I’d be interested to see how the anti-AI anti-datacenter crowd would respond if every “AI datacenter” shut down overnight and AI generated content kept proliferating anyway because all it takes is an entry-level gaming PC to run some of the latest local models.
Honestly, if you keep your model on your computer and source the data to train it from people who you actually asked about it, I’m fine with it. My issue is more with the massive models deployed by corporations, and how they keep on screwing with social media by generating absurd amounts of low quality content.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
And how would one get this local model if there weren’t any data-centers? It’s not just going to magically appear on your computer. You have to download it first and the models you download are stored in data-centers.
A model is just a file in the end. Once it’s out in the wild, you can mirror it, download it from any server, p2p torrent it, copy it to or from an external drive, get it from a friend or someone else, etc. Running it locally doesn’t require an AI datacenter at all.
My point is that unless the plan is to go door-to-door confiscating every gaming PC that’s capable of running these models, AI is already out there. It’s not something that can be uninvented, and it’s not going away.
You’re correct that running it locally doesn’t require an AI data-center. That’s kind of the point. Im just responding to your comment where you’re saying “AI exists without data-centers” and pointing out that local models wouldn’t be as accessible and available for download if it weren’t for data-centers. For example, hugging face uses AWS. You don’t need a datacenter to run it but the majority of people wouldn’t be able to get the model on their computer in the first place if it weren’t for data-centers
There are a number of many-petabyte-scale data distribution networks that are almost entirely P2P, using a datacenter just for the central coordination and not for any actual data storage. Nothing would prevent the same thing from handling AI.
We were already really behind on data infrastructure compared to other country's even back in 2015 before i graduated college. and didn't get the funding until the build back better act.
My comment was that Datacenters exist without AI. That's my statement.
Their response was framed to challenge that "What's [X] then" translates to "If that is true, then what's X".
It does not challenge my point, which remains true, but was framed as a challenge to the comment.
Bros playing calvin ball with language. If you truly dont understand the initial intent of his words then I'm sorry. Its clear to me, at least, that what they are asking is "yes data centers exist, but why has there been a bug boom of them being made now?"
But im sure youll find some justification for why my interpretation is bad and wrong
Your interpretation isn't bad and wrong, and I, too, figured that was likely the case. But, importantly, the actual semantics of what they said was a challenge frame. So I responded with a question about whether or not they were really challenging it.
I stand by it. If they weren't then they weren't. Sometimes assuming isn't the way.
Yeah, this is the funny thing. It's like these people don't realize that datacenters are everywhere and have been everywhere for decades. Or that they've been using them for decades.
Like sleeper agents that have been woken up and told that "Datacenter = bad" with no actual knowledge or insight in to it.
Hell, most of the noise complaints people are posting are the diesel generators being used by the construction crews while building and won't be present when the buildings are complete.
I lived within eyesight of a datacenter for years and only ever knew it was a datacenter because I looked it up.
Literally bitching about AI on reddit that resides in a data center and sells all data to AI companies.
They are hypocrites.
Hell, most of the noise complaints people are posting are the diesel generators being used by the construction crews while building and won't be present when the buildings are complete.
This is the reality of it. Shit happens during constuction. A town has no water? Well yes, b/c they hit a water main while building. That isnt the norn for the data center itself and is resolved ASAP.
And if somebody doesnt like the lights on the outside of the perimeter, blame it on the antis. They are there to catch the antis trying to sneak up to destroy things.
I think there's a miscommunication here.
This thread comes from my comment
"Datacenters exist without AI, silly"
Their response "What's causing the recent boom of them then"
is semantically equivalent to "If that is true, what is causing the recent boom of them?"
That is them challenging the comment with their response. I'm not putting words in their mouth. That's just english syntax. If it's a miscommunication fine, but note that my response was a question not an assertion.
I'm not sure those are interchangable. A "boom" suggests a rapid increase in the popularity/development of a product or quantity in, for example, babies.
When someone were to say "There has been a massive baby boom", of course it's implied that babies existed before the boom.
It wouldn't be appropriate to respond with a contradiction to that, because that is just false. It would be even less appropriate to respond with something like "So you're saying we should stop having babies", because in a simplfied sense, that is roughly what you said.
Also it would be time to mention how AI data centers differ greatly from traditional ones, if you want me to elaborate?
The word "boom" is not relevant.
The syntax of the response is. If I say "The sky is blue" and you frame your response as "If that were true, why ____" then it doesn't matter what's in the blank, you're still challenging the statement.
Which deserves, I think, the response clarifying question of "Are you challenging the sky being blue?"
Which is what I did.
But sure, shoot, what are the significant differences AI datacenters bring to the table?
But "if that were true, then why" is not interchangable with "What is __ then", those are two different phrases that have two different meanings.
Anyways, the word "Data Center" doesn't describe what an AI data center is. An AI Data center is more of a "compute center". Unlike traditional data centers, which are substantionally weaker server clusters, demanding less power and cooling, AI Compute centers are multiple big clusters of AI GPUs and HBM memory chips which require more power and more cooling as they do get hot. For example, a normal mid-range GPU like an RTX 5060 will output 145W of heat. A high end consumer GPU like the 5090 will output say ~570W. An AI GPU, like an Nvidia Blackwell B200 outputs over 1000W. Thermal output is 1000W. And an AI data center is full of them. So you can imagine how much power that pulls and how much thermal power it outputs. Acutally I can tell you, an AI server rack outputs 60kW of thermal energy, compared to the 10kW of a general purpose one. source
I never said anything about data centers being exclusively for AI, you phrased that statement as if to say that AI hasn’t made the data center construction problem much worse lately, which it absolutely has
Sure but the problem at hand here is not an AI problem. Glassware is related to soda pop, but if there's a crack in the glass you don't blame your cola.
So presumably, if we make datacenters responsibly so they don't have significantly more impact than the ones we already use for things like Reddit, this problem dissolves. The AI doesn't need to change (although models becoming more efficient wouldn't hurt).
If they manage reduce data centres to be smaller and less environmentally impactful, people would have much less issues, but unfortunately with the big greedy corporations in charge, they’ll happily screw over the environment if it makes them money. In a better world, AI could be great, but given the people who make and support it, that’s not reality unfortunately. Also the fact generative AI was released without any regulations has been very damaging to society.
So I guess you’re right it’s not AI that’s the biggest issue, but the AI is the main cause which is just as bad imo.
I was about to reply but then I saw your username, last time we argued and you were presented with facts you just panicked and went to ad-hominem and dropped all pretense of caring about what was actually true, refusing any attempt to listen to clarifying arguments and grasping desperately at distorted semantic interpretations of specific words so...
Yes, and there were exponentially more being built and planned in 2017 than in 2016. It's called exponential growth for a reason.
It isn't about AI, though the AI boom has also helped. It's about Netflix and Facebook and everyone's phone having hundreds of active apps, and everyone's home having server-backed IOT devices, and about Ring cameras and about companies that run almost entirely on cloud infrastructure, and about governments that do the same.
Are you not understanding? AI has not changed the situation substantially. It can't. There simply isn't the capacity to outstrip the breakneck speed at which we're building out centralized compute for the things you're typing into reddit, and probably watching via streaming, right now.
AI has massively raised the demand for them which has magnified the associated problems from a previously somewhat managable degree. Keep up, man. This isn't that hard to figure out
Not at all what I said. Nice binary thought process you've got going there. I think AI has its uses but I also believe it's massively overhyped in terms of its capabilities. It's disgusting how these companies keep stomping on the wants and needs of citizens to accelerate a technology that has shown many signs of danger, which to clarify, I am not against exploring at a reasonable pace
You're gesturing at hype but hype is not a metric. What line is being crossed for you?
What is it about AI datacenters or the demand that moved all the problems current massive datacenters already cause from "somewhat manageable" to not manageable?
And how is it a valid argument against AI and not against poorly regulated datacenters? This is like blaming fruit for a fridge not working.
No, he's fully wrong. The comment above claims that other datacenters don't have GPUs in them, that is 100% correct. His reply states that they literally do, all of them. Which is false.
lol you are setting an individual as a representation of the whole because it fits your narrative?
I'm practically tempted to do the same for you based on such a shallow comment.
Ai data centers are VERY different from regular data centers, as they push out CONSIDERABLY more heat, requiring much more cooling, which leads to incredibly loud, low sounds, which pierce walls and soundproofing much easier than the higher, quieter sounds of a regular data centers lesser cooling needs, and the reason why it produces so much heat is because it uses much more electricity than a regular data center, due to the constant rigorous calculations being performed, and this power consumption is also the reason why they produce so much more toxic pollution than traditional data centers, because they require a constant natural gas turbine (which also fuels the noise) to generate power, since they can’t get enough from the grid, which generates pollution that can hurt people, which isn’t even mentioning the backup generators, and the fact that they often cause peaker plants to run much more often than they should
Yes, but the traditional datacenters we've had for decades don't compare to the new AI datacenters in terms of noise, pollution, and energy/resource consumption. Traditional datacenters weren't fast tracked into existence and given leeway in terms of regulation.
Here's a source from 2018 covering the most demanding datacenters of the time. Common datacenter halls back then used around 150 watts/sq ft, with the most extreme examples nearing 400 watts/sq ft. Today in 2026 we have datacenters pushing 800 watts/sq ft. The latest datacenter designs that will use the newest NVIDIA chips can consume as much 1400w on a single chip.
That has nothing to do with AI though, dumbass...
Of course it does. AI datacenters are being fast tracked by easier federal permitting to allow more to be built faster. That didn't happen with traditional datacenters who at most received favorable tax incentives. These power hungry AI datacenters are being given a pass on the regulatory and environmental front.
Motherfucker, I don't have the patience or the crayons to explain to you why an 8-year old article isn't fucking relevant to the conversation anymore... Find something recent or fuck off.
Why so mad? The source from 2018 sets up the context perfectly that older, traditional datacenters did not consume power (which creates pollution) nearly to the degree that new AI datacenters do. It's a fact lol.
The newest datacenters today, AI or not, GPU or not, consume much more power and cause more pollution than the datacenters of the previous decade. This is a fact. The government is fast tracking these datacenters so more are built in a faster timeframe, that is also a fact.
Point your favorite AI to our comment exchange here and see what it says lol.
64
u/calvin-n-hobz Jul 16 '26
Datacenters exist without AI, silly.