Everything Everywhere All

Everyday computing technology has made its way from the office desk (PC), to the café (laptop), the pocket of your clothing (smartphone), and finally to your wrist (smartwatch). Your eyes and ears are next in line as we welcome smart glasses. Smart glasses are worn like ordinary sun- or prescription glasses and “see, hear, and locate” your environment to augment it with text, video, and 3D models, for example. No longer the province of research labs only, Big Tech companies such as Google, Microsoft, Meta, Snap, or Apple are now all working on this next big thing in technology. So, there just might be something to this particular development. When you are wearing such smart glasses all the time, we call this pervasive augmented reality (AR). Those pervasive AR glasses will always be on, will augment what you see and hear, will respond to the context and your voice and gestures, and, combined with artificial intelligence, will take care of any apps to be operated. Pervasive AR will constantly and continuously provide you with information at the right place and the right time.2 Since the glasses are right in front of your eyes and near your ears, there is no longer a need for a smartphone to be pulled out of your pocket or a smartwatch to be looked at. So, what could pervasive AR be useful for? There is the promise of a paradigm shift in how we will communicate, collaborate, work, play, educate, learn, entertain ourselves, and see the world. With this always-on and always-there technology we might make decisions faster and more accurately and explore the world while having all the information we need, accessible without effort. Pervasive AR can be a social bonus, as you can get conversations started between you and people you do not know so well, more quickly. For instance, we have almost all been in a situation of talking to a person you have met before but have forgotten their name. Now with the latest developments, your pervasive AR glasses will subtly overlay that name into your view. However, the introduction of pervasive AR often comes with undesired consequences, in areas such as privacy, commercial exploitation, distractions, digital inequalities, and in judging what is true and right.1 Pervasive AR will subject its users to a constant feed of tailored augmentations, of which the sources are unverified, and the access is user specific. This ability of displaying context and user-specific content is enabled by cameras, microphones, and other sensors on pervasive AR glasses capturing the world around its users continuously and often intrusively. The overlaid digital information, being within the wearer’s field of view, needs to be filtered to avoid information overload and health and safety issues, and the information provided needs to be trusted and not manipulated. To date, little is known about such perceptual effects and ethical consequences. So, what is fundamentally different when it comes to ethical questions with pervasive AR in comparison to other emerging technologies? Regardless of the specific glasses and their applications, pervasive AR will alter the way its users see the world. In-place, in-time information will be brought to the user, unprompted, without being incited by the user.2 This also carries the risk of distorting reality perception in a subtle and unprecedented way. Existing research has often discussed how prolonged AR use can blur the distinction between reality and augmentations, leading to users being misled. Furthermore, continuously wearing AR eyeglasses will potentially lead to health and safety issues not seen with other technologies, such as increased cognitive load, fatigue, eye strain, and potential physical harm from manipulated augmentations.5 In addition, we already see software applications running on AR glasses for law-enforcement agencies, which demonstrate the new level of issues surrounding privacy and dignity that will certainly develop when those glasses become commonplace and pervasive. Those ethical examples demonstrate a need to have a closer look at pervasive AR. Anticipated implications of the so called metaverse will also impact pervasive AR,1 such as users being unwillingly subjected to corporate-mandated content. Similarly, pervasive AR further exacerbates the already problematic situation of existing racial and sexist biases due to lack of inclusivity in the development of technologies. This includes research that has specifically focused on identifying social implications of everyday use of AR, often exploring themes of privacy concerns,3 commonly stemming from the always-on nature of cameras. In our research, we are using the power of empirical studies with guiding questions8 for ethical impact assessment of pervasive AR. We can anticipate future real-world use through technology probes, that is, tangible implementations of potential pervasive AR systems, and empirically testing them with people in selected scenarios such as socializing in public.7 Hence, we can receive intuitive feedback from the public instead of relying purely on the opinions of the designers and engineers of such technology. A reoccurring theme is the issue of asymmetry in the future use of pervasive AR—the divide between the technology haves and the have-nots. We have explored this asymmetry in terms of how pervasive AR can transform public settings by augmenting not only the space,6,7 but, also those sharing the space by showing pervasive AR eyeglass wearers information about their bystanders. Asymmetry is multifaceted and raises the questions of who will be able to afford these eyeglasses and who gets which information? Who is controlling the information? Are there new kinds of power imbalance that will potentially develop here? Are we willing to leave this level of decision making to the big tech companies, or should we all try to actively shape the future of pervasive AR? Here, we strongly propose the latter choice. One of the fundamental questions arising is whether realities of alternative facts will be promoted through the use of pervasive AR. As Chalmers in his Reality+ book provokes: Will there be an “Apple Reality, Facebook Reality, and Google Reality”? Recently, Meta released their latest iteration of AR glasses, partnered with Ray-Ban. These devices exacerbate privacy concerns, as subtle, spectacle-like AR devices with always-on cameras are increasingly thrust upon societies.3,4 However, it is not only Meta; Samsung, Apple, Google, Snap, and Alibaba have enthusiastically announced their devices will be the new future. That makes one wonder about Chalmers’ proposition on the emergence of developer-driven technologies, are the users at the mercy of the developers? After all, shouldn’t users’ concerns count for more than another pixel upgrade or another boost to a company’s bottom line? The million-dollar question is how to ethically shape the future of pervasive AR. Moshe Y. Vardi9 on multiple occasions over many years argued for technology serving humanity, that Big Tech is becoming too powerful and their power must be curtailed, and that their business models are unethical and must be regulated, and finally asks the question whether it is even outright unethical to work for Big Tech. As a way out of this ongoing dilemma we propose a co-responsibility model where computing professionals adopt a position of supporting the public good and genuinely co-designing pervasive AR. Such a model allows computing professionals to participate in the future-shaping process without having to either shoulder the whole responsibility for all ramifications or otherwise to retreat to a position of ethical neglect. We propose what we call a pervasive AR civics space: a participatory platform to design pervasive AR technology with and for people, potentially leading to high usability and utility, transparency, and meaningful regulation. We have seen how participatory design in the 1970s and 1980s shifted the balance of power between workers and managers by advocating for workers having the ability to influence the design of the computer systems they were expected to use. The foundations of participatory design were, and still remain, greatly political, supporting the empowerment of vulnerable and marginalized groups, and rooted in democratic values; the right of people to co-determine and be active agents of their living conditions. Within this frame, a participatory decision space would leverage principles and practices from digital civics10 and networked participatory publics to advocate for the pervasive AR user being able to influence the design of, or better control, their immersion at every layer of manipulation. This space should be used to rethink existing divides between the haves and the have-nots, between technology providers and users, and between regulators and citizens to enter into a constructive dialogue about the future of this potentially omnipresent and transformative technology. However, given pervasive AR is already in place as part of our socio-technical infrastructure, and ‘publics’ are heterogeneous and in conflict, this is not an easy task. It may require a participatory design strategy, where practices and technologies undergo change at the same time, and therefore require continuous alignment of actors’ conflicting interests and matters of concern. The exact methods to be used are still a matter of debate, but there are existing approaches that can serve as starting points or used in localized contexts, such as Speculative Design or the Living Labs concept that has been successfully applied in contexts such as rural health solutions, urban tourism, and others to support co-design and open innovation. Whatever the method, it will certainly require a multi- and interdisciplinary approach, between technologists, designers, social scientists, businesses, regulators, and of course end users and other stakeholders. A truly participatory process can be initiated, implemented, and maintained at any type and level of pervasive AR research, design, and development. It allows leaders, line managers, interface designers, software developers, and all other professionals involved in decision making, big or small, to influence the way we will be surrounded by and see the world through pervasive AR. Co-responsibility and initiative have to be developed inside, with, as well as outside of Big Tech. Based on our experience, moral intuition and explicit morality of non-experts and experts alike play a major role here. A civics space for pervasive AR with computing professionalism at its core can interrogate power relations and changing hierarchies and at the same time bring participative and dialogue-based processes to the forefront of discussions about how such technologies are developed, implemented, regulated, and held accountable. We need informed digital citizens to engage with those processes to confidently welcome pervasive AR to our everyday lives—let’s shape smart glasses for a smart future. Join the Discussion (0) Become a Member or Sign In to Post a Comment