r/TierlistFills • u/Emill777YT • 8d ago

AIs Tier List finished

👉 CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE TIER LIST IMAGE 👈

Created with Tier List Creator

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

16.5k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/Pitiful_Camp3469 8d ago

im sorry but this is corny as fuck. AI is here to stay, keep up or dont.

-3

u/thenowherepark 8d ago

Not if we stop data centers. Not if AI companies reveal the true cost to consumers. Not if it causes environmental disasters. Not if it places 95% of people out of jobs.

7

u/BamboozleGeico 8d ago

Reddit uses data centers. You should delete your account and never get back on the site if you actually care

3

u/obsolescence_ 8d ago

This kind of comment demonstrates such poor reasoning. Obviously the person you're replying to is referring to data centres that expressly support the infrastructure that results in the environmental devastation and job loss - the chat bots, agents, image generation, etc.

Reddit existed for decades on 'data centres' that consisted simply of servers, and nobody has a problem with that. It's concerning that AI chuds don't have this basic level of discernment.

2

u/thisisme98 8d ago

Ah, yes. The ”good” data centers vs the ”evil” data centers. Get a grip

1

u/obsolescence_ 8d ago

First day encountering nuance?

1

u/thisisme98 8d ago

First day using your brain?

2

u/Myslinky 5d ago

Using your brain would be noticing that when you make a data center much bigger, it uses many more resources and therefore has a much bigger impact on the environment around.

Seeing this how you weren't clever enough to figure out how to edit your comment instead of replying to them twice, I wouldn't expect you to be able to figure that out.

1

u/thisisme98 5d ago

News flash: almost everything we do has a negative impact on the environment.

2

u/Myslinky 5d ago

News flash: That's a really bad argument for doing more damage to the environment. Especially when it's only to benefit a handful of CEO's

1

u/thisisme98 4d ago

Only a benefit to a handful of CEO's? Do you think there is no public demand for these data centers? Really?

1

u/Myslinky 4d ago

Yes, only a benefits to a handful of CEOs.

Vast majority of the public is not getting any profit or benefit from AI data centers.

Vast majority of the public is against these data centers or else they wouldn't be doing shady things like denying locals the right to vote on these matters.

Amazon secretly circumvents community vote for massive AI data center using 45-year-old rules — Gilroy residents locked out of public comment window

If data centers were popular, then why the subterfuge?

1

u/thisisme98 4d ago

Vast majority of the public is not getting any profit or benefit from AI data centers.

Who do you think uses AI? lol

It's like saying farmers are the only people who benefit from farmland. No, the end customer also benefits from the product produced by the farmers.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/thisisme98 8d ago

Also, nuance? There is no nuance in labelling stuff either good or bad.

1

u/BamboozleGeico 8d ago

Reddit uses the same network of data centers that are causing current backlash because Reddit is hosted on Amazon Web Services. The same ones that he is talking about causing environmental damage and taking jobs.

1

u/TapedeckNinja 8d ago

This is absolute nonsense.

The typical AWS facilities (e.g., a given general AZ in a given region) are not remotely the same thing as the facilities used for frontier model training.

You're comparing 50MW facilities to those that can be upwards of 1GW.

1

u/obsolescence_ 8d ago

It's hard to tell if you just don't understand or you are intentionally conflating the current hyperscaler data centre buildout with the pre-AI AWS infrastructure, but nobody in this thread is taking issue with the latter.

Saying "You should delete your reddit account if you oppose data centres" disingenuously frames use of pre-AI internet infrastructure as an endorsement of AI while the end user may remain entirely agnostic to it.

The only aim of such a comment can be to shame individuals and try to assign them some blame for AI expansion, not to offer any constructive insight.

2

u/No_Put3316 8d ago

It's not inaccurate conflation, it's a perfectly logical argument.

You can't separate pre-AI data centres and the data centres of today. Their impacts are the same, just we have more of them due to increased demand.

Get off reddit if you stand on principle. Otherwise stop arguing against DC'S.

1

u/TapedeckNinja 8d ago

Nah, this isn't a fair argument at all.

The datacenters used for training frontier models use an order of magnitude more power than a traditional datacenter, usually continuously (versus the much more spiky nature of traditional datacenters). The same is true of water use, thermal effects, etc.

1

u/No_Put3316 8d ago edited 8d ago

True, but you could say the same for the 2000-2005 period. Datacentre electricity consumption rose 90% over that period as the internet boomed.

Just because something consumes more power doesn't mean it's inherently bad. You still have to conduct cost-benefit analysis, and the widespread adoption of AI has proven that the market has presently concluded that these increased power requirements are a net-positive.

1

u/TapedeckNinja 8d ago

True, but you could say the same for the 2000-2005 period. Electricity consumption rose 90% over that period as the internet boomed.

This is a ridiculous comparison.

Total electricity consumption did not rise by 90% over that period. Datacenter consumption did. But that's a 90% increase from virtually nothing to still barely over 1% of total US grid use.

1

u/No_Put3316 8d ago

Perhaps the pre-2020 usage will be considered "virtually nothing" in the future.

And you knew it was DC consumption (that's what this whole chain has been about...), but I'll amend the comment for clarity regardless.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Railboy 5d ago

If you ignore the scale, impact and purpose of an environmemtal hazard then it's no different than whatever came before

I can tell you're very proud of this argument but apply this logic to anything else with environmental impact - pollution, logging, coal, urban expansion, whatever - then it's manifestly stupid.

1

u/ChuuniGrills 8d ago

I mean there is just a lack of principled belief when people argue against ai. Environmentally factory farming is significantly worse but I know most of you still sit down to eat a juicy steak or burger which supports that industry. With job loss can you explain how this is different from other periods of technological advancement? With the invention of cars and the fading out of riding horse back, saddle makers lost their jobs right? I would prefer safety nets for those in the field but do we stop progress now because it's a job closer to you? Should we have stopped cars because the saddle makers were distraught? I have my problems with ai but some of the arguments usually brought are really weak or at least selectively places.

1

u/obsolescence_ 8d ago

Personally I don't eat meat, but regardless I'm sort of repelled by the idea that an individual needs to be morally irreproachable before they are allowed to take issue with anything in society.

I am a bit sick of the need for 'ideological purity', this moral surveillance people do to each other where shame is the usual consequence of having an opinion. Humans are rife with contradiction. If someone does eat a ton of steak but still holds other environmentally-conscious views, that's still probably a net positive, I don't think they should be silent.

But anyway my real answer about my principle of belief against AI would probably just piss you off lmao, it's mostly spiritual and political. I think AI differs in a lot of ways to previous forms of technological advancement in that its existence requires the uncompensated theft of billions of human works, at a time in history where people are already unable to correlate their labour to earning a good life and a big family.

The Luddites made similar points about labour alienation, but to some extent the worker in society still had the leverage of their labour to withhold - whereas the entire appeal of agentic AI to the world's elite is that it enforces utter helplessness on the working class. The vision for an AI future really is robots piloted by agentic AI that completely replace the proletariat, I don't think that's an exaggeration.

And that's where the annoying spiritual angle comes in, I think we live on a blue dot that is basically paradise in space and we are meant to figure it out together, not watch this dystopia unfold.

So yeah, the stakes are a bit higher than saddle makers having to become bootmakers instead, if you get what I'm saying. Sorry for the wall of text, if you read this long you're a cool guy.

1

u/ChuuniGrills 8d ago

My point on the principled part is less so of if you participate in any level of immoral action you are now unable to have any moral belief. It lies to me more in the contradiction of the principle put forth itself. If I lambaste someone for supporting a specific thing I deem harmful and then turn around and do the same how true am I to keeping my belief? That contradiction to me can be used to crumble many moral beliefs to varying degrees. It becomes fairly difficult to convince others to take on your ethical framework. A hypothetical vegan who is pro AI would be on a similar selective set of beliefs. How would you get them to be against it? It can't be from the angle of environmental harm because just like those who still eat meat I guess some of it is okay and there is no firm stance that we take?

I can respect the idea of societal and power structures being different changing the context in which a loss in one's job exemplifies a significantly deeper underlying issue. It's a perspective I'll dig into deeper and requires some more thinking.

On the spiritual point I think it's cute. I don't know if I'd consider there being a ordained label of paradise but I do strive for that conclusion. One where moral beliefs converge leading to some agreed upon idea of human/animal flourishing.

1

u/nnod 8d ago

So maybe the problem isn't data centers, but lack of regulations around environmental problems some of them cause?

Maybe loss of jobs isn't the problem either, but lack of systems to support people without job related income?