece in The Times that the rea­son cat videos are so pop­u­lar online is that cats are a spe­cial crea­ture in they weren’t domes­ti­cat­ed by us like dogs. They’re not obe­di­ent. They’re inde­pen­dent. They came along and demand­ed that they live with us, but they’ve kept their inde­pen­dence. And there’s this kind of self-directedness of cats which we love, and we see it in the videos. And it’s exact­ly the thing we’re los­ing in our­selves. So when we see cat videos online, we’re look­ing at the part of our­selves that’s dis­ap­pear­ing. That’s the long­ing that’s expressed. And that’s pre­cise­ly why you should­n’t have a robot cat.

Audience 2: Jaron, could you talk—

Lanier: Oh is that Kathlyn? [sp?]

Audience 2: Yes.

Lanier: Oh hey!

Audience 2: Hello! The musi­cal instru­ments, and the user inter­face, and the future of art in a pos­i­tive evo­lu­tion of technology.

Mason: Wonderful question.

Lanier: Well, I have an addic­tion prob­lem with musi­cal instru­ments. I have… I don’t know the count but it’s well over a thou­sand. And I play them. And I’m just a nut­case about it. And I’m not brag­ging, I actu­al­ly am con­fess­ing. Because it’s real­ly a sick­ness and it reduces the amount of air there is for my daugh­ter and wife to breathe in our home. And it pre­vents us from ever being able to walk from one point to anoth­er in our home in a straight line. 

But I love them for a bunch of rea­sons. One of them is they’re the best user inter­faces ever designed. They’re the most elo­quent, high­est acu­ity, of things you can real­ly become vir­tu­osic on. Not just at per­form­ing a par­tic­u­lar task but at impro­vis­ing in a broad palette. They’re by far the most expres­sive and open things that have been designed. That is to say com­pared to like a real­ly good sur­gi­cal instru­ment, which is real­ly designed for a par­tic­u­lar thing, a sax­o­phone is designed not for a par­tic­u­lar thing. In fact it’s most­ly played in a way that has noth­ing to do with what it was designed for.

So they have this incred­i­ble open poten­tial inside them, and peo­ple can spend their lives get­ting bet­ter and bet­ter and deep­er and deep­er with them. And that’s what I want most for com­put­ers. And I could go on and on about many oth­er qual­i­ties of them, but what I hope is that even­tu­al­ly com­put­ing will be like musi­cal instru­ments. It’ll be this thing that peo­ple can get deep­er and deep­er with, that is an open win­dow into a kind of an infi­nite adven­ture that is so seduc­tive that it does­n’t have an end. That peo­ple keep on grow­ing and growing.

This is a real­ly impor­tant point to me. One of the old debates in vir­tu­al real­i­ty is whether you could ever make a vir­tu­al real­i­ty sys­tem that’s so good that you’re done. That it fools you and that’s it. And I always said well no, you could­n’t. And the rea­son why is that peo­ple are not fixed. That as the VR sys­tems get bet­ter, peo­ple learn to per­ceive bet­ter. And so it’s not so much that the peo­ple are just like these fixed objects, then the VR gets bet­ter and then you’re done. No, the peo­ple change in response to the VR

And that process of peo­ple grow­ing through their per­cep­tion of tech­nol­o­gy is… Well, I used to frame it in almost apoc­a­lyp­tic terms. What I used to say is our job as tech­nol­o­gists is to kick­start adven­tures that are so seduc­tive that they’ll seduce us away from mass sui­cide. That’s the way I used to talk in my twen­ties. But I still think some­thing like that’s approx­i­mate­ly true. That if our moti­va­tion is just more and more pow­er, or more and more effi­cien­cy, or more and more opti­miza­tion, we’ll some­how just destroy our­selves. But if our adven­ture’s one of ever greater beau­ty and con­nec­tion and going deep­er and deep­er, then actu­al­ly that’s sur­viv­able. That can go on for­ev­er. So that’s the one that has to win. 

Mason: Question just here, Vinay Gupta.

Vinay Gupta: Hi, this is me call­ing in from the gods. So, I’m one of the blockchain folks. Although in the 90s I spent my time as a graph­ics pro­gram­mer wait­ing for VR to arrive. This is your fault. What do you think of the blockchain, both the hys­te­ria that sur­rounds it and also maybe the poten­tial for long-term mature tech­nol­o­gy. How does that inter­sect with things like the sto­ry about pay­ments will remove the mis­aligned incen­tives that pro­duce sur­veil­lance capitalism?

Lanier: So. Blockchain, yeah that’s been a ques­tion late­ly, isn’t it? There are a few things to say. The first thing, I’d like to draw a very sharp dis­tinc­tion between blockchain and cryp­tocur­ren­cies. So let me deal first with one and then the other.

So with blockchain… This sort of thing could be very impor­tant. Let’s remem­ber though that the way blockchain works is by explic­it­ly being as inef­fi­cient as pos­si­ble, alright. And so if that real­ly scaled up to run every­thing, it would be an uncon­scionable crime against the cli­mate. So the only way to use blockchain as we now under­stand it, at the scale of com­pu­ta­tion that would be need­ed to scale it, would be to find some sur­viv­able way. And in all seri­ous­ness maybe the blockchain servers have to be on the moon. Or some­where, you know. And of that might be a good thing to do with the moon. And I’m not being flip­pant. I’m actu­al­ly com­plete­ly serious.

But the oth­er thing is if you imag­ine some kind of nanopay­ment sys­tem on things like Facebook at a very vast scale, it’s pos­si­ble that the blockchain idea is like…emphasizes rig­or too much. And we need some­thing that’s a bit more…statistical and much much much much much more effi­cient. So that’s one thing.

The oth­er thing is the whole blockchain thing, as do many oth­er struc­tures, rest on what might be thin ice because we don’t have a for­mal proof that some of the encryp­tion schemes are real­ly going to with­stand… I don’t know. [inaudi­ble audi­ence com­ment (from Gupta?)] Yeah, I’m a lit­tle ner­vous about that. But that gets to be a kind of a geeky top­ic, alright.

But now let’s move to cryp­tocur­ren­cies. So here’s my ques­tion to you. Why is every fuck­ing one of the cryp­tocur­ren­cies that’s been launched to my knowl­edge a Ponzi scheme? Alright. 

Gupta: But all cur­ren­cies are Ponzi schemes.

Lanier: No, that’s not accu­rate. All cur­ren­cies are vul­ner­a­ble to being Ponzi schemes but they aren’t nec­es­sar­i­ly. And I’d refer you to Cain’s to under­stand that. If a cur­ren­cy can be well reg­u­lat­ed by well-intentioned peo­ple it does­n’t have to be a Ponzi scheme. It can grow and change with a society.

But some­thing like Bitcoin was pre­cise­ly designed to be a Ponzi scheme. I mean it unfair­ly and vast­ly ben­e­fits the ear­ly arrivals. And then every­body who does well on it lat­er, they have a low­ered sta­tis­ti­cal chance of doing well. But any­time they do well they make the founders do even bet­ter. So it is total­ly a Ponzi scheme, but since it’s so glob­al it just takes a real­ly long time to break com­pared to like, a Bernie Madoff scheme or some­thing, which is tiny in com­par­i­son. So, they’re hor­ri­ble. And even the ones since Bitcoin that are sort of more enlight­ened in var­i­ous ways are still Ponzi schemes. And there’s no like, dif­fi­cult math­e­mat­i­cal mys­tery to how to make one that isn’t a Ponzi scheme—but they’re all damn Ponzi schemes.

So, the thing is if we can’t get over the grandios­i­ty and greed of peo­ple in that com­mu­ni­ty, it’s not worth a thing. So the ques­tion is when do we start to make these things that are actu­al­ly for real?

Mason: That’s what scares me about that com­mu­ni­ty. They want to build Web 3.0, but they’re bor­row­ing the lan­guage of Web 2.0? to make indi­vid­u­als believe it’s going to be an easy tran­si­tion through, and I am deeply deeply con­cerned with friends and col­leagues of mine who are invest­ing in the cur­ren­cies and not actu­al­ly real­iz­ing that there’s real poten­tial and oppor­tu­ni­ty in that decen­tral­iza­tion, but it all gets thrown up into the memet­ic pow­er of what day trad­ing cur­ren­cies is. It’s such a loss.

Lanier: And we might end up with a nasty sur­prise when­ev­er the iden­ti­ty is revealed of the Bitcoin founder. I mean it could turn out to be Putin or some­thing, so. I don’t know, I mean I think it’s perilous. 

Mason: Any oth­er ques­tions at all?

Trudy Barber: Yes, it’s me, Trudy!

Mason: Oh, it’s Trudy Barber, the UK’s lead­ing cyber­sex­pert. [crosstalk] Make this a good one. 

Barber: Sorry! In the ear­ly nineties as an under­grad­u­ate at Central Saint Martins, I cre­at­ed one of the ear­li­est vir­tu­al sex envi­ron­ments, mak­ing a com­plete three-dimensional dig­i­tal space, with float­ing con­doms and all sorts of things in it. What I’m quite inter­est­ed in is as we’re see­ing ideas of you know, the 360 porn industry—which I don’t actu­al­ly see as some kind of vir­tu­al sex expe­ri­ence, I see it as a bit of a gim­mick. I’m quite inter­est­ed in how we are per­ceiv­ing our sex­u­al iden­ti­ties, or the poten­tial of per­ceiv­ing our sex­u­al iden­ti­ties, with­in a prop­er 3D vir­tu­al space where you have inter­ac­tion, where you have immer­sion, and how we per­ceive kind of…that whole idea of the phan­tom phal­lus, or the phan­tom vagi­na. And the way that we per­ceive our gen­dered expe­ri­ence of the world, and how we could real­ly expe­ri­ence and exper­i­ment with that in vir­tu­al spaces. So what’s your opin­ion on vir­tu­al sex in that context?

Lanier: Yeah. Well, alright so, this is anoth­er huge top­ic that could take a whole week or some­thing so I can only bare­ly prick the sur­face of.

Barber: Ooh!

Mason: Anything you say now, Jaron, this audi­ence is a British audi­ence. They’re going to read innu­en­do everywhere.

Lanier: I was told that Brits were very del­i­cate and unable to…

Mason: You haven’t met this audience.

Lanier: Okay. So, I’ll say a few things. Let me start with this sort of… Just the— God, how do I even begin here? So what I— Just in the— Oh God. Okay, look. What I think has hap­pened is our ideas about sex­u­al­i­ty of the last…going back to the late 1900s, with the very ear­li­est mov­ing images, with heliotropes and all, is we’ve had this very strange kind of arti­fact ori­en­ta­tion around sex­u­al­i­ty that turned into porn. Which is… I think it’s hard to remem­ber that things weren’t always that way, which is clear from his­tor­i­cal reading. 

Now, there’s been been lit­er­ary porn going back to ancient times and all sorts of stuff and it’s very inter­est­ing to read some of that. But there’s this very par­tic­u­lar reflec­tion of cin­e­ma, which I think has nar­rowed peo­ple. I think it’s cre­at­ed a set of clichés that peo­ple grow up with that is unfor­tu­nate­ly small, you know. It’s unfor­tu­nate­ly lim­it­ed. And I think in the future we might look back on the cin­e­mat­ic peri­od as one that was pro­found­ly anti-erot­ic. Because we were stuck in this feed­back loop with the things that were easy to film that we would see when we’re young, and that sort of thing

Now, I’m not sure that’s true but I sus­pect that’s true. And I should also point out that in pre-cin­e­mat­ic lit­er­a­ture, a lot of things about gen­der and sex­u­al iden­ti­ty are in fact more flu­id. In ancient lit­er­a­ture and even fair­ly recent lit­er­a­ture. I think that cin­e­ma had a sort of a cement­ing effect on us psy­chi­cal­ly, in a lot of ways. So that might be— I hope that does­n’t sound offen­sive to any film­mak­ers in the audi­ence, but. 

So when I was young, like in my twen­ties, I was real­ly fas­ci­nat­ed by erot­ic ideas in vir­tu­al real­i­ty. But I always thought that rep­re­sen­ta­tion of like, body parts or some­thing would be the least of it. And I was real­ly inter­est­ed in like, join­ing bod­ies with some­body inter­ac­tive­ly, try­ing to con­trol a shared body and learn­ing how to move togeth­er. Which is… You can do a lit­tle bit danc­ing and a lit­tle bit dif­fer­ent ways, but not like this. This is some­thing else, and it’s some­thing real­ly extra­or­di­nary that very few peo­ple expe­ri­ence these days because I just think for some rea­son they’re wast­ing time on stu­pid­er stuff.

Barber: Where would you see hap­tics engag­ing in this?

Lanier: Yeah, that’s an inter­est­ing ques­tion. You know, I was talk­ing about the cin­e­mat­ic era hav­ing an effect on sex­u­al­i­ty, and I sus­pect that that’s been some­what more pro­nounced for male sex­u­al­i­ty than for female sex­u­al­i­ty. And there’s a whole long dis­cus­sion one could have about why that might be so if it’s so and all that. And I think as far as the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­o­gy and sex­u­al­i­ty, for women it’s already been more hap­tic. And I… 

So one might pre­dict that that’s like­ly to con­tin­ue and… In gen­er­al the hap­tic modal­i­ty’s the one that’s the crud­est and needs the most work in vir­tu­al real­i­ty. And it always— Like I’ve seen this again and again and again and again. Every time the stars line up and there’s a bunch of fund­ing for vir­tu­al real­i­ty work, whether it’s in a cor­po­ra­tion or uni­ver­si­ty or some­thing, the lion’s share goes to vision. And then the next biggest por­tion goes to sound. And then poor hap­tics, which is the hard­est one that real­ly should be at the front of the list, gets kind of like the crumbs. And it’s frus­trat­ing. It’s exact­ly back­wards, [crosstalk] but that’s just a repeat­ed problems.

Barber: There is the datafi­ca­tion of hap­tics start­ing to hap­pen now, with the record­ing of sex­u­al respons­es. And I think maybe that might be a dif­fer­ent way for­wards, com­bined with the vir­tu­al immer­sion, where the datafi­ca­tion of plea­sure might actu­al­ly expose dif­fer­ent ways that we actu­al­ly engage with our bod­ies. And also how it becomes like a com­mod­i­ty that is sold on. Which fits in with some of the oth­er argu­ments that you say.

Lanier: Well, per­haps so. I mean, the con­cept of plea­sure is one of the— Things like plea­sure, and hap­pi­ness is anoth­er one… I won­der if in the future we’ll under­stand these words to be…much broad­er and more process-oriented than we do now. Because I have this feel­ing that peo­ple tend to think of plea­sure as a sort of…a des­ti­na­tion, and hap­pi­ness as a des­ti­na­tion, almost like a for­mu­la that’s been ful­filled or equa­tion that’s been solved. And I’m sure that that’s the wrong way to think. And so what I hope is that will expand into much more of an ongo­ing, infi­nite process.

One of the books I used to quote all the time in the 80s, and I think I still men­tion it in the new book—I can’t remem­ber anymore—is called Finite and Infinite Games by James B. Carson. He pro­posed that just as a— In a first broad-brush way of under­stand­ing real­i­ty you can divide process­es into finite or infi­nite games, with a finite game being some­thing like a particular…well, a game of foot­ball, that has to come to an end. Whereas the over­all field of foot­ball is infi­nite and need not come to an end. And so you have to under­stand which things are finite and which things are infi­nite. And right now the way we’re approach­ing tech­nol­o­gy on many lev­els is finite. It has to come to an end, which would mean our end. But if we can coax it into its infi­nite cousin, then we have a means of sur­vival. And that’s true on every level—economically, aes­thet­i­cal­ly, and on every level. 

Barber: Thank you.

Lanier: Sure, thanks for the question.

Mason: Any oth­er ques­tions at all?

Audience 5: Hi. I love the way your open­ing gam­bit was to ask us if you’d read a par­tic­u­lar book. Which I had, by the way. And you were a bit dis­ap­point­ed that most of us had­n’t. And through­out your talk, actu­al­ly you talked about books and read­ing a lot, which might come a sur­prise to peo­ple who think it was going to be much more visual-oriented—

Lanier: Well I am hop­ing you’ll buy a book. I mean, that’s why I’m— Like I mean. You’re wit­ness­ing abject cor­rup­tion here. And you know, don’t don’t pre­tend it’s like some ele­vat­ed state of con­scious­ness. This is raw American sales­man­ship. [inaudi­ble com­ment from A5] Yeah okay, go ahead.

Audience 5: So what I want­ed to ask you, if it’s not too per­son­al, is what are you read­ing at the moment?

Lanier: Um. Yeah no, that’s a great ques­tion. I’ve been just read­ing the Lapham’s Quarterly spe­cial edi­tion on music, which has all sorts of real­ly inter­est­ing eth­no­mu­si­col­o­gy schol­ar­ship that I’d nev­er run across before. All sorts of obscure things, and and those are real­ly real­ly fun. And I’ve been read­ing… Well, Masha Gessen’s book on the decline of Russia, which is a very very sad and ter­ri­fy­ing thing to read. And you know, impres­sive and won­der­ful but not easy. And I’ve been read­ing… Let’s see. I’ve been read­ing Roger Penrose’s book on fads in physics. And I’ve been read­ing um… God, there’s so much stuff. 

I mean, I love read­ing. I just—I adore read­ing. And the thing about, I mean… I some­times won­der what—you know. We have a lit­tle bit in ancient lit­er­a­ture about peo­ple who were skep­ti­cal of read­ing when it was still some­what fresh and nov­el. That you know, we’ve been warned that it’ll ruin mem­o­ry. That it’ll make peo­ple weak. And you know what, I think that’s all true. I think that there’s a dark side to read­ing. But one of things I love about it is peo­ple sort­ed it out. Like, there’s been Mein Kampf, there’s been hor­ri­ble books, books have been used to manip­u­late peo­ple. And yet we’ve sort­ed it out, where over­all books are this won­der­ful thing. So as with musi­cal instru­ments they’re anoth­er inspi­ra­tion for what must hap­pen with computation.

Mason: We prob­a­bly have time for one or two more questions. 

Audience 6: Hello. 

Lanier: Hey!

Audience 6: It’s great to be here. I want to kind of draw on some­thing that you briefly men­tioned, and that’s the idea of empa­thy, which is becom­ing par­tic­u­lar­ly preva­lent, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the mar­ket­ing of VR as an empa­thy machine. And I kind of won­dered why you think we should kind of draw the line with that. For exam­ple, Mark Zuckerberg say­ing he felt when he went to Puerto Rico via VR, say­ing that he felt like he was actu­al­ly there. And this kind of thing that’s kind of per­pe­trat­ing in order to sort of mar­ket VR as a con­sumer prod­uct. So yeah, I was kind of want­i­ng what your thoughts are on the rhetoric of the empa­thy machine.

Lanier: Well…sadly what hap­pened in this case is he was, uh— They did this sort of pret­ty basic car­toon­ish thing where they had a cir­cle video of being in a flood­ed and destroyed part of Puerto Rico, with a cou­ple of Facebook exec­u­tives in as avatars, talk­ing about how mag­i­cal and amaz­ing it was to be there and it felt like it was real­ly there!” And then after­wards he apol­o­gized, say­ing, Oh, I for­got to men­tion that this was sup­posed to be about empa­thy for the peo­ple there.” Like he just total­ly spaced that part out at first and then had to cor­rect him­self later. 

So yeah, the whole empa­thy in VR thing used to be my spiel. I kind of start­ed that lan­guage. And I mean it can go either way. The truth is there’s noth­ing auto­mat­i­cal­ly empa­thet­ic about VR tech­nol­o­gy. I mean like, what I’m con­cerned about with the rhetoric of sell­ing it as empa­thy right now… I mean they stole my shit, that’s fine. But the thing that real­ly both­ers me is that it’s sug­gest­ing that the tech­nol­o­gy itself is going to pro­vide empa­thy, which is…ridicu­lous. I mean, for god sakes it’s like a gad­get you’re buy­ing from some com­pa­ny. It’s not going to be empath­ic for you. Like that whole notion that empa­thy comes from the tech­nol­o­gy is wrong. If tech­nol­o­gy can help a lit­tle bit at the mar­gins to help peo­ple express empa­thy or find empa­thy, that’s great, but it’s a human thing. And so that mis­com­mu­ni­ca­tion is just stu­pid. And this Facebook thing in Puerto Rico was like a great exam­ple of how it can go wrong. 

There are a few advan­tages and a few prob­lems to VR as an empa­thy device. The advan­tages are that it can con­vey aspects of human expe­ri­ence that can’t be con­veyed by oth­er media. It can con­vey what it’s phys­i­cal­ly like to walk in some­body else’s shoes. For instance there’ve been vir­tu­al worlds to con­vey what it’s like to have dif­fer­ent phys­i­cal dis­abil­i­ties or what­ev­er, and I think that that’s real­ly inter­est­ing work.

The bad side of it is that if you cap­ture the world suit­ably to replace some­thing about it in vir­tu­al real­i­ty, you’ve cap­tured enough of it that it’s eas­i­er to fake than if it was just a pho­to­graph. And so this is a bit of a sub­tle tech­ni­cal prob­lem. But if you take a pho­to­graph and you want to fake it, if you Photoshop it, there’s some things that are very…there are traces that are very hard to ful­ly cov­er. So you can write pro­grams to find the lit­tle weird pat­terns that are left over from that oper­a­tion. So there’s at least a lit­tle bit of a film of pro­tec­tion if you can get at the orig­i­nal dig­i­tal file. Of course if some­body’s just done a low-res ver­sion of it or some­thing, then at a cer­tain point you just are stuck. 

But if you’ve real­ly cap­tured a vir­tu­al world… Like, let me give you an exam­ple. Let’s say you take a pho­to of some­thing and you want to change what appeared to hap­pen so that you’re try­ing to gen­er­ate an out­rage machine based on shit­post­ing fake news instead of some­thing real. Which is the more typ­i­cal thing these days. That’s more com­mon than an attempt to tell the truth. Lying has been ampli­fied like a mil­lion times while the truth has been only ampli­fied by like three times or some­thing. It’s like a com­plete inequity. 

And so let’s say you’re try­ing to lie by chang­ing a pho­to­graph. Well, you have to look where all the shad­ows lie. You have to make it con­sis­tent. And there’s not going to be any algo­rithm that does that com­plete­ly per­fect­ly. You have to sit there and look at it. 

But if you’ve cap­tured it vol­u­met­ri­cal­ly, then all you have to do is move the sun. I mean, you all of a sud­den have turned it into a sim­u­la­tion, and a sim­u­la­tion is para­me­ter­ized and so it’s eas­i­er to change. So sud­den­ly you can lie with it better.

So, the empa­thy thing is real. I spent many hours pro­mot­ing the idea of vir­tu­al real­i­ty as an empa­thy machine in the 80s. It’s legit in a sense, but it’s all about you. The machine can’t do a damn thing for you. 

And I… I don’t know. This idea— I don’t— Techies just don’t seem to be able to…take a human-centric approach some­times. They just real­ly have to think of the tech as being where the action is. And it nev­er nev­er nev­er is. It isn’t even real with­out us. 

Mason: So, Jaron, I’m going to ask you one final ques­tion. Because the Virtual Futures audi­ence span about twenty-five years. It’s an inter­gen­er­a­tional audi­ence. And how can we bet­ter work togeth­er to change some of the issues that you raised, and togeth­er cre­ate a more desir­able future?

Lanier: Well—

Mason: Or are we just…fucked? We just…there’s no hope.

Lanier: You know, the speak­ing truth to pow­er thing is still legit. Like, just… I mean I think in a way it’s just sort of point­ing it out, real­ly helps, you know. I’d be either try­ing to stop using social media, or use it very care­ful­ly and dif­fer­ent­ly than you have or some­thing. All the peo­ple try­ing to change the world with social media, as I’ve explained ear­li­er, are com­plete­ly undo­ing them­selves at every turn and you have to learn to over­come that addic­tive illu­sion. And I think you have to turn to oth­er insti­tu­tions that are still standing.

And I’m wor­ried about us sav­ing our gov­ern­ments. I’m just afraid that it’s become so dis­tort­ed that it might—that we’re all falling apart here. So I think just try­ing to save gov­ern­ments is a good project right now. We used to wor­ry about them being too pow­er­ful and now I feel like they’re so frag­ile they could just vanish.

Mason: Well is it a case of what expands con­tracts? I mean, the tech­noc­ra­cy is the replace­ment of the gov­ern­ment and we’re hop­ing that the gov­ern­ment now is going to be the thing that fix­es the tech­noc­ra­cy, and we’re just going to con­tin­ue to see this expan­sion and con­trac­tion between the gov­ern­ment, tech­noc­ra­cy, gov­ern­ment, technocracy. 

Lanier: Yeah, I don’t know. I mean it’s a fun­ny thing. If we think of the tech com­pa­nies as the replace­ment for gov­ern­ment… Which a lot of peo­ple are doing. I mean it’s true to some degree already. I mean, the good news is that the peo­ple who run the tech com­pa­nies are still kind of rel­a­tive­ly young and they’re almost all real­ly nice. I mean…they’re good peo­ple, you know. I mean like, in a choice between Zuck and Trump I mean obvi­ous­ly Zuck, right? I mean there’s not even a… 

But the prob­lem is that the amount of wealth and pow­er that is con­cen­trat­ed in the tech com­pa­nies is so great that we can’t just think about the cur­rent batch of cute kids there, you know. We have to think about who’ll inher­it the pow­er. And when pow­er is con­cen­trat­ed it tends to be inher­it­ed by less attrac­tive fig­ures. So, Bolsheviks were cuter than Stalinists, let’s say, right. And so with Facebook, it’s the first large pub­lic cor­po­ra­tion con­trolled by a sin­gle per­son, and that has to be inher­it­ed some­how. There has to be some kind of way that turns to some­thing else. And there are all the schem­ing, hor­ri­ble peo­ple in the world, you know, and who owns it like in a hun­dred years if it con­tin­ues to be what it is?

So I think that the tech com­pa­nies, as gov­ern­ment, are the least rep­re­sen­ta­tive gov­ern­ments ever, you know. I mean even less so than a royal—like a… I mean, I think even like some­place with a roy­al fam­i­ly like Saudi or some­thing still has to be a lit­tle con­scious of whether the peo­ple are going to total­ly revolt. Whereas some­thing like Facebook has a kind of degree of impuni­ty because every­body’s addict­ed. It’s a com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent rela­tion­ship that favors them in a way that cit­i­zen­ship does­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly favor a state. 

Mason: Well, on that note I hope there’s at least a lit­tle hope. And hopefully—

Lanier: I’m full of hope. I just uh…I’m a real­ist, though. I mean I think you can be a hope­ful opti­mistic real­ist, and it’s just…it’s just work, that’s all.

Mason: So, hope­ful­ly this audi­ence will keep doing exact­ly what you said. Keep hav­ing these issues out in pub­lic. And on that note I want to have a cou­ple of thank yous. Firstly to the Library Club for host­ing us. The Library Club, they are a won­der­ful venue. They’re very kind to us for hav­ing us here.

And a mas­sive thank you to Cybersalon and to Eva Pascoe. And it’s because of Cybersalon— This was a free invite-only event, and because of Cybersalon we’re able to cov­er our film costs. And every­thing that’s going to be pro­duced and released under Creative Commons so you can remix how­ev­er you like. 

Lanier: Part of what’s destroy­ing the world as I point­ed out.

Mason: Really? Alright, I’ll stick it behind a pay­wall and you can all pay us more.

Lanier: No no no no. You’d have to pay them because they cre­at­ed it.

Mason: Alright, I’ll pay you to watch the video. [audi­ence laugh­ter] Ugh. So look, we’re entire­ly audience-funded, and I don’t know what you’re going to say about Patreon but if you like what we do [Lanier laughs] please sup­port us. I don’t know, just…buy me a beer?

And you can find out more about Virtual Futures at vir­tu­al­fu­tures” pret­ty much any­where online. And of course a mas­sive thank you to Penguin Books who’re on the bal­cony. And Jaron’s signed a bunch of books that’re avail­able for sale. So please don’t all rush up there because they’re gonna get hound­ed. But the books are avail­able and for sale at the back. And thank you to the Penguin team for mak­ing this possible.

And I want to end with this, which is how we end every sin­gle Virtual Futures. And it’s with a warn­ing. Because the future is always vir­tu­al, and some things that may seem immi­nent or inevitable nev­er actu­al­ly hap­pen. Fortunately, our abil­i­ty to sur­vive the future is not con­tin­gent on our capac­i­ty for pre­dic­tion, although, and in those much more rare occa­sions, some­thing remark­able does come of star­ing the future deep in the eyes and chal­leng­ing every­thing that it seems to promise. I hope you feel you’ve done that today, and assum­ing that this isn’t an imper­son­ator, please put your hands togeth­er and join me in thank­ing the incred­i­ble Jaron Lanier.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.