Augmented Reality is the newest frontier in car technology and General Motors is trying to bring it to the masses.

What is Augmented Reality you ask? It's a rapidly emerging field that combines information gleaned from the web and super-imposes it on top of "reality". From a technical perspective it employs GPS technology to determine where you are, and then uses cameras and software to engage in pattern recognition using the objects or landmarks around you.

Augmented Reality is largely being driven by the mobile industry, and the proliferation of smart phones, but as a concept is finding traction in all sorts of areas, whether they be at home with your web cam, or with glasses, or contact lenses.

As you drive your car, the AR system would be constantly scanning your surroundings, and co-relating that info with the GPS, to create a new kind of interface via your windshield.

This might be used for safety purposes, like recognizing when a hazard approaches, or anticipating an accident, or detecting a speed trap ahead, and gives you instructions on the windshield to slow down or stop, or maybe avert that nasty pot hole ahead.

Similarly it could also be used for navigational purposes, like helping you go from A to B, or recognize the restaurant you're looking for, or indicate when gas is ahead, or even point out that the car ahead of you has your elementary school teacher in it.

The potential here is really incredible, hence why AR is making such rapid gains in our society.

Why is GM choosing to go down this road? One way to think about this is as an extension of their On-Star services that provides things such as roadside assistance, navigational help, and safety features. This basically allows that service to continue to evolve and distinguish itself from other companies.

GM faces considerable competition when it comes to automotive technology, with companies like Toyota and Ford translating technological advances into market success, although Toyota has felt the consequences of rushing forward with technology too quickly.

The problem of course with any new technology is that you can never do enough testing, that it always requires a certain degree of market tests in which actual consumers use the technology. Which means the early adopter or guinea pig always goes through a bit of turbulence to enjoy the new technology.

However it is the potential malicious use of technology that should really alarm us. For example in Austin Texas a dealership installed technology in cars they leased that allowed them to remotely disable the vehicles if their owners fell behind in payments.

Problems arose when an employee of the dealership was fired, and took revenge on the company by illicitly obtaining access to the system, using it to destroy records, disable over 100 cars, and in some cases remotely activate alarm systems and horns to the shock of their owners (who of course had been dutifully meeting their car payments).

Now just imagine if the cars had an AR system, the type of potential malicious use borders on the spectacular, if not outright terrifying.

Therefore perhaps we should question our tendency to always look to new technology as a solution for problems we may not even have. In the case of the auto industry there is an incredible amount of competitive pressure to continue innovating and introducing new features, bells and whistles, to win the business of fickle consumers.

One of the dynamics is the need to convince us we need to buy something new when what we already have works fine. This is the nature of planned obsolescence that marks the impact technology has on many number of industries.

The danger of course is that we push new technology through without properly testing it our evaluating the consequences and hidden impacts. This is why Toyota is in the trouble they are. Their technology allowed them to get ahead of other auto makers, but perhaps they went too far and too fast?

The more dependent we become on technology, the more severe the consequences when the tech goes bad and the greater the difficulty in diagnosing the problem at hand. Assuming of course we can even identify the problem. Far easier to just throw more technology at it.