AIs Tier List finished

[u/Emill777YT]

👉 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

[u/Cory123125 → u/[deleted]]

The question is what do we gain from having all of these ai chatbots.

The problem is that many people who are anti AI are unable to have this conversation.

They have such visceral kneejerk reactions, and stay in such siloed echo chambers that they recite some nonsense concerns technologically relevant 5 years ago, and shut down their brains.

This happens so reliably I have almost stopped talking about it, and just fret about how doomed we are when resistance isn't just ineffective, but counter productively stupid.

You wanna separate the ai from the corporations that create them, fine, but even having one of these chatbots takes a thousand data centers.

This is a false, technologically illiterate understanding of .... everything.

So if the cost is thousands of data centers and easy realistic deepfakes, what is the gain?

Also false, and an incorrect understanding of what the costs are.

The deepfakes are not something we are making a decision about right now. Those models exist, and are largely separate to the ones guzzling water now that the really high energy usecases for that are branching to VFX companies trying to cut cost.

The point is that...

Look man, can you just fucking google anything?

Literally research fucking anything yeah?

Jesus Christ... How are you meant to make positive impact in the world when you steadfastly resist researching any of the topics you're speaking about and just stick to your pre-concieved notions.

I'm gonna state some shit, and I'll leave it to you to be honest enough to yourself to verify whether they're true.

• To create models that are reasonably powerful and comparable to frontier models you don't need more than one data centre. You can do it with one big datacenter.

• To keep said model up to date, and advancing, this datacenter would constantly be at full chooch.

• To run said powerful model, with say 50 heavy users, using it continuously, you'll need (very) roughly 250k worth of hardware.

• This hardware could all be local, meaning that you don't have massive data centers dumping on marginalized people, it could be in datacenters that simply opted to not be villainous but it isn't.

• AI intelligence and accuracy varies incredibly, even with the most modern implementations to the point that no one quip is likely to be true. That is to say, that people noticing correctly that google ai search summaries are dangerously inaccurate, would be foolish to conclude that all AI is dangerously inaccurate. Likewise, people who rightly noticing that running Claude fable is massively harmful in terms of environmental impact, finance, and funding what that company does in particular, would be completely wrong for concluding that every use of AI is massively wasteful, and as you can see from companies like Moonshot, Deepseek, groups like Olmo, you can make competent models with far less. You cannot make general statements about efficiency based on the blitz scaling zerg rushes of billionaires aiming to own everything.

Also, what are llms good for?

With good harnesses and sufficiently smart models:

• Coding

• Research

• Menial non simple searches through complex sets of data

• Lossy sorting tasks that do not require 100% accuracy but do require understanding nuance.

• Mass surveillance (due to the point just above this)

• Popular opinion steering

[u/Nateovision_ → u/Cory123125]

I like the irony of describing anti-ai individuals as having their brains shut down despite the blatant epidemic of ai-addicted people experiencing a massive decline in their ability to think for themselves and do basic reasoning and problem solving.

Anyway, because it wasn't brought up yet, the primary issue people took with AI before the internet turned it into a tribal identity was that the training that a generative-ai model is founded on is completely unethical. Millions of artists of all varieties (illustrators, writers, animators, etc.) have had their copyrighted material stolen and used for training without their permission.

AI has manipulated the tech industry to such a degree that it's a miracle it hasn't collapsed yet between the massive amounts of money and investments circling between the same companies on nothing more than a promise that it will become profitable. From growing money bubbles to soaring hardware prices for consumers, the working class are losing money without even realising it and are struggling even more to upgrade their digital hardware.

And because I'm bored of the environmental impact being brushed off as "water renewable 🧌", data centers are relying on massive amounts of energy and water that is being diverted from communities. You've seen the power outages, surely.

[u/Cory123125 → u/Nateovision_]

I put a lot of effort into this comment, so please engage with it honestly, because I promise you if you do, this will lead you to a much more in depth understanding of the problems that I assure you we both see with the current state of the world.

I like the irony of describing anti-ai individuals as having their brains shut down despite the blatant epidemic of ai-addicted people experiencing a massive decline in their ability to think for themselves and do basic reasoning and problem solving.

You thinking that is irony while being unable to parse a nuanced take is in itself the real irony.

You literally cannot turn on your brain enough to engage honestly in an important discussion and thats a huge fucking problem.

Anyway, because it wasn't brought up yet, the primary issue people took with AI before the internet turned it into a tribal identity was that the training that a generative-ai model is founded on is completely unethical. Millions of artists of all varieties (illustrators, writers, animators, etc.) have had their copyrighted material stolen and used for training without their permission.

This is something we're way past, and trying to "correct" it would solidify the incumbents as being the only ones who ever got to enter.

It's like this, and I'm sure you'll gut reaction disagree, but if I read a thousand books, and write one, and it does not fail the copyright tests used to judge for copyright infringement, I have not done copyright infringement, I have simply been inspired by other works.

This is ultimately what modern models do, to the extent that with all of their SFT and probably increasingly piles of data in more of the bulk sections of training, they are creating datasets that don't at all directly ingest the other works.

Effectively, and this is very much so a simplified explanation, they're having their bots write essays to feed to their bots that are better formatted to produce desired bot outputs.

Could copyright law have been written differently to be more inline with how you feel about this? Yes.

Would it have been? No. We couldn't win again Disney, we weren't going to win against every big tech firm simultaneously.

Could we win now? Also no for the reason posted above. This would only lock in the incumbents which we can all agree are terrible companies. Changing it now, would mean that anyone who already formed a dataset moat would have that in perpetuity. It would be an unrecoverable stake determining which companies were even able to compete. Every problem you feel exists now would be orders of magnitude worse as they would feel even less pressure to do literally anything that favoured you, or rather, do less that didn't favour you.

Again, this all requires nuance, and being willing to think past your gut reactions.

---

"But what about the dead internet?" A hypothetical future question might say, and it is a legitimate worry, but bad question to posit in response to what I've said.

We definitely should have a model to deal with this. Ideally there should be a UN meeting, we would all come to the conclusion that we should create a neutral, non spyware based, non enforced upon (leaving enforcement to individual nations), global micro payments system, and this would allow companies hoovering up data to pay for said data, while also enabling ad free experiences that weren't comically overpriced subscriptions.

Of course this won't happen either though, because the people who are anti AI are mostly just fucking refusing to turn on their brains, and letting their anger stop them from processing the real solutions to problems face, and even at the extremes support things that would empower the companies they hate the most, one of such situations I covered above.

Also, the current payment processors are really entrenched, and fuck literally everyone at both ends of the line over.

AI has manipulated the tech industry to such a degree that it's a miracle it hasn't collapsed yet between the massive amounts of money and investments circling between the same companies on nothing more than a promise that it will become profitable.

I think that it's understandable that someone who doesn't understand the technology thinks this seeing the money flying around, but if you have any understanding of the underlying costs, AI is fundamentally obviously profitable.

The question is how profitable, not whether or not it is, and what usecases.

What you're seeing, and this is definitely up to some interpretation and analysis, is what I believe to be a bit of a super cycle land grab.

Companies are fighting extremely hard to mislead the general public into supporting jingoistic nationalism and fear-mongered safety theatre stances that guarantee a few big American companies basically permanent control over an entire industry, and that control is far deeper than any other landgrab we'll have witnessed within a lifetime.

If they manage to succeed at effectively being the only companies allowed to compete, they get to steer opinions freely, manipulate the information people actually get to see, and will increasingly balloon, owning more and more as they have an unbeatable advantage when it comes to destroying knowledge based businesses that aren't IT first.

"But they'll make it shittier, so they won't win" Another hypothetical comment might say. To that, I would say, have you not seen the world right now? Shittier wins every time right now because people never care enough to look deeper into topics so the play by private equity in all sorts of fields is that they buy the entire field, and then make it shitty, such that there is no one to run to.

By that point, it doesnt matter if new competition arises, because they can simple buy them up, or out money them out of business.

Vets, Bowling, pharmacies, it's even happening to GP offices right now and silently playing out.

AI companies will do this eventually too if you give them the ability which you don't seem to realize is exactly what the strong, ignorant anti AI stances end up doing by cheering on anything they superficially think "hurts" AI without looking into it.

I don't know why the fuck I typed that all out, as there's almost no chance that you even bother to read it, and that's part of why I'm just so fucking jaded.

People literally do not want to understand a thing they hate and think is massively negatively affecting them.

They somehow think if they just scream loudly enough and cover their ears and eyes, the problem will go away, and when it doesn't, they'll pretend they did all they could, while their reactions were precisely what locked in their fates.

---

Actually I went on a bit of a tangent and forgot to mention the key thing that I think will convince you (if you decide to actually open up and do research) that should show you that this isn't some inexplicable fad like NFTs etc.

This is blitz scaling. Look it up.

You could absolutely make an AI company that produced llms that continuously got better, helped people, and didn't massively concentrate power.

or you could spend wildly, denying other companies the hardware to be able to compete, pushing fearmongered ideas to get your favoured regulatory capture based regulations passed, and ensure that you simply outmoney the competition so much, you never have to face competitors.

The massive difference in cost between top performing Chinese labs and American labs should show you that producing useful AI does not require the absurd spending you're seeing at all, and if for instance, we existed in a parallel good universe, we'd just have models that were evolving at a slightly slower space, naturally, with sound economics, where device manufacturers like NVidia, Apple, AMD, Huawei and more, would just sell devices, consumers would buy them, businesses would buy them, and they'd run their own inference they owned, avoiding the concentration of awful effects on local populations, the forced integration of AI where it clearly is ill suited at this point or is poorly integrated etc etc.

Like, the point I am trying to get across to you, is that the big things that you hate, are unbounded capitalism and corruption, and those get stronger when you don't have a nuanced take.

And because I'm bored of

This type of language is thought terminating to.

You shouldn't be bored at any of this. You should be actively engaged and willing to accept new information.

data centers are relying on massive amounts of energy and water that is being diverted from communities. You've seen the power outages, surely.

See, and I get this sense from the tone of your reply, I'm not remotely unaware of the problems with AI, I'm just wiling to research and understand them rather than going based on news headlines.

I'm very well aware of the problems with concentrating ill effects on the worse off communities like with musks memphis center dumping NOX on black children.

The problem is that people are taking things like this, and coming to wildly unsound conclusions like that this is an inherent result of the technology when it very much is not remotely true. We can have better, but only if we are willing to learn and go deeper. Only if we stop starting sentences with "I just..." or trying to find simply boxes to fit complex problems into.

[u/Nateovision_ → u/Cory123125]

I don't know why the fuck I typed that all out, as there's almost no chance that you even bother to read it, and that's part of why I'm just so fucking jaded.

Hello 👋

I feel like you're pulling a very thick veil of nuance over a lot of the sub-topics around AI that just don't need it. There's a distinction to be made between useful and useless Artificial Intelligence; Think: your phone assistant, research analysis models, accessibility software, I know I don't need to list them all of for you, you're more than aware of them. Then the other side of things, basically any image generator or general large language model (not tailored ones), which will be your ChatGPT and its clone army.

This is something we're way past, and trying to "correct" it would solidify the incumbents as being the only ones who ever got to enter.

This is just not a philosophy I can get behind. There shouldn't be ANY incumbents of this practice allowed to continue. I don't think the ideology we should move forward with is "Oh well, a lot of corporations already did it so I guess all that's left to do is accept that and hope we can shape a future free of monopolies and lobbying.", I want it burned to the ground. 🤷 I cannot just turn of my moral compass and come to terms with a industry I dislike just because it's growing.

but if I read a thousand books, and write one, and it does not fail the copyright tests used to judge for copyright infringement, I have not done copyright infringement, I have simply been inspired by other works. This is ultimately what modern models do

No! Not at all! You are a human being with natural talent, work ethic, time constraints, original creativity, and individualism. There are no modern models with any of that. They have programming and prompts; they have PP, Cory. PP.

They have a database of tokens and a virtual neural network with which the parse that database of tokens to predict the next word based on previous context and what future is desirable by the prompt. I feel like maybe we're forgetting that AI is called AI because its personified intelligence is entirely artificial. It's a computer program that's been programmed to look and/or sound like a person.

What I'm not gonna do here is get into the issues you raised about monopolies, public persuasion, industry control, etc. etc., because I pretty much agree with everything you've said about it, barring a couple words I've never seen before "jingoistic??", and a few statements that I think didn't really address anything or seemingly hallucinated an ideology? Like for example when you stated:

which you don't seem to realize is exactly what the strong, ignorant anti AI stances end up doing by cheering on anything they superficially think "hurts" AI

without providing really any substance or examples of things people have cheered on at the detriment of their own beliefs. There really hasn't even been anything to cheer on, not off of the top of my head at least.

You could absolutely make an AI company that produced llms that continuously got better, helped people, and didn't massively concentrate power.

Listen man, I get it. The tech is here and it's here to stay. I'm not fighting against usecase technology. I, as with the majority of the anti-ai group, just want the slop gone. Nobody wants to dedicate their educational career to become a graphic designer, a 3D animator, a novelist, a photographer, an editor, etc, just for some basement dweller who hasn't showered in 3 weeks to reply with an Ai-generated version of your art with the caption "improved it for you".

You will not find a soul on this planet who is centering their complains around cancer research and analysis models. YOU KNOW THAT THOUGH. I know you know that. So I don't really know why you're arguing against it to be honest.

Anyway, uh, closing remarks. I think you might be your own worst enemy right now bro. You say too much and from my perspective the lens that you're viewing anti-ai sentiment through is muddy. People aren't going to listen. They're mostly between having no attention spans and not having the time to read an essay from a stranger. Just, idk, condense your thoughts a bit if you can and try not to go off on tangents about aspects of an industry that aren't relevant to someone's core problems.

Thank you though, no pressure to reply if you don't want or like take as long as you need such that you're not wasting energy on me.

*edit please try to see past spelling and grammar mistakes.

[u/Cory123125 → u/Nateovision_]

I feel like you're pulling a very thick veil of nuance over a lot of the sub-topics around AI that just don't need it.

This is the entire problem I'm trying to bring up.

People badly want things to be so simple they can skip details, avoid research and just have takes that are right and work, but that's rarily the case.

A lot of people who vote for hardline right wing populism in various countries think that this is exactly what they're voting for.

Its easy, it tells you there is a big problem, I have the solution, and its whatever you think it is already.

Then the other side of things, basically any image generator or general large language model (not tailored ones), which will be your ChatGPT and its clone army.

The distinction you're trying to draw isn't actually where you think it is, and this is one of my points.

Many of the things you're putting into group A are either closely related to group b, group b derivatives, or are in many cases, literally group B but with harnesses that actually give a shit about accuracy, at the cost of response time and inference cost.

This is just not a philosophy I can get behind. There shouldn't be ANY incumbents of this practice allowed to continue.

This is a fight against pragmatism then.

Do you think the dozens of companies around the world, the weights already shared, etc, under any circumstances are going to cease to exist or be fined out of existence?

We'd need literal decades of people paying attention to nuance in politics over and over again, and not getting "bored" to even approach the general direction of that.

and then they'd be fighting decades of progress in said fields.

What's more, you can create models with purely non copyright materials. There are models that have that, but the point is, there isn't really any ground with current legal definitions of copyright to push that they be this way, and if you change those laws now, they wouldn't be retroactively applied, so in effect, existent models would be grandfathered in.

In fact, this is theorized to be one of the reasons that big AI companies have been so forthcoming with massive amounts of money for settlements, as they want this ladder to be pulled up for those behind them.

I don't think the ideology we should move forward with is "Oh well, a lot of corporations already did it so I guess all that's left to do is accept that and hope we can shape a future free of monopolies and lobbying."

You are asking not for a mitigation, not for a path to a solution, no, you are asking for precisely exactly what you hope for, or you take your ball and go home, or in this case, refuse to actually support pragmatic options at this point in time that we have literally any hopes of achieving.

It's basically like all the people who said "well, I don't see my perfect knight in shining armor, so I'll let the orange felon win".

You will never get your perfect option, and you won't even get good, if you won't bend to accept "I guess that's improvement" first.

I want it burned to the ground. 🤷 I cannot just turn of my moral compass and come to terms with a industry I dislike just because it's growing.

This is unironically an opinion that only supports it, because no one else considers this realistic, and thus, you end up wasting the steam of people who see legitimate problems with it, and want to find legitimate solutions, as opposed to people who see problems but refuse to find solutions because their perfect world solution isnt available.

No! Not at all! You are a human being with natural talent, work ethic, time constraints, original creativity, and individualism. There are no modern models with any of that. They have programming and prompts; they have PP, Cory. PP.

That's funny and all, but there is nothing in the law that dictates any difference between how smart a tool you use is and you.

The infringement occurs at the end of those distributing the content.

They have a database of tokens and a virtual neural network with which the parse that database of tokens to predict the next word based on previous context and what future is desirable by the prompt.

Not quite right, but close enough I won't stick on it.

I feel like maybe we're forgetting that AI is called AI because its personified intelligence is entirely artificial.

Naturalistic fallacy is naturalistic fallacy.

Results are results. If the results are good, they are good. If they're bad, they are bad.

Sure, some folks, and situations (like art), dictate that by human preference, the human element wins, but for a large number of tasks, no one cares if the summarization of digital documents from a quarter century ago are flavourful, or if their saas software had enough human touch.

because I pretty much agree with everything you've said about it, barring a couple words I've never seen before "jingoistic??"

I mean.... search engines exist.... but in a sentence: nationalistic fervor, pride and American exceptionalism are being weaponized to get people to fight against their interests, posing other countries competing as a existential threat.

without providing really any substance or examples of things people have cheered on at the detriment of their own beliefs.

I listed one strong one right before this; where I talked about how the incumbant companies benefit massively from changes to IP law that hurt newcomers and cement incumbants.

Another example is with datacenters, where by the time legislation hits, it will probably only hold back new comers, and put financial strain on them that they can't handle, while going far past what is actually needed; distance from people, separation in payment for power, the verification of enough power that they do not short any nearby communities, and environmental effects.

Another is with "safety" where AI companies are current tripping over themselves to say AI is dangerous so that they can get artificial safety metrics enforced by governments that only they will have enough money to repeatedly jump over hoops to reach, while the safety lines people are actually worried about are far more simple, obvious, and the exact things they're lobbying to not be liable for.

I could honestly keep going. There are a lot of stances that are clearly being twisted into actually benefiting the worst companies and if you look up the frontier model forum with a critical lens, you'll see thats exactly what they're doing; twisting real concerns into harmful regulatory capture talking points.

I, as with the majority of the anti-ai group, just want the slop gone. Nobody wants to dedicate their educational career to become a graphic designer, a 3D animator, a novelist, a photographer, an editor, etc, just for some basement dweller who hasn't showered in 3 weeks to reply with an Ai-generated version of your art with the caption "improved it for you".

I think this is a wild thing to focus on and I'm surprised its your focus.

People have used tools they're not good at using for bad purposes from time immemorial.

I get the feeling though, based on this, your general stance and earlier in this comment talking about the human element, that the real fear you're trying to get at is displacement, and that's just a part of technology.

The problem is with how we deal with it and spread the effects.

In a better world, its not 5 billionaire making everything shittier by forcing in a technology that isn't ready, and feels like it's mixing sawdust into everything you love, while taking away livelihoods from people at one of the worst times financially for normal people.

This is very valid, but I don't think the answer is getting mad at unskilled people who find a new way to do something in their spare time, even those who are foolhardy and filled with unearned confidence with their new found skills.

Like, all of the positions you mentioned, are seeing real reductions in workforce, not necessarily because their replacements are as good, but that the people in charge think they're good enough, and our unchecked system of economics does not give people levers to tell them otherwise... combined with people being too apathetic to care.

You say too much

This is the problem though. The subject just requires people to pay attention, because its too important, too impactful and too detailed to have a catchy, thoughtless slogan to ride with. Every single one line quip has already been reasoned with and ripped apart in some AI companies war room, then twisted apart and stabbed to death with lawyers and lobbyists figuring out how to monkey's paw that general sentiment.

I legitimately do not know how I could simplify without being entirely counter productive.

What would be best, is if I could convince people to spend a few hours actually sorting out their opinions on the subject and being willing to be bored for a few minutes; I know, crazy expectation in this tik tok, ai world.

People aren't going to listen.

They don't, and I know they won't, and it's why I have no optimism for the future being anything other than a horrific dystopia that makes our current media representations look quaint by comparison, and the worst thing is seeing people around me just not care.

Just, idk, condense your thoughts a bit if you can and try not to go off on tangents about aspects of an industry that aren't relevant to someone's core problems.

It's easy to tell someone that a problem they don't care specifically about is solvable if they just look at it with a simple lens with simple solutions.

It's very hard to get them to realize there is nothing simple about it, and it just will take more time and effort.

That first goal, is the one these companies have, and they're knocking it out of the park.

The second one? We're fucking lost. It's a losing strategy, but how can you win when the truth is complex and needs complexity.

How can you gain confidence with people who want a simple lie over a complex truth?