Zero privacy world: Is it possible to "streaking" gracefully? |Cultural aspect

Zero privacy world: Is it possible to "streaking" gracefully? |Cultural aspect

"The secret is to lie, sharing is caring, privacy is stealing."

This is the bold imagination of the American science fiction writer Dave Eggers about the future. This sentence is the preface of the super company in the film of the same name in The Circle. There, the ethics that we take for granted are reversed and new creeds are created: hiding privacy is a serious personality defect. Turning over personal information is equivalent to realizing the freedom of life, and “sharing the virtues”; while protecting privacy is treated as theft. To be rejected by new human beings and handed over to new legal sanctions.

Privacy, which can stimulate the imagination of the writer, should be said to be the mark of the intelligent era of the Internet of Things. However, as the legal owner of privacy, we are grateful for the generosity of Mr. Eggs. Because in his super-intelligent future, privacy is still valuable and enjoys equal protection in accordance with the law. People only need to correct their values ?? and divert privacy from the “private” and “hidden” territories into information/data assets to continue their familiar life. Of course, the new property always falls in the hands of others, such as the circle company, leaving us personal, just production and reproduction, that is, permission to dedicate privacy is a shell of personality rights.

In fact, the future of privacy has arrived. Being a transparent person, voluntarily or forced to surrender privacy, for people to profit, is already the norm. However, the revision of values ?? and the transformation of social morality have yet to be completed. During the transition period, there will be calls for privacy protection; the conflicts in the ownership and use of privacy are increasingly frequent and sharp. This is because, under the conditions of capitalism, there is an irreconcilable contradiction between privacy and sharing. Recently, Facebook has been questioned in the United States and around the world. It is a vivid example. When Congress quarreled and investigated whether Russia intervened or interfered with the US election, Facebook was found to have leaked personal information of 87 million users to a British company. Facebook claims that this user information was obtained by third parties in an "unfair manner." Zuckerberg personally came forward and apologized to the public to ensure that it will be strictly managed in the future. As everyone knows, as early as 2011, Facebook had made almost the same promise due to user information disclosure. The reason why this promise was not fulfilled was that it could not be honored; in fact, national laws did not allow it to be honored. Now that the business model and the brutal industry are competing, which network company, including the e-commerce predators, does not make money by mining and buying user information? The more user privacy in hand, the bigger the market and the higher the profit. If privacy is strictly protected, does it mean that the pillar industry has committed suicide?

However, the real problem is not the profit of several large companies. The key is that this is about our moral values ?? and rational choices: artificial intelligence (AI), the creation of human pride, and the peak of information technology, which is likely to be incompatible with protecting privacy. AI is aiming at high efficiency and optimization and pursues super silicon-based intelligence superior to the human brain. In that intelligent system, information is the basic element, the recording, editing, and expansion of everything and life. People, as a whole, are just a collection of information, like carbon-based and inorganic substances. And privacy, entering the era of big data, as an individual feature that is at the edge of the human's overall information set, is "too human" - carrying too many value positions and legal risks. Protecting privacy, the human information set has become ruined and unusable, so there is an urgent need for optimization, standardization, and risk reduction. In other words, privacy becomes an obstacle to silicon-based intelligence, a noise that must be removed; if not, humans cannot integrate with AI and integrate into the future.

So, we have to face the possibility of the end of privacy. We must think about how humans will survive if privacy ends.

 Can privacy be hidden?

To study the end of a thing, we need to find reasons from the conditions and processes of its rise and fall. So, why did privacy come from? How does it shape our daily life, and what does it mean? The answers to these questions are crucial.

Historically, privacy is a description of human existence, not only the objective existence of society, but also the subjective cognition of moral ethics, and thus carries emotional and value judgments. With regard to privacy, there are so many different theories, and the practice is different. However, there are two basic elements in everything: the individual of the individual is different from the public of the group/society, which is called “private”; the private domain, sometimes it needs to be isolated from the public, It is "hidden". It can be said that the concept of privacy, which is recognized by the society and incorporated into the category of "private", is derived from "public" and gains value. Privacy is both a product of private and public ownership or opposition and a condition for public and private coexistence.

Some scholars believe that privacy comes from human-animal nature. People are independent individuals and at the same time, they are social animals. People live in groups, and they need a certain amount of private space and time to build a relationship between family and society. Private and invisible are among them. After the civilized culture, the concept and habits of privacy are the products of high-level intellectual activities such as religion, art, politics, and economy. Gradually, privacy evolved into an individual and group of life ethics, transcending animal instinct, and complex and refined, and finally became a pillar of social order.

This public-private relationship, as early as in ancient Greece, Aristotle noticed. He proposed a philosophical proposition that distinguished the category of the Oikos and the polis and discussed the concept of voluntary behavior. This opens up a long academic tradition that explores the relationship between privacy and free will, self-awareness, and free personality. Free will is an ability of people to choose and act on their own. Therefore, usually, only the behavior under the free will can afford the corresponding legal responsibility and moral evaluation, regardless of rewards and punishments, reputation, and embarrassment. In the same way, with free will, social mechanisms such as teaching, persuasion, deliberation, prohibition, and judgment can operate.

The generation and exercise of free will are inseparable from the environment of privacy. First of all, with privacy, people can cultivate moral self-awareness, that is, fully aware of their connection with the consequences of behavior, that is, "I" is the "efficient cause" of "my behavior", so that they can consciously assume responsibility for consequences. Then, the psychological need for the independent choice of action is generated, and the free will is cultivated. Therefore, without privacy, there is no free will.

More importantly, the social recognition and protection required by privacy are at the expense of free will, that is, the ability of people to be responsible for others and society. In other words, the elimination of privacy is the ability to eliminate the responsibility of human beings. Because the existence of privacy is not only a condition for the generation and exercise of free will but also a prerequisite for individuals to accept social evaluation and undertake social obligations. On the other hand, if there is no privacy, self-awareness and free will lose the rooted soil, and social evaluation and individual responsibility are unreliable.

In this way, private and public existence and dialectical unity, we know the human society and its moral and ethical systems, including the recognition of privacy and free will, although to varying degrees. The society recognizes and respects that individuals (free people) enjoy certain privacy rights and, more or less, restrict the acquisition and use of personal information by others (including governments, enterprises, and groups). Correspondingly, the society requires individuals to pay for the enjoyment of privacy, or the ignorance of others, and the inability to intervene, that is, to be responsible for their choices and words and deeds. In other words, privacy, as a moral value, is a prerequisite for personal dignity and a cornerstone of social organization, ethics, and legal accountability. In 1890, American jurists Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis published a famous paper entitled "Privacy". For the first time, they systematically elaborated the so-called "rights of solitude" and tried to clarify privacy protection. Legal doctrine and applicable norms. The establishment and development of privacy have greatly enhanced people's awareness of privacy. Privacy has become a basic right of citizens. The enjoyment of privacy is a personal freedom that modern society takes for granted; protecting privacy, that is, protecting human dignity and protecting our only life world.

Today, however, this unique world is being challenged in all directions. With the rapid development of new information technologies and the popularity of smart terminals, privacy is the first to bear the brunt. If you don't pay attention, privacy is already riddled with holes, and it is pegged by the omnipotent and ubiquitous information tool. Everyone's every move, every flash is under surveillance, not a transparent person. For the first time in history, privacy has become a commodity that has been bought and sold on a large scale. Once privacy is commoditized, different social classes and groups will produce conflicting interests, and the social consensus on privacy will exist in name only.

On the surface, the individual seems to remain the owner or legal subject of privacy, and the animalistic need for privacy has not changed. Social ethics based on privacy and free will remain, and privacy regulations are fine—newly developed protection measures appear to be getting stricter. But when you look closely, these unchanging aspects are no longer important, but the important ones are completely different: the "Skynet" of information technology has been laid down, and privacy is nowhere to hide! Therefore, although the law stipulates that privacy should be protected; but the privacy that cannot be hidden is not privacy. In this way, "can be hidden" is the key to defending privacy. In other words, the establishment and maintenance of privacy is a necessary condition. Because it destroys the hidden, it also cancels the private, that is, the boundary between public and private.

This necessary condition has been destroyed, privacy has become known and out of control, and it is the crux of the current privacy dilemma. All the privacy issues and countermeasures research can not circumvent this reality.

Informatization and privacy dilemma

The general trend in the information age is that the privacy of privacy is approaching and disappearing. As a result, the two elements that directly jeopardize privacy are public and private. Its instigator is called informationalization or digitization of privacy: privacy is repackaged by information technology, placed in a virtual electronic black box, isolated from human senses, and after being "diluted", it is reproduced as "neutralized" data. However, privacy and information data are extremely uncoordinated poles. Data is a technical product, often regarded as objective neutrality, open and inclusive; privacy is full of moral values, belongs to the category of human self-consciousness, and is subjective and convergent. When “private data” is bundled into a composite concept, this inconsistency is forcibly erased, data is personalized for privacy, and then commercial channels are laid, and the world of privacy has completely changed. Soon, people began to embrace a new way of life: a world of zero privacy.

The necessary condition for privacy is “recessive”. But traditionally, there is not much discussion about recessiveness. This is not an oversight. In the past, the privacy of privacy in daily life has always been a problem. It seems that “creation” has given privacy at the beginning, and people exercise free will. Human senses, limited ability to obtain outside information, eyes, nose and mouth, plus skin, far less sensitive than many animals. A layer of paper, a distance, a few days interval, is enough to block the reception of external information. The brain we are proud of can be said to be developed relative to other animals, but the reliability and processing speed of information storage are not ideal; a little excessive, complicated, and nothing can be done. This makes personal information not difficult to keep secret. For example, the voice and expression of a speech are instantaneous, and it is usually only known at a close distance. In another example, DNA and brain waves are hidden in biometric codes, and human senses cannot be directly identified, deciphered, or recorded.

Therefore, private self-discipline and different from the public, life is not allowed outsiders to pry into privacy, it is natural to form habits and ethics. It is this kind of concealment that conforms to the "human scale", which completes the privacy and makes people a guardian of their own privacy, so that the whole society has the will to maintain privacy, both morally and legally. In this way, people enjoy privacy, and by cultivating free will, not only because of traditional moral choices but also because of objectively private information often has a high degree of privacy. To put it another way, privacy can be protected, and to a certain extent, it is also a kind of cognition and response to people's recessive features.

If human beings are satisfied with the gift of “creation” and do not touch the various barriers to maintaining privacy, privacy can remain hidden and safe. However, human beings are curious and always want to explore new knowledge, create tools, and discover the mysteries of the world. Finally, in the era of intelligent IoT, the traditional barrier of privacy collapsed. Life has completely changed, and people must disclose personal information at all times. From the farmer's market to buy food with WeChat payment, face recognition of tickets to tourist spots; from government networked office, to bank electronic transfer; from Baidu search, to sesame credit score and information fraud; and street camera, low-end mobile phone Until Google glasses, sweeping robots, car sensors, implanted arm punching chips, personal information collection and monitoring does not let go of any part of life. With the advancement of technology, the territory of privacy has greatly expanded, and even genetic signals and subconscious minds have been tapped into personal information. Informatization privacy is an information explosion that requires supercomputers to process and accept the in-depth analysis of various algorithms to track, simulate, and predict people's thoughts and actions. Privacy is no longer hidden. Private self-discipline, public ownership, become more and more unrealistic.

It is generally believed that people respect their privacy and are moral choices. However, in the online world, the physical carrier form of privacy is no different from other information. Regardless of our bank deposits, stock trading, or DNA genetic instructions, physiological characteristics, we have turned into digital sequences of "0" and "1", processed by algorithms, and stored by computers. There, the connotation of privacy is hidden and does not affect the operation of the technical system. The shape of the digital sequence of privacy is not wrong, otherwise, the system will strike. Over time, the privacy of informationization is “neutralized” as data, and the moral and ethical constraints are removed and free.

Privacy informatization brings two serious consequences: First, privacy is separated from the subject, transcending time and space, and permanently stationed in information tools. People lose control of their privacy and are subject to information tools and their owners. Second, the digital information density of electronic digital is low, the noise is strong, and the volume is huge. It is like a lush original jungle, following the organizing principle of the machine, and the virtual black box operates. People's own information processing capabilities are helpless for such a huge data set and can only rely on machines. The higher the machine dependence, the greater the voice of the collector/master of privacy data and the lower the bargaining power of the individual.

Thus, in the information society, privacy began to be voluntarily or forced to move from “private” (such as consumers) to “public” (such as merchants), rapidly and massively in the “public” field, and according to the information tool owner. Rules, embedded in people's daily lives.

 For example, since the popularity of social networking sites, our thoughts, interests, and interests have been collected and cleaned up by platform e-commerce and become the data property of the latter.

The next data transaction further blurs the attributes of the information; privacy itself, and because it is frequently shuttled between public and private, is no longer “pure”, although it still points to individuals or groups, such as online shopper/buyer behavior and needs information. The set of information generated by cross-interaction with the seller's trading rules; for example, the data generated by the searcher is used free of charge. At this time, the individual's willingness to maintain privacy is less justified and difficult to adhere to until the privacy and moral values ??are decoupled. In this way, the classic category of private and public began to move, and the boundaries between public and private were blurred, and privacy was nowhere to be found.

This is the most serious challenge brought about by privacy information. In the face of challenges, as a human being with free will, we still have the opportunity to make choices and rebuild the barriers to privacy. However, the new economy chose the commodification of privacy and added the last straw to suppress privacy.

The myth of privacy commodification and legal protection

The commercialization of privacy marks a qualitative change in the attitude of the capitalist world towards privacy and is also a focus of contradictions in the transition period of the information society. Privacy is useful in cities, not new discoveries. But privacy is both a condition of free personality and weakness of people, and it requires careful care. Therefore, traditional morality emphasizes temperance, including respect for privacy; it is even more shameful to trade with the privacy of oneself or others. Morality and limited information ability can be described as a double constraint, and privacy can come safely.

Now, the Skynet of the smart terminal is built, and the two guards are quickly dispelled, and the economic value and social control contained in the privacy are exposed. This has greatly stimulated the commercial mining of privacy. People find out the reasons for all kinds of justification. The privacy gold rush is like a beast that releases a cage and is out of control. Personal information is flooding the commodity market and has a growing share of economic life. The so-called smart economy, almost all the most profitable companies are mining and buying and selling privacy, regardless of Google, Facebook, Baidu, and Alibaba.

Open Facebook and look at the information you have handed over: photo video, leave a message to say hello, daily life details, spending habits, work arrangements, friends and relatives, etc., no matter how small, even you have not noticed or Forgotten, all recorded. Google’s possession of information sets is even bigger. These network giants know that privacy is wealth. As a result, privacy has been given a new identity: goods that are priced to market with market demand.

As a commodity, it will inevitably be pushed to the market and "fair" competition. Standing in the position of the market economy, tapping privacy and consumer privacy are in full compliance with the policy objectives of developing the economy. In this way, the moral and technical barriers to respecting privacy and maintaining privacy, because it hinders the market economy, are in a dilemma. The capital's strategy is to link the collection of personal information to the convenience, efficiency, and innovation of services; to share privacy and new consumer experience. Under the saturated propaganda campaign, merchants and the government collect and use personal information, and there is almost no resistance.

It is also famous: consumers and businesses win, and the people and the country win. However, a win-win situation is the market winner's rhetoric; for a win-win transaction, there is always a party or a third party under the desktop to pay the price. The price of a smart economy is that end users/consumers hand over privacy. On the surface, submitting private information in exchange for services and convenience is only beneficial to people, but its consequences are potentially or lagging, including difficulties in future employment, sudden refusal of medical insurance, or price discrimination and credit misleading until the people are weakened. The ability to act or the free will.

A recent example from the United States made a wonderful footnote for this. In March 2017, Congress voted to block the Internet Privacy Rules (IPR) passed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The "Rules" are designed to protect the privacy of Internet users, restricting the use and "sharing" of online merchants to sell online behavior information of users. Surprisingly, the reason for the ban is not in line with the protection of privacy, but the interests of the network operators are balanced to ensure fair competition in the market. That is to say, the interests of users around the "rules", the user's privacy rights are not considered at all. What's more, Congress also voted to ban the FCC from enacting any similar regulations to protect user privacy in the future. It is said that this is based on economics.

The famous Posner Judge wrote that the protection of personal privacy is often inefficient, and special protection is not necessary. In economics, merchants' "privacy" or trade secrets are more justified than user privacy. According to this logic, rather than strengthening privacy protection, it is better to promote fair competition among businesses, and the total efficiency is higher. This is the privacy and the goods that are traded in the market, and the interests and arguments that must be faced. What is particularly worrying is that today, when morality and technical means are defeated, the law is the last fragile line of defense to protect privacy.

It’s no surprise that privacy laws are so vulnerable. Legislation has always been the product of negotiating compromises among various interest groups of the society, and it is always inclined to the strong side. If the rules are formulated in accordance with the "economic law" or the market creed, the law cannot hinder the "normal" exchange of goods, especially those with high practical value and high market demand. And privacy has long been the darling of the information market. If you don't see it, personal behavior information supports accurate advertising, differentiated pricing; fingerprints and face-to-face, which facilitates the identification and credit tracking; and DNA information helps insurance companies identify the risk of policyholders. Therefore, all the powerful interest groups require the law to recognize that merchants collect personal information and make goods, which is scientific, legitimate and efficient, and should, therefore, be supported. Privacy protection is inevitably becoming shrinking. Thus, based on technical operating procedures, the law divides access and use of privacy into two categories: legal and illegal. For example, hackers are illegal because they are not officially registered; but social and shopping sites are legal, just set user preferences and related tips.

Legislation and law enforcement in this way creates an illusion: as if the legal use of privacy is harmless to human beings, you can rest assured to "share." Only illegal intrusion is the cause and hidden danger of the destruction of privacy, which will affect our normal life. Therefore, we only have legislation to prohibit and punish theft and illegal trading of private data, and our privacy is safe.

This is of course self-deception. First of all, common sense tells us that individuals and gangs who often report in the media have stolen personal information. Because they are obviously illegal and sneaky and unspeakable, they are unable to instigate the moral status of privacy. The real threat comes from legitimate privacy collections and commoditized transactions because that is the system's scaled protected market behavior.

Those network platforms and industry giants, large and small websites, stores, and service providers, day after day, year after year, legally obtain the processing of "raw materials" for privacy, which is the biggest harm to privacy. Secondly, the legally seemingly nuanced privacy protection clause not only prevents the "vulnerabilities" of black-box operations, but also the merchant's exemption protection mechanism. Information technology such as big data AI is changing with each passing day, and black box operations are designed to be about efficiency and business technology secrets. Therefore, some commentators believe that improving the transparency of operations and allowing the confidentiality of private data in the information system to be supervised can help protect privacy.

The European Union's recently promulgated General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) add clauses that require users of automated algorithmic decisions to give explanations to decisions. This is by far the most restrictive restriction on the black box phenomenon, and it may have a certain effect. However, the "Regulations" still evade the issue of privacy commodification and focus on transparency. This is meaningful. Looking at Facebook again, when its privacy protection settings are legally or improperly “breaked out”, causing massive user information to “leak”, in the face of pressure from public opinion and government regulatory authorities, the boss has publicly apologized and promised to take remedial measures. Increase transparency and even allow users to see Facebook's own profile for advertisers. However, it has not forgotten to reiterate that the business model for accurate advertising is unchanged.

The commodity has become a foregone conclusion, privacy has been separated from the main body, and it has been legally explored and analyzed. It is widely used to interpret and predict and regulate people's desires, thoughts, and actions. The relationship between people and privacy has changed. The privacy subject loses the right to speak and is no longer the owner and guardian of his own privacy. [3] Given the enormous economic value and political dividends of personal information, the law has no choice but to recognize or acquiesce in the commercialization of privacy.

The public issue is transformed into: Who can “legally” possess the fruits of commodification, that is, the competition and monopoly of commercial interests. Therefore, whether it is legal or illegal, it is impossible for the law to preserve the peace of humanity.

The effectiveness of legal protection is so low. Why do countries, especially developed economies, continue to strengthen the legislation and propaganda of privacy? The reason is very simple. It is the only thing the government department and the legislator can do at the moment, without affecting the "big picture." Of course, that is what the industry giants hope. For example, Xiaozha, who was interviewed by CNN in March this year, explicitly invited Congress to legislate and regulate social networking sites. He said: The problem is not whether it should be regulated, but what is the right rule.

Capital is very clear: privacy is about people's responsibility, possessing privacy and being protected, and they have to bear the corresponding social responsibilities. When people hand over privacy (whether voluntarily or uninformed), let the merchant's profit or government supervision, the scope of the individual's free will is reduced accordingly. The less a person's self-selection, the smaller the ability to take responsibility. Conversely, the more privacy a business and government obtain, the stronger their control over users and society. Privacy changes, the corresponding social responsibility does not disappear, it needs to be redistributed. And it is not only the responsibility but also the overall arrangement of the social risk management mechanism. But the market economy is the kingdom of self-interested people. Capital makes big money by privacy, but it does not intend to bear the social responsibility attached to privacy.

That's why, while promoting privacy commodification, they are crying out for privacy at the media and legislative levels. They attempt to convince people that although privacy is the norm for others, the original right to privacy is still in their hands and protected by unprecedented legal protection. Simply carry forward the virtues of sharing and you will get the best compensation, that is, the convenience of life. The giants are outspoken. People who want to lose their privacy will, as always, assume the responsibility of the actors. The high-profile protection of the privacy of the singing and singing laws will be exempted from the user’s “share” gifts.

Facebook owners have said in 2010 that our privacy concept is out of date, and privacy is no longer a social norm. Not only are you happy to share all kinds of information, but you also like to open yourself to more and more strangers and “promote new social norms”. [4] Yes, as long as the giants follow the line in "Circle": know (privacy) is good. Know everything (privacy) is better! The law will not save privacy.

What does it mean to end the privacy?

Having said that, privacy has been baptized by the commercialization of the information society, and there is only one fate to go - to the end!

Perhaps some occupants believe that they can be exceptions to the end of privacy, and can even maintain their privacy while controlling the privacy of others. However, the total destiny of mankind is no one can escape. From the current development momentum of AI, we have to be vigilant, an independent species with intelligence superior to humans and with "free will". At that time, robots may not "give" the extension of human limbs and minds, but humans must rely on it to survive. Therefore, the privacy crisis must be considered and planned in the human-machine relationship. The more network storage of personal information, the more sophisticated and efficient the analytical tools, and the faster the silicon-based smart grow into independent species and gets rid of human control. When AI is promoted to universal intelligence, it can self-learn in multiple fields, no longer need human knowledge and privacy as its learning material, just like self-study Go, crushing the "Alpha Zero" of the human top brain, that day, will play The elegy of privacy.

However, the end of privacy does not mean that humanity is over. In the final analysis, people can live without zero privacy. So far, privacy has been important to humans because people are subject to lower information abilities, that is, humans have arranged such a life order for themselves. Therefore, on the one hand, privacy is the product of human high-level intellectual activities, reflecting people's expectation and respect for their own values. On the other hand, once humans realize “self-transcendence”, they create universal artificial intelligence (AGI), let the machine replace their own thinking. Labor, creation and the post-privacy era have come.

Conclusion

In the post-privacy era, the existing economic foundation and superstructure of human society will inevitably fail. How will humans live? Without historical experience, no reference, it is hard to imagine. But there are three things you can expect:

First, it will be a low-intelligence and low-energy life order that is not voluntarily and voluntarily but does not know what is honorable and dissatisfied, but efficient and standardized. There, privacy has lost its meaning. It can no longer foster a free personality because there is no place for free will in the system. It is no longer the price of social responsibility because people do not have to freely choose to take responsibility for their own actions. It is no longer a derivative of intellectual activity because humans have voluntarily given up their efforts to develop intelligence and are satisfied with executing instructions under the infinitely optimized Skynet.

Second, the center of society is no longer a relationship between people, but a relationship between man and machine and machine. Human beings are no longer the masters of the earth, but they may become the burden of silicon-based intelligent systems. It is not predicted by AI experts that after 25 years, the unmanned technology will mature and human beings will be prohibited from driving on the road. Unmanned traffic systems, their traffic rules, road design, community arrangements, etc., are not allowed to go wrong. Human driving will only destroy the perfection of scientific design, cause traffic accidents, and reduce driving efficiency.

 In fact, the exclusion of human participation and the deletion of human personality, such a smart world of silicone, can be a big "circle" that is efficient, concise and complete.

Third, the human world itself, communism may be the only option. Because of the robot, people not only have no privacy, but the division of labor has disappeared. All individuals are assembled in one whole, and individual freedom is the freedom of the whole. I am everyone, that is, everyone.
The pioneer of artificial intelligence, Marvin Minsky, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said: One day when we mastered the knowledge of building machines that are far superior to humans, we had to face a strange problem. That is: Should it be built? I am very lucky because I can leave this difficult choice for future generations. But I believe that they will not build unless they find a good reason. Minsky has also made a pessimistic description of deep learning neural network technology, and his views are considered to have hindered the development of AI for half a century, and thus have been criticized. But from another perspective, this may be the professor's greatest contribution to mankind: to prepare us for the robot era and to win valuable time.

Minsky's wisdom reminds us that we should adopt a prudent attitude towards privacy. Perhaps, stopping the deep excavation and over-commercialization of privacy, we will be less convenient, comfortable and efficient, and the work will be less smooth. But we can continue to work hard, think about learning; continue to have free will, and take up our own social responsibilities. We will retain privacy and personal dignity. This is a better life.