Because I am interested in technology innovation per se, I read the blog of IBM Research executive Irving Wladawsky-Berger on a regular basis. He posted recently about Second Life, a phenomenon about which I have mixed feelings (see my posts Second Life and the Amish and Real Is Beautiful). A few things intrigued me.
First, he agrees with my belief that Second Life exemplifies a new mode of human-computer interaction and interpersonal communication that will transform society at some point in the not-too-distant future. Second, his avatar looked a lot like he does in real life. Third, he is looking closely at how this will affect the behavior of institutions, as opposed to the changes it will bring about in interpersonal psychology, which is what I have been observing. Finally, his view sounds a lot more positive than mine. Hmmm...
Per Wladawsky-Berger:
In the last couple of years I have become increasingly interested in 3rd generation user interfaces (3GUI) inspired by advanced gaming technologies such as those found in Microsoft's XBOX 360 and Sony's PS3. Over time I have become convinced that such highly visual, interactive interfaces will revolutionize the way people interact with IT applications of all sorts. I have also become convinced that such virtual world capabilities will profoundly transform business and related institutions in society.
He reports a bit on what IBM has been doing in this new "world" and what it may entail in evolutionary terms:
My colleagues have built virtual world sites that replicate the IBM Hursley Labs in England and the Almaden Research Center in California. They are building a virtual Beijing Forbidden City. They are designing a set of conference centers devoted to business with our customers, public policy issues and internal collaborations. And they are creating meeting spaces for ex-IBMers and current employees to meet, catch up and even collaborate – part of a new alumni program called The Greater IBM Connection.
Multiply that kind of activity 100-fold, just in Second Life, and then factor in the many other virtual world sites that are either already in existence or under construction, and you get a picture of the innovative energy being unleashed by large numbers of people around the world. I think that what we are seeing is the evolution of the Internet and World Wide Web in incredibly important new directions. Foremost among them is a much more people-centric Web.
Fortune's Business Innovation Insider recently wrote this up as IBM Gets a Second Life, a phrase rich with multiple meanings. The lead-in to the article reads:
The world of online gaming and virtual entertainment is growing in size on a daily basis, leading an increasing number of experts to believe that many advances and breakthroughs in areas such as health care, education and business could come from a better understanding of these virtual worlds.
IBM's involvement in this arena goes back a ways. I was surprised to discover how much interest IBM has paid to the world of online gaming (for example, listen to the podcast for IBM investors at http://www.ibm.com/investor/viewpoint/podcast/21-12-05-1.phtml and read the transcript of an interview called Online Gaming is NOT Just For Kids Anymore). Online gaming may indeed represent one avenue to a second life for the eternal IT giant. It has been reborn multiple times in the past, and the present may be seeing yet another such rebirth.
In the realm of medicine, there are a lot of possibilities for use of Second Life and similar virtual worlds. In my earlier post I discussed the work of Peter Yellowlees at UC Davis in training residents to empathize with schizophrenics. In terms of actual patient care, I shudder to think of an avatar who looks a lot like Sigmund Freud taking notes while a Barbie or Ken avatar lies on the couch. Physical exams... let's not even go there. But as an educational tool, I definitely see the possibilities. If I wasn't so ambivalent, I'm sure I could think of more.
Perhaps my concerns expressed in the two earlier posts are overblown. I'm not so sure. I think we have opened the box and let out whatever was inside; let's hope the box wasn't Pandora's.
Comments