Close
today i learned (til)

AI and VR: A New Reality

April 25, 2024

Reality is defined by the world we live in and the rules it is bound by. Physics, time, societal norms—these are all things that limit us to what we call our reality. But what if we could generate a new reality to live in? A virtual reality.

Virtual reality, or VR, is a computer-generated simulation designed to immerse participants in an artificial world that they can interact with and explore through the use of a headset and other accessories. Many people, including myself, have joined the craze with excitement, using the technology for both recreation and education, interacting with other users, experiencing 360 videos, or just playing immersive games. The top tech companies have begun their race to develop their visions for these worlds, with Apple being one of the most recent producers of their own headsets.

The Apple Vision Pro is “Apple’s first spatial operating system” that allows you to use your hands, eyes, and voice to create intuitive interactions around you. The feature “EyeSight” tells other people what you’re doing while using the headset, and from one review, the experience is similar to viewing your phone directly through your eyes. At the current price point of $3500, it’s not a product that everyone will be quick to get their hands on, but only time will tell how popular it will become as the design becomes sleeker and the interest becomes more mainstream.

However, as with all new developments, we have to stop and ask ourselves: Is this the right way to go? It seems like there may be a good argument against it.

My first introduction to the Apple Vision Pro was a video by YouTube creator Eddy Burback. In his video, he discussed the difficulties he had with its setup, grievances with its price point given its limitations, and most interestingly, the implications and ethical concerns for this product and the overall push for more social interaction in the virtual world.

Hadi Ardiny and Esmaeel Khanmirza vouch for the technology as a concept, noting that the integration of technology like virtual reality into education helps students gain hands on understanding and experience abstract concepts that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to. Other forms of computer generated reality have brought peace to grieving family members through realistic holograms of deceased loved ones, though that topic brings about moral questions of its own (Stein, 508). I have personally used VR as a means to teach about space in STEMcomm’s ASF After Dark event and can see its benefits. However, these benefits have yet to outweigh the negatives for me.

The idea that we are currently in a “loneliness epidemic” is an interesting perspective to incorporate into this conversation. Dilip V. Jeste, Ellen E. Lee, and Stephanie Cacioppo hypothesize that “there is probably a common underlying thread of social anomie and disconnection resulting from the rapid growth of technology, social media, globalization, and polarization of societies… Information overload, 24-hour connectivity, countless but superficial and sometimes harmful social media relationships, and heightened competition have elevated the level of stress in the modern society.” This sentiment was shared not only by Burback when discussing the peculiar push of an AI chat bot while using the headset but also by Yi Mou and Kun Xu’s research into human-AI social interactions. In their study, they found that users of the application WeChat showed higher levels of neuroticism and were less conscientious when conversing with AI. With this, the question is then posed: will computer manufacturing ever truly substitute in-person social reactions? Or, more importantly, should it?

I tend to agree with the philosopher Albert Borgmann, who is of the opinion that technology is a tool that, when mishandled or taken for granted, can devalue craftsmanship and the rich community ties that uphold our society. Though I don’t believe that the Apple Vision Pro will cause the downfall of our society, I find that we should be wary of its ability and intention to pull people away from our reality. New technology will always be exciting and often beneficial to the masses, but I think that it is important to be both open-minded and skeptical, inquisitive yet grounded.

Sources
Ardiny, H., & Khanmirza, E. (2018). The role of AR and VR Technologies in education developments: Opportunities and challenges. 2018 6th RSI International Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (IcRoM), 482–487. https://doi.org/10.1109/icrom.2018.8657615

Burback, E. (2024, March 29). Apple’s $3500 nightmare. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLMZPlIufA0

Fallman, D. (2009). A different way of seeing: Albert Borgmann’s philosophy of technology and human–computer interaction. AI & SOCIETY, 25(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-009-0234-1

Jeste, D. V., Lee, E. E., & Cacioppo, S. (2020). Battling the modern behavioral epidemic of loneliness. JAMA Psychiatry, 77(6), 553–554. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.0027

Mou, Y., & Xu, K. (2017). The media inequality: Comparing the initial human-human and human-ai social interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 432–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.067

Stein, J.-P. (2021). Conjuring up the departed in virtual reality: The good, the bad, and the potentially ugly. Psychology of Popular Media, 10(4), 505–510. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000315

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
AI & Historical Texts
today i learned (til)
Understanding the Use of CRISPR in Humans
today i learned (til)
It’s a ghost… it’s a UFO… It’s… Ball Lightning?
today i learned (til)
We need to talk about the women founders of modern science: Meet Ada Lovelace

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.