Jelle Demanet

Jelle Demanet's public commentary centers on a single conviction, tested through direct hands-on use: smart glasses have crossed a threshold and there is no going back. After three weeks with the Meta Ray-Ban Display, he is unambiguous that "we zijn er nog niet helemaal, maar het toont wel al aan: het gaat niet meer weggaan" ⁴⁵. His argument is not speculative but grounded in specifics: the form factor and the 6-7 hour battery life have finally reached a point where all-day wear is realistic, and the device fuses visual and verbal interfaces to AI in a way earlier iterations never managed ⁴⁵. For Demanet, this is less a product launch than a long-anticipated convergence: "Mensen die ermee bezig zijn, dachten al 10 jaar: dit is het moment dat het allemaal gaat samenkomen. En dit is voor mij nu echt het moment" ⁵.

As a cognitive psychologist, he brings a distinct angle to the hardware conversation, namely how fast and how thoroughly the brain adapts to it. He describes catching himself glancing bottom-right for notifications even without the glasses on after only a few days of use, calling it evidence of real neural plasticity and a sign that such devices could eventually become more intuitive than the smartphone itself ⁴⁵. But this adaptability cuts both ways. He is equally insistent that human attention is a fixed, non-negotiable constraint: "Wij kunnen niet multitasken. Onderzoek heeft dat aangetoond. Wij kunnen switchen tussen taken, maar wij kunnen onze aandacht maar op één iets houden" ⁴⁵. Because the glasses push notifications straight into the visual field without filtering, "het is eigenlijk uw smartphone op speed. Dus je krijgt alles constant zonder filter" ⁴⁵, and he treats this as a genuine design and safety problem, particularly around timing and placement of alerts during tasks like driving or conversing.

Demanet is careful to note where the technology's limits currently sit, refusing to oversell it. He points out that live translation cannot realistically drop below roughly two seconds of latency because some languages place verbs at the end of a sentence, forcing the system to wait for the sentence to finish before it can translate ⁴⁵. He also draws a sharp distinction between capturing images only on explicit request, as the Meta glasses do, versus continuous capture as demonstrated by Google's Android XR, noting that true mixed reality would require depth sensors and constant world understanding, which raises its own privacy tradeoffs ⁵. On the consumer question, he is blunt that the €300-400 premium for the Display version over the standard Ray-Ban Meta is not yet justified for ordinary users, and that only people who want a genuine glimpse of the future interface should buy in at this stage ⁴⁵.

Where he turns most pointed is on Europe's strategic position. Rather than framing the region as behind, he argues the opposite: "Zijn veel mensen die zeggen dat we te laat zijn, maar dat is geen waar" ⁴⁵. His proposed strategy is patient and deliberately observational: let American companies launch first, absorb the lessons on use cases and UI/UX (which don't yet have established standards), and then build a better, sovereign, ethically compliant version. He frames this candidly as opportunistic learning: "We kunnen stelen met onze ogen en iets beters maken die beter past bij wat dat wij echt willen dat die devices kunnen" ⁴⁵. This isn't a call for imitation but for leverage, since he notes that "de meeste grote techbedrijven eigenlijk draaien op basiskennis die in Leuven door IMEC ontwikkeld is," which he takes as proof that Europe already sits in an ideal position to develop its own hardware ⁴⁵. He extends this into a direct challenge to European capital allocation, suggesting people reconsider where they put their money: "In plaats van allemaal in vastgoed investeren en aan een appartement, misschien moeten wij eens meer overwegen om ook op hardware start-ups te durven investeren" ⁵.

On regulation, Demanet takes a firm sequencing position rather than a dismissive one: experimentation must precede legislation, not the reverse. "Vanuit de wetgeving gaat er nooit geen innovatie komen. Dus je moet wel de grenzen verleggen in use cases," he says, arguing that only after pushing boundaries in real use cases can the associated dangers be properly assessed and addressed ⁴⁵. This is consistent with his broader stance that Flanders, not just Europe abstractly, has the ingredients to lead in experience and entertainment innovation, citing a dense regional network of roughly sixteen research centers, a strong start-up ecosystem, and globally recognized players like IMEC, Barco, Kinepolis, Stageco and Tomorrowland as evidence of an already-existing competitive base ⁴⁵.

Beyond the podcast appearances, his other public statements reflect a consistent professional throughline: enthusiasm for collaborative, applied innovation work that connects technical talent, intellectual property protection, and cross-sector teams to real economic and social impact. He calls the Spatial Dynamics skillscan project a way to help companies map technical talent , welcomes a program on protecting intellectual property "in tijden van AI" held in partnership with Lab of Tomorrow , and celebrates working with "het kruim van innoverend, entertainend vlaanderen" to turn innovative ideas into concrete impact . Taken together, his output reads as that of someone who wants innovation to be tested first-hand, assessed honestly for its cognitive and practical risks, and then built out regionally with confidence rather than deferred to American or purely legislative timelines.