Does it make sense that more and more data is being stored?

Take Twitch or Youtube as an example. More and more videos are added that are saved, regardless of whether the quality is good or bad. Then there's also the fact that the data must be permanently backed up and maintained. In principle, that means you need more and more storage media. Where is this going to lead? In addition, it is of course an enormous power consumption to call up all the data and you have to replace the data memory over time.

Youtube will surely give a limit at some point where videos are deleted after 20 years.

The question comes a good 20 years too late. Gathering data is now the most important thing for most businesses. Those who have enough data can evaluate, use, reproduce and convert them. Without collected data we would hardly be able to make any further progress, because data is knowledge.

On the other hand, I can understand your skepticism. Some data are actually not needed. Why not delete them? Because there's not enough "manpower" to sort and sort out the resulting data. Automatisms do not make sense for this. And so we keep collecting.

You're right, but that's up to YouTube etc, because they are ultimately responsible, but such a large company won't have to worry about storage space too quickly, they will most likely have more than enough storage space for the time being, maybe comes in the future, yes, a more energy-saving memory out, with which these costs could be reduced

I'm concerned with the point where should the files be saved in the future? The server farms are getting bigger and bigger.

Under water e.g.:
https://t3n.de/...t-1085473/
In space there's also a possibility. After all, the farms are about cooling, and that is optimally possible underwater and in space.

And it should make sense that servers are placed everywhere with perhaps unnecessary data?

As I said, you would have to separate necessary data from unnecessary data. However, this is no longer possible due to the amount of data. We're about 20 years too late for the question.

No, the question is just right. Of course there are options to separate unnecessary data from necessary data. Just as an example, you could delete all videos with just 10 views within a week

No, it definitely doesn't make sense to store as much junk as on YouTube, but you still do it.

Mfg Jannick (L1nd)

And so consolidate monopoly positions ;-)

Not today, maybe tomorrow because of new algorithms to function as learning material

No, if YouTube were to delete videos in a few visits, other platforms could be a good alternative.

Cooling in space?

Great, then the data will be stored somewhere else. How does that change the situation? - Nothing.

However, progress does not result from collecting any data. This is how only surveillance works, not science and research. You're confusing the business concept. It is only used for the targeted application of the doctrine… More consumption… For this you need a step backwards rather than progress. My group collects a huge amount of data that has absolutely nothing to do with progress, except when stocks are progress for you.

It was already clear to me that you were writing that. But it also doesn't change whether it serves the monopoly or not.

And then we come back to a point where AI could become "dangerous" to us. If we let a machine decide which data is unimportant, it could be fatal.

Let's just assume that an extremely healthy 76-year-old is thrown out of the organ donor register because a colleague computer believes that an organ over 75 years old is generally worthless… I mean, and if it only lasts 4 or 5 years, a heart is a heart.

"Does it make sense that more and more data is being stored?"

For the companies in any case, because they can extract a lot of information from the data, train so-called AI, etc. And then turn that into money. Google, Facebook etc. Are on average more valuable today than companies that produce something tangible.

With the data, for example, face, gesture, speech, object recognition, etc., can be trained so that, for example, the content of the images and videos can be automatically recorded. A lot of information can then be automatically derived from this: who knows whom? What illnesses, preferences, weaknesses, attitudes, fears, etc. Do you have. Such information is very valuable because it allows power to be exercised. In addition, the knowledge advantage can be used to outperform the competition. And monopolies can arise. Not to mention the possibilities for dictatorships.

So-called artificial intelligence that becomes self-sufficient, as in the film, is certainly not to be feared. But there are new tools that can be misused by people to exercise power.

For normal people, a lot of data is certainly a hindrance. Because you have no control over it and you have to manage it. Rather, needs are aroused, e.g. To present oneself, which are of no use and could more likely harm.

"That means you basically need more and more storage media"

yes, but not a problem

My first PC had an 80MB hard drive. The content of 10,000 such hard drives would fit on an SSD in today's normal PC. Or about 1000 of them on my smartphone. However, only 3 pictures from my camera would fit on my hard drive at that time;) The speed is also growing steadily. CPU and GPU have also been approximately exponentially faster or more parallel. And it can be assumed that this will continue. A modern graphics card, for example, has a couple of 100 CPUs. Each of them faster than a single one a few years ago.

So storage isn't a problem. Because the speed is constantly growing, the automatic evaluation and compression of the data becomes easier, which means that even more information can be saved.

The stupid thing is that the collected data or the knowledge extracted from it is concentrated in a few companies and institutions that you have to trust for all time.

"In addition, it is of course an enormous power consumption"

but by no means to the same extent as capacities increase.

Thanks for the star.