Ian Bogost’s analysis of the “glassed out” vacant stare of Google Glass users surfing the web is particularly interesting in that it allows us to think more clearly about the now-familiar way people mark distance from their immediate surroundings by staring down into their smartphones. Bogost cites Olsen, one of the Google Glass designers who explains that they were designed to allow people to not dissociate from their surroundings when checking something online. That may not be such a great thing:

The very invisibility of connection with Glass may form part of the problem. After all, Olsson’s head-down smartphone pokers are clearly signaling their relationship to the physical world, even if the meaning of that signal amounts to, “I am withdrawing from it.” So tempting as the “glassed-out” metaphor might be, it’s the wrong one. “Wearers” are not like users, zoned out and distanced from worldly interactions through artificial chemical supplement. Rather, they are weirdly, undecidably suspended between presence and absence. The glassed-out early adopters of wearable computers signal neither; they signal nothing at all.

Of course, we’ve been complaining about new ways new technologies make us less aware of the here and now for a very long time.

Source: http://xkcd.com/1227/
Source: http://xkcd.com/1227/

Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

screenshot of blogpost from sept 11, 2001, about blogger.com showing blog posts about the attacks
Networked Politics social media

25 years since September 11

I’ve been reading through my blog posts on September 11, 2001 and the days that followed. The things that stand out to me – in addition to the horror of the attack itself – are how massively we (or at least I) used the web to understand what was happening, […]

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]