I’d argue that’s not really AR then (though no need to dispute definitions [0]), the blog post talks about that too - whatever that is, it’s not really a satisfying approach and wouldn’t be the next platform.

You want to be able to use the full power of human vision when looking at the world, not literally be looking at some subset in a display right next to your face all the time.

[0]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-...

TBH though, you link seems to describe situations where people leverage the confusion to win arguments, but point taken (thanks for the link btw, interesting article, I added my own comment).

It seems it might be a useful distinction though; I always took AR to be a distinction of interface: reality plus augmentation; but it might also be a tech type too: augmentiong normal vision versus "virtual" AR, or AR in VR..

That said, I don't understand your comment "use the full power of human vision"; If VR headsets improve to the point VR environments are as detailed (wrt human perception) ad reality, then virtualised AR shouldn't differ either.

TBH my own concerns are how hard VR is to use while is block you from your surroundings: noticing when people approach, handling headset/controllers/keyboard etc. I can't replace my monitors with VR b/c I cannot see my keyboard in VR, I see my coffee mug, or notice when people approach in order to not jump every time someone taps my shoulder; VR needs to be partially augmented with my true surroundings just to operate within a normal space.