The internet has seemingly evolved… almost like the evolution of human psychology, itself.

Whereby, the internet was initially ruled by cat pictures and mindless humor but today it’s evolved into a realm of Artificial Intelligence. In fact, I currently believe that the process of quantifying human interactions will quickly catapult our society towards the next level of predictive analytics and Ai computing. (*See also; Artificial Intelligence Project.)

Nevertheless, in any evolution there are consequences. For example, does our society choose to preserve what most people would consider, “clutter,” or, “junk information,” overflowing the internet? Or do you delete the billions of seemingly wasted gigabytes that are weighing down sites like; Youtube, Wikipedia, FB, SnapChat, or random blogs, today? And should some (or all) information stay online forever? Or for some pre-determined/allotted period of time? To which I say, some content, particularly that of Youtube should remain online forever.

But let me put this argument into context... where right now Google is using processors capable of, “tera flops,” capable of computing in excess of 1 quadrillion computations per second.

Meaning, that in terms of hardware, through cloud computing and super servers… preserving the internet is more feasible than ever before. Furthermore, in this day and age even the most senseless of information might be more important than some people think. And that’s because right now, in tech, there’s a booming surge in analytics that is taking place all over the world. Nevertheless, as statisticians and marketers constantly seek, “new and improved business techniques,” a redundant theme of board-room planning at tech company's today often becomes, “redundancy itself.”

So, imagine this… the year is 2100 AD and you're at a grocery store choosing between a deli sandwich or cookies. Then suddenly your super advanced, "future Ai watch," displays a hologram on your shoulder and that hologram says in a robotic tone...

“In 2025 your late ancestor chose the cookies and was divorced shortly thereafter for having sexual frustration's with his wife, primarily due to weight problems.”

And while this might seem like a morbidly futuristic scenario… perhaps even a poor example… this illustration of preserved data shows how even trivial information can improve future decision making. But another example of this statistical and analytical phenomenon is currently taking place in the music industry. In fact, this is a lot like music itself, in terms of pushing the boundaries of creative thought and dis-allowing redundancy in art.

Look at these musicians from the 90’s and early 2000’s who had their stint at the top;

• Hoobastank
• Sum 41
• NOFX
• NIckleback
• Duncan Shiek
• Lil Flip
• LIl Zane
• BG
• Coolio

And do you think that they've lived, "happy lives?"

• Fred Durst
• Puddle of Mud
• Shania Twain

And these were massively successful artists in the 1990's and 2000's who are now part of our countries, “Twitter graveyard.” However, with that being said, why should a company take a chance on a kid making music today when you look at that graveyard of musicians? Which is to say that taking a chance on a future artist is no longer an intelligent decision because of this data. Why take a chance on an up and coming artist when data shows that a musician like Fred Durst succeeded for 5 years and then struggled for the rest of his life? And this is another example of how preserving even the most senseless data can benefit future generations. Furthermore, in many ways this same conundrum is analogous to preserving the internet, as well as preserving cat pictures and senseless humor, online. So, to re-iterate I believe that as statistical analytics continues to become more and more advanced, spilling over into Artificial Intelligence and hyper-predictive reasoning, that seemingly trivial data becomes MORE valuable. Whereby, this seemingly trivial data and these seemingly trivial bytes of information… actually are becoming really important in terms of, “redundancy,” as well as, "future decision making."

In conclusion, there is no reason to take a chance financially on another Fred Durst because we already know where that career path leads and the data clearly illustrates that future outcome.

-William Larsen, Civilians News