You have a better chance of reaching the moon by building longer and longer ladders than you do reaching general intelligence by hardcoding facts.
I know; you're preaching to the choir. The entire approach is wrong but the AI fanbois insist that it's like The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and adding more hardware will magically make it 'wake up' and become sentient. The marketing and media hype-machine has done it's job too well on too many people.
Come on, America, it's time to be the adults, look under our own beds, and assure ourselves that the Nuclear Boogeyman is just our imagination.
We need nuclear power. Safe nuclear power isn't 'theoretical', it's a reality; there are safer reactor designs on the drawing board right now, but since everyone seems to lose their bladder containment whenever the subject comes up, no money gets allocated into developing them.
Of course none of this can even begin to happen until 2020; we need to get the current bozo out of office, because his geriatric obsession with dragging us back to the 1940's, trying to resurrect the coal industry, prevents any progress in nuclear power from happening. Hell, I wouldn't put it past the guy to 'executive order' all information to-date on reactor design be destroyed, just to ensure that ass-backwards coal mining is brought back from the dead.
Once we get past that hurdle and back into a sane energy policy, new reactor designs can be developed and implemented. That'll take at least 10 years though.
Meanwhile continuing development and deployment of solar and wind power, in conjuction with large-scale energy storage strategies, should tide us over, and as capacity in these technologies increases, old-fashioned outdated filthy fossil-fuel-based power plants can be shuttered. Tear them down and build solar farms, so we can reuse the grid connections to them.
In order to facilitate faster adoption of plug-in electric vehicles, there should be new government programs to promote them. Rebates, credits for decomissioning ICE vehicles, grants to municipalities to fund change-over from diesel buses to electrics, ad campaigns promoting electrics. Get as many people as possible off ICE-based transportation and into electrics.
Meanwhile continue funding development of practical fusion technology, to eventually replace fission technology.
Also, for all we know, if we, as a species, manage to survive another hundred years or so, we might even have antimatter reactor technology (or something more exotic than that, even), and never have to worry about energy ever again.
The takeaway here is that we have to stop dwelling on the past and move forward, stop being scared little rabbits, use what we've got that's better than what we've been using, and stop sabotaging ourselves.
They're either buying into the same marketing and media hype for the half-assed excuse for AI everyone keeps trotting out, or they've got something nobody else has, meaning general AI. The latter is highly unlikely, if they did we wouldn't be hearing about it at all.
Maybe the reason why I don't know how off the top of my head to do that is I do not use Windows 10 at home and only had to be subjected to it in my last job, where there were never any ads to begin with. Be a dumb cuck and use Windows 10 all you like though, I'll be over here using Ubuntu and not giving a fuck.
But, see, Microsoft doesn't care about what You want, they only care about ensuring They have control of Your computer. Your ability to actually use it in any way meaningful to you is secondary to that, that should be clear to anyone at this point.
The paranoid part of me doesn't believe Microsoft is doing this to fix the update problem at all. Instead, they're allocating 'hidden space' on the drive to capture user sensitive data and store it for later uploads to Microsoft when the laptop/desktop is connected to the Internet. Hear, hear.
Remember: It's not 'paranoia' if what you're saying is true, and it very likely is. When your OS is feeding you ads right on your desktop and you have NO way to stop it, then just like Facebook, Your Personal Data has very likely become a 'product' that they sell to advertisers. Them, them, fuck them, I say.
I have no Win10 box handy to determine for sure the answer to your question, but so far as the 'space requirement' goes, Microsoft has adopted a 'our way or the highway' attitude, so I think it's probably hard-coded into the OS, or at best you'd have to hack the Registry to change it. Without knowing the details, they might even create a separate partition just to contain downloaded updates. Don't know though.
You can go into Administrative Tools/Services, shut down the Windows Update service, and set it to 'Disabled', but that's the nuclear option; you won't have ANY updates that way, so it's all-or-nothing. Also, for all I know, they've locked you out of changing the startup settings for the Windows Update service, so you'd have to hack the Registry (if possible; even Registry entries have Security settings that can keep you out of things Microsoft doesn't want you changing) to stop it from starting up. If you can't do that then you'd have to do something extreme like pull the drive, find the.exe file for Windows Update, and change the security settings on the file so that even System is set to 'Deny' for executing the file. Lots of hoops to jump through for something that should, rightly, be entirely up to the User to control. This sort of 'strategy' from Microsoft, to take control of your computer away from you, is why so many of us hate it and hate them and have switched to Linux, by the way. We feel we should have the final say in how our own machine is administered, not Microsoft.
If you aren't running Linux in 2019, you aren't paying attention.
Hear, hear.
Switching to Ubuntu may have had a learning curve associated with it, but no hurdles I couldn't eventually overcome -- and that's only because I'm not a 'typical' computer user. The 'average' computer user can more-or-less use it right out of the box.
At the same time there's risk involved in any activity and if you're not prepared to accept the risk then you should not participate, if for no other reason than nervous people make mistakes far more often than confident people do, and on a bike mistakes mean getting injured. FWIW you could end up with repetitive motion injuries and sciatica problems from sitting in your nice safe comfy house playing video games all day every day, and you can get an injury going to the gym for strength training, too. The only way to be 100% 'safe' is to sit still in your house, move very little, and very slowly when you do.
Tell you what, friend: don't lump us all together into one group. Bigotry is bigotry.
Most of us don't 'proselytize'.
Most of us don't commute on a bike to work either. It's slow, inconvenient, and I for one don't want to stew in my own sweat all day.
It's safe
It can be. The 'average' cyclist somehow thinks that they're not living in the same reality as everyone else on public roads. They're not paying attention in the same ways they are when driving, and they should. Same laws apply.
To be absolutely fair about it, drivers act differently than they should around cyclists, and that makes the problem worse. As an exampIe, I can't count the number of times per month I have to literally wave a car through a four-way stop because they flatly refuse to take their right-of-way. Making things confusing causes safety issues, and despite the protests of cyclist haters, it's not all the cyclists.
It's easy It's convenient
For an avid cyclist? Sure, it can be. For someone who never does it? No, it's not. As previously stated: it's also inconvient, slow, you can't carry that much with you, and forget about stopping at the grocery store or other errands on your way home from work. Nevermind even discussing rain and snow, or it being near or below freezing out. Remember: I am a cyclist, and I don't do it or recommend it.
Bragging
Again: stop lumping us all together. I don't give a damn about this-that-or-the-other sports you watched on TV or the video games you're playing, and I don't go around yakking about the number of hours and miles I ride weekly or what my VO2max power has risen to unless you ask me. Then I'll be happy to bend your ear about it.;-) Otherwise it's my personal business and none of yours.
Assuming at some point in time we have the instrumentality to observe a living human brain in action at the resolution/level of detail necessary to really understand the how and why of it's functioning, we'll be able to eliminate a fair number of those for some of the 'hardwired' functions they serve, mainly the 'bare-metal' functions required to keep our basic bodily functions in order -- but even then, we currently don't even understand enough of what our brain does to even know whether those functions are truly 'hardwired', or if they're adaptable, or how integrated into everything else they really are. For all we know, you might not be able to separate out the 'sentience' of a human brain from the 'hardwired instincts' or the parts that run the basic systems of our bodies; it might be all one big system, so tightly integrated with itself that you can't remove significant portions of it without disabling the rest; for all we know, one 'section' of the brain might serve a primary purpose, but also contributes to other systems in a secondary or tertiary way such that if you remove it, the other parts cease to function. We just don't know enough.
We don't even know how the brain works, and this asshat is asserting that we'll never be able to build a machine that works the same way.
Good thing I actually read people's entire posts otherwise I'd be inclined to write a scathing reply instead of this one.
100% correct; we don't even know how a biological brain like ours produces the phenomenon of 'thought' or 'consciousness' or anything else that defines us as 'sentient', mainly because we don't have the instrumentality (yet?) to observe the entire system in a way that really reveals how it's functioning and why. 'Learning algorithms' are the most superficial aspect of intelligence; an amoeba is capable of more cognition than any AI created to-date; your dog or cat is smarter and more capable of learning and adapting. The problem here is not just lack of adequate instrumentality, either: it's the fact that we're trying to jam millions of years of evolution into a couple decades of R&D. Meanwhile marketing departments hype the whole thing up into something it's not, and the media, knowing even less about the subject, manages to hype it up even more, to the point where we think so-called 'self driving cars' are going to be like K.I.T.T. from Knight Rider, and that 'robots are going to take all our jobs'. At current neither could be farther from the truth. So-called 'autonomous cars' can't tell the difference between a living being and an inanimate object, can't tell a stop-sign is a stop-sign if someone puts a sticker or some graffiti on it, and can get easily confused and have to (unexpectedly) pull over to the side of the road in the middle of a trip and 'phone home' so a human operator can remotely take control of the vehicle to get it out of whatever situation it is it can't manage on it's own; not something I or anyone I know would entrust their lives to, that's for sure!
Meanwhile 'AI' fans will gush on about their belief that all we have to do is keep throwing more and faster hardware at these 'deep learning alogorithms', and they'll 'magically' wake up at some point and become self-aware and fully cognizant, like it's Mycroft from The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. Sorry to have to break it to them, but it ain't happenin'.
We might someday have real, full-on, 'general AI', awake, self-aware, thinking, and at least equivalent to a human brain, but not today and not any time in the forseeable future. We have a lot of groundwork to do first before we can really unlock the secrets of how our own brains work; then we can try to build machines that work the same way.
This is utter stupidity. What are they thinking? Are they thinking that pickup trucks are going to become obsolete or somesuch nonsense? LOL, no, pickup trucks will remain a staple of transportation because of their utility. Let's see how upset these pickup truck owners are when Tesla or some company that comes later starts rolling out full-size plug-in electric pickup trucks that have more horsepower than even the largest V8 ICE pickup truck has right now? That they can then have a high-capacity charging post installed at their house and not ever have to go to a gas station again? If they really want the roaring of a big internal-combustion engine to feel manly they can install a sound system to simulate it, I guess, but really, what's the problem? Nobody is going to take their trucks away from them. They can still have rifle racks in the back window and a Confederate flag flying from it all they want, huge offroad tires and jacked up all they want.
That's what too many companies and people are doing: drinking the marketing- and media-hype kool-aid, believing the half-assed so-called 'AI' they keep trotting out is somehow going to 'revolutionize' everything, make humans obsolete, and so on, and so on, and so on. The more time that passes the more people start seeing it's bullshit.
Here's the problem with what you're saying: Since 'privacy laws' here in the U.S. are a joke, this control over your 'privacy' only has meaning so long as Microsoft says it does. If they decide to terminate the project a few years from now, do you really think they'll just overwrite and delete that data, or are they going to invoke some clause in the convoluted privacy agreement associated with this and do whatever they want with the data anyway? If, considering Microsofts' behavior overall to-date, you really think they're going to turn around and be 100% benevolent and transparent, then you're horribly naive.
The only way to protect any measure of your privacy anymore is to give your personal data to NO ONE. Even then you're only preserving a modicum of your privacy.
They want them on the 3-year leasing treadmill.
There's another, more sinister reason for that: not wanting people to actually 'own' things of any real value.
I sympathize with you, but once your current iPhone develops a fatal problem, you won't have much choice. Compared to 20-or-so years ago, only superficial repairs can be done on modern electronics.
Come on, people, the answer to the question 'why Apple (or {insert any manufacturer name here} doesn't want people repairing their products' is simple and right in front of everyones' faces, but nobody wants to come out and actually say it: If you make a product (like an iPhone) so that it can be easily repaired, then you sell fewer new replacements, leading to a loss of profits. It's happened countless times, I'm sure, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution: a company makes a durable, quality product, that lasts and lasts and lasts, and maybe if it does break, it's easy to fix and keep using. Initially they sell a gazillion of them, and make all sorts of money; eventually, however, everyone who wanted to buy Product 'X' has bought one, and since they don't seem to need to replace it, ever, that company goes out of business because no repeat customers! This is why there is such a thing as 'planned obsolescence', too, of which 'lack of repairability' is just another version. Apple, and any other company you care to name, doesn't want to repair, or allow anyone else to repair their products in any substantial way, because they, ideally, want you to buy a new one every year. If Apple, or anyone else, thought they could get away with the entire inside of their products be just one solid block of opaque epoxy (and it wouldn't cost more money to do so), they'd do just that, to ensure no one can 'fix' anything.
It wouldn't be anywhere near as hard as these manufacturers claim to build things like smartphones in such a way that they're more modular internally and more easily repaired. It would cost more money, to be sure, but you could create a smartphone in such a way that it's not only 'field repairable', but upgradable, such that you could keep using the same one for years and years and years -- and a company like Apple would likely go bankrupt, or at least become so much less profitable that who knows what would become of them? At the very least perhaps they'd become less innovative for less profits to invest in research and development of new technologies. Who knows?
One thing is certain: microminiaturization of just about everything has clearly made repairing electronic devices significantly more difficult and in some cases impossible. Back in the early days of television, for instance, up to the end of the CRT TV era, repairing a television set down to the individual component level was not only possible but a regular practice. First with vacuum tubes, then transistors, then through-hole integrated circuits; it was possible for a technician to troubleshoot down to the discrete level, replace a part (or several) and the TV would be good to go again. Even with computers and computerized devices, up until the advent and widespread use of BGA-packaged integrated circuits, it was still possible to field repair PCBs without any too-expensive equipment. But now between the fact that the vast majority of ICs are now BGA-packaged devices, and the package density of PCBs in a device like an iPhone, these PCBs are for all intents and purposes unrepairable; between the need for specialized equipment, costing thousands and thousands of dollars, to remove and replace BGA devices, and the specialized training required to successfully use this equipment, there's still a large chance that the attempts to repair such PCBs will fail, costing the company attempting to repair it money they can't recover. Even the manufacturers themselves don't usually attempt to 'repair' PCBs anymore for this reason, they'll replace them with new. For this reason if 'The People' want electronic devices that can be repaired to the Nth degree, they'll have to settle for overall larger, heavier devices, using technologies that allow component-level repair -- or someone will have to invent a new technology that isn't essentially a straight-line path from raw components to finished device to end-user use to the e-waste bin.
What Zuckerberg really wants is Facebook to have unprecedented access to your deepest most private thoughts and emotions. Just imagine how much more advertisers, nosy corporations, and even nosier governments will pay for THAT. Fuck you, Zuckerberg. Stay the fuck out of people's heads.
Isn't that about what they're implying here?
The real problem: People don't really understand what it is that Facebook is doing to them. Otherwise they'd likely care more.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a better chance of reaching the moon by building longer and longer ladders than you do reaching general intelligence by hardcoding facts.
I know; you're preaching to the choir. The entire approach is wrong but the AI fanbois insist that it's like The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and adding more hardware will magically make it 'wake up' and become sentient. The marketing and media hype-machine has done it's job too well on too many people.
Come on, America, it's time to be the adults, look under our own beds, and assure ourselves that the Nuclear Boogeyman is just our imagination.
We need nuclear power. Safe nuclear power isn't 'theoretical', it's a reality; there are safer reactor designs on the drawing board right now, but since everyone seems to lose their bladder containment whenever the subject comes up, no money gets allocated into developing them.
Of course none of this can even begin to happen until 2020; we need to get the current bozo out of office, because his geriatric obsession with dragging us back to the 1940's, trying to resurrect the coal industry, prevents any progress in nuclear power from happening. Hell, I wouldn't put it past the guy to 'executive order' all information to-date on reactor design be destroyed, just to ensure that ass-backwards coal mining is brought back from the dead.
Once we get past that hurdle and back into a sane energy policy, new reactor designs can be developed and implemented. That'll take at least 10 years though.
Meanwhile continuing development and deployment of solar and wind power, in conjuction with large-scale energy storage strategies, should tide us over, and as capacity in these technologies increases, old-fashioned outdated filthy fossil-fuel-based power plants can be shuttered. Tear them down and build solar farms, so we can reuse the grid connections to them.
In order to facilitate faster adoption of plug-in electric vehicles, there should be new government programs to promote them. Rebates, credits for decomissioning ICE vehicles, grants to municipalities to fund change-over from diesel buses to electrics, ad campaigns promoting electrics. Get as many people as possible off ICE-based transportation and into electrics.
Meanwhile continue funding development of practical fusion technology, to eventually replace fission technology.
Also, for all we know, if we, as a species, manage to survive another hundred years or so, we might even have antimatter reactor technology (or something more exotic than that, even), and never have to worry about energy ever again.
The takeaway here is that we have to stop dwelling on the past and move forward, stop being scared little rabbits, use what we've got that's better than what we've been using, and stop sabotaging ourselves.
They're either buying into the same marketing and media hype for the half-assed excuse for AI everyone keeps trotting out, or they've got something nobody else has, meaning general AI. The latter is highly unlikely, if they did we wouldn't be hearing about it at all.
Maybe the reason why I don't know how off the top of my head to do that is I do not use Windows 10 at home and only had to be subjected to it in my last job, where there were never any ads to begin with. Be a dumb cuck and use Windows 10 all you like though, I'll be over here using Ubuntu and not giving a fuck.
But, see, Microsoft doesn't care about what You want, they only care about ensuring They have control of Your computer. Your ability to actually use it in any way meaningful to you is secondary to that, that should be clear to anyone at this point.
The paranoid part of me doesn't believe Microsoft is doing this to fix the update problem at all. Instead, they're allocating 'hidden space' on the drive to capture user sensitive data and store it for later uploads to Microsoft when the laptop/desktop is connected to the Internet.
Hear, hear.
Remember: It's not 'paranoia' if what you're saying is true, and it very likely is. When your OS is feeding you ads right on your desktop and you have NO way to stop it, then just like Facebook, Your Personal Data has very likely become a 'product' that they sell to advertisers. Them, them, fuck them, I say.
I have no Win10 box handy to determine for sure the answer to your question, but so far as the 'space requirement' goes, Microsoft has adopted a 'our way or the highway' attitude, so I think it's probably hard-coded into the OS, or at best you'd have to hack the Registry to change it. Without knowing the details, they might even create a separate partition just to contain downloaded updates. Don't know though.
.exe file for Windows Update, and change the security settings on the file so that even System is set to 'Deny' for executing the file. Lots of hoops to jump through for something that should, rightly, be entirely up to the User to control. This sort of 'strategy' from Microsoft, to take control of your computer away from you, is why so many of us hate it and hate them and have switched to Linux, by the way. We feel we should have the final say in how our own machine is administered, not Microsoft.
You can go into Administrative Tools/Services, shut down the Windows Update service, and set it to 'Disabled', but that's the nuclear option; you won't have ANY updates that way, so it's all-or-nothing. Also, for all I know, they've locked you out of changing the startup settings for the Windows Update service, so you'd have to hack the Registry (if possible; even Registry entries have Security settings that can keep you out of things Microsoft doesn't want you changing) to stop it from starting up. If you can't do that then you'd have to do something extreme like pull the drive, find the
If you aren't running Linux in 2019, you aren't paying attention.
Hear, hear.
Switching to Ubuntu may have had a learning curve associated with it, but no hurdles I couldn't eventually overcome -- and that's only because I'm not a 'typical' computer user. The 'average' computer user can more-or-less use it right out of the box.
..until morale improves!
At the same time there's risk involved in any activity and if you're not prepared to accept the risk then you should not participate, if for no other reason than nervous people make mistakes far more often than confident people do, and on a bike mistakes mean getting injured. FWIW you could end up with repetitive motion injuries and sciatica problems from sitting in your nice safe comfy house playing video games all day every day, and you can get an injury going to the gym for strength training, too. The only way to be 100% 'safe' is to sit still in your house, move very little, and very slowly when you do.
Tell you what, friend: don't lump us all together into one group. Bigotry is bigotry.
;-) Otherwise it's my personal business and none of yours.
Most of us don't 'proselytize'.
Most of us don't commute on a bike to work either. It's slow, inconvenient, and I for one don't want to stew in my own sweat all day.
It's safe
It can be. The 'average' cyclist somehow thinks that they're not living in the same reality as everyone else on public roads. They're not paying attention in the same ways they are when driving, and they should. Same laws apply.
To be absolutely fair about it, drivers act differently than they should around cyclists, and that makes the problem worse. As an exampIe, I can't count the number of times per month I have to literally wave a car through a four-way stop because they flatly refuse to take their right-of-way. Making things confusing causes safety issues, and despite the protests of cyclist haters, it's not all the cyclists.
It's easy
It's convenient
For an avid cyclist? Sure, it can be. For someone who never does it? No, it's not. As previously stated: it's also inconvient, slow, you can't carry that much with you, and forget about stopping at the grocery store or other errands on your way home from work. Nevermind even discussing rain and snow, or it being near or below freezing out. Remember: I am a cyclist, and I don't do it or recommend it.
Bragging
Again: stop lumping us all together. I don't give a damn about this-that-or-the-other sports you watched on TV or the video games you're playing, and I don't go around yakking about the number of hours and miles I ride weekly or what my VO2max power has risen to unless you ask me. Then I'll be happy to bend your ear about it.
Which of those need to be emulated?
Assuming at some point in time we have the instrumentality to observe a living human brain in action at the resolution/level of detail necessary to really understand the how and why of it's functioning, we'll be able to eliminate a fair number of those for some of the 'hardwired' functions they serve, mainly the 'bare-metal' functions required to keep our basic bodily functions in order -- but even then, we currently don't even understand enough of what our brain does to even know whether those functions are truly 'hardwired', or if they're adaptable, or how integrated into everything else they really are. For all we know, you might not be able to separate out the 'sentience' of a human brain from the 'hardwired instincts' or the parts that run the basic systems of our bodies; it might be all one big system, so tightly integrated with itself that you can't remove significant portions of it without disabling the rest; for all we know, one 'section' of the brain might serve a primary purpose, but also contributes to other systems in a secondary or tertiary way such that if you remove it, the other parts cease to function. We just don't know enough.
We don't even know how the brain works, and this asshat is asserting that we'll never be able to build a machine that works the same way.
Good thing I actually read people's entire posts otherwise I'd be inclined to write a scathing reply instead of this one.
100% correct; we don't even know how a biological brain like ours produces the phenomenon of 'thought' or 'consciousness' or anything else that defines us as 'sentient', mainly because we don't have the instrumentality (yet?) to observe the entire system in a way that really reveals how it's functioning and why. 'Learning algorithms' are the most superficial aspect of intelligence; an amoeba is capable of more cognition than any AI created to-date; your dog or cat is smarter and more capable of learning and adapting. The problem here is not just lack of adequate instrumentality, either: it's the fact that we're trying to jam millions of years of evolution into a couple decades of R&D. Meanwhile marketing departments hype the whole thing up into something it's not, and the media, knowing even less about the subject, manages to hype it up even more, to the point where we think so-called 'self driving cars' are going to be like K.I.T.T. from Knight Rider, and that 'robots are going to take all our jobs'. At current neither could be farther from the truth. So-called 'autonomous cars' can't tell the difference between a living being and an inanimate object, can't tell a stop-sign is a stop-sign if someone puts a sticker or some graffiti on it, and can get easily confused and have to (unexpectedly) pull over to the side of the road in the middle of a trip and 'phone home' so a human operator can remotely take control of the vehicle to get it out of whatever situation it is it can't manage on it's own; not something I or anyone I know would entrust their lives to, that's for sure!
Meanwhile 'AI' fans will gush on about their belief that all we have to do is keep throwing more and faster hardware at these 'deep learning alogorithms', and they'll 'magically' wake up at some point and become self-aware and fully cognizant, like it's Mycroft from The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress . Sorry to have to break it to them, but it ain't happenin'.
We might someday have real, full-on, 'general AI', awake, self-aware, thinking, and at least equivalent to a human brain, but not today and not any time in the forseeable future. We have a lot of groundwork to do first before we can really unlock the secrets of how our own brains work; then we can try to build machines that work the same way.
This is utter stupidity. What are they thinking? Are they thinking that pickup trucks are going to become obsolete or somesuch nonsense? LOL, no, pickup trucks will remain a staple of transportation because of their utility. Let's see how upset these pickup truck owners are when Tesla or some company that comes later starts rolling out full-size plug-in electric pickup trucks that have more horsepower than even the largest V8 ICE pickup truck has right now? That they can then have a high-capacity charging post installed at their house and not ever have to go to a gas station again? If they really want the roaring of a big internal-combustion engine to feel manly they can install a sound system to simulate it, I guess, but really, what's the problem? Nobody is going to take their trucks away from them. They can still have rifle racks in the back window and a Confederate flag flying from it all they want, huge offroad tires and jacked up all they want.
..our technological wizards turn their attention to this.
..and you people wonder why it is our planet and species is shunned so thoroughly by the interstellar community that we can't even be sure they exist.
See? You get it. Now go out and educate everyone else you can. Then get them to do the same. Might just be able to counteract the hype machine.
That's what too many companies and people are doing: drinking the marketing- and media-hype kool-aid, believing the half-assed so-called 'AI' they keep trotting out is somehow going to 'revolutionize' everything, make humans obsolete, and so on, and so on, and so on. The more time that passes the more people start seeing it's bullshit.
It's a trap and too many of you are falling for it.
Here's the problem with what you're saying: Since 'privacy laws' here in the U.S. are a joke, this control over your 'privacy' only has meaning so long as Microsoft says it does. If they decide to terminate the project a few years from now, do you really think they'll just overwrite and delete that data, or are they going to invoke some clause in the convoluted privacy agreement associated with this and do whatever they want with the data anyway? If, considering Microsofts' behavior overall to-date, you really think they're going to turn around and be 100% benevolent and transparent, then you're horribly naive.
The only way to protect any measure of your privacy anymore is to give your personal data to NO ONE. Even then you're only preserving a modicum of your privacy.
They want them on the 3-year leasing treadmill.
There's another, more sinister reason for that: not wanting people to actually 'own' things of any real value.
I sympathize with you, but once your current iPhone develops a fatal problem, you won't have much choice. Compared to 20-or-so years ago, only superficial repairs can be done on modern electronics.
Come on, people, the answer to the question 'why Apple (or {insert any manufacturer name here} doesn't want people repairing their products' is simple and right in front of everyones' faces, but nobody wants to come out and actually say it: If you make a product (like an iPhone) so that it can be easily repaired, then you sell fewer new replacements, leading to a loss of profits. It's happened countless times, I'm sure, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution: a company makes a durable, quality product, that lasts and lasts and lasts, and maybe if it does break, it's easy to fix and keep using. Initially they sell a gazillion of them, and make all sorts of money; eventually, however, everyone who wanted to buy Product 'X' has bought one, and since they don't seem to need to replace it, ever, that company goes out of business because no repeat customers! This is why there is such a thing as 'planned obsolescence', too, of which 'lack of repairability' is just another version. Apple, and any other company you care to name, doesn't want to repair, or allow anyone else to repair their products in any substantial way, because they, ideally, want you to buy a new one every year. If Apple, or anyone else, thought they could get away with the entire inside of their products be just one solid block of opaque epoxy (and it wouldn't cost more money to do so), they'd do just that, to ensure no one can 'fix' anything.
It wouldn't be anywhere near as hard as these manufacturers claim to build things like smartphones in such a way that they're more modular internally and more easily repaired. It would cost more money, to be sure, but you could create a smartphone in such a way that it's not only 'field repairable', but upgradable, such that you could keep using the same one for years and years and years -- and a company like Apple would likely go bankrupt, or at least become so much less profitable that who knows what would become of them? At the very least perhaps they'd become less innovative for less profits to invest in research and development of new technologies. Who knows?
One thing is certain: microminiaturization of just about everything has clearly made repairing electronic devices significantly more difficult and in some cases impossible. Back in the early days of television, for instance, up to the end of the CRT TV era, repairing a television set down to the individual component level was not only possible but a regular practice. First with vacuum tubes, then transistors, then through-hole integrated circuits; it was possible for a technician to troubleshoot down to the discrete level, replace a part (or several) and the TV would be good to go again. Even with computers and computerized devices, up until the advent and widespread use of BGA-packaged integrated circuits, it was still possible to field repair PCBs without any too-expensive equipment. But now between the fact that the vast majority of ICs are now BGA-packaged devices, and the package density of PCBs in a device like an iPhone, these PCBs are for all intents and purposes unrepairable; between the need for specialized equipment, costing thousands and thousands of dollars, to remove and replace BGA devices, and the specialized training required to successfully use this equipment, there's still a large chance that the attempts to repair such PCBs will fail, costing the company attempting to repair it money they can't recover. Even the manufacturers themselves don't usually attempt to 'repair' PCBs anymore for this reason, they'll replace them with new. For this reason if 'The People' want electronic devices that can be repaired to the Nth degree, they'll have to settle for overall larger, heavier devices, using technologies that allow component-level repair -- or someone will have to invent a new technology that isn't essentially a straight-line path from raw components to finished device to end-user use to the e-waste bin.
What Zuckerberg really wants is Facebook to have unprecedented access to your deepest most private thoughts and emotions. Just imagine how much more advertisers, nosy corporations, and even nosier governments will pay for THAT. Fuck you, Zuckerberg. Stay the fuck out of people's heads.
Isn't that about what they're implying here?
The real problem: People don't really understand what it is that Facebook is doing to them. Otherwise they'd likely care more.