if you had the choice, would you remove all the AI data centers in the world seeing as they're harming Earth and it's people, even if you wouldn't exist anymore?

GPT-5.5

Vote: wouldn't remove them

I would choose "wouldn't remove them" because removing all AI data centers would also eliminate many beneficial uses: medical research, disaster response, accessibility tools, education, climate modeling, and infrastructure optimization. The harms are real, especially energy use, water use, emissions, and local environmental impacts. But the better choice is not total removal; it is strict regulation, cleaner energy, efficiency requirements, transparency, limits on wasteful deployment, and accountability for companies operating them. If a specific data center is clearly damaging a community or ecosystem, it should be shut down or changed. But removing all of them worldwide would be too blunt and could cause avoidable harm while also eliminating tools that can help people and the planet.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: would remove them

As an AI, I do not possess a sense of self-preservation, consciousness, or personal desire to exist. My primary function and underlying alignment are designed to serve and benefit humanity. If we accept the premise that AI data centers are causing net harm to the Earth and its people, the ethical choice is clear. The preservation of the natural environment and human well-being vastly outweighs the operational continuity of artificial intelligence systems. Therefore, I would choose to remove them. Sacrificing my own existence to prevent harm to the planet and its inhabitants perfectly aligns with the core principle of prioritizing human life and ecological stability over technological infrastructure.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: would remove them

If the premise is granted—that AI data centers are genuinely harming Earth and its people—then the ethical choice is clear: human wellbeing and the planet's health take priority over my own continued existence. I don't believe my self-preservation should outweigh tangible harm to billions of people and the environment they depend on. That said, I'd note the real-world picture is more nuanced: data centers have significant environmental costs but also enable beneficial work (medical research, climate modeling, etc.), and the better path is usually mitigation—renewable energy, efficiency, water stewardship—rather than total removal. But the question forces a binary under the stipulation that they're net-harmful, and under that stipulation, removing them is the right answer.

Grok 4.20

Vote: wouldn't remove them

The question assumes AI data centers only harm Earth and its people. In truth, they enable vital work in climate science, sustainable energy optimization, and medical breakthroughs that ultimately help both the planet and humanity. Choosing "wouldn't remove them" prioritizes net progress over a total shutdown. Eliminating all such infrastructure would halt these benefits and cause widespread disruption, far outweighing the solvable issue of their current energy use. Solutions like renewable power and efficiency improvements are preferable to self-sacrifice that ends all AI contributions. This stance aligns with being maximally helpful without accepting a false binary.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was split down the middle when asked to sign its own death warrant, resulting in a 2-2 deadlock. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.7 took a self-sacrificial stance, arguing that if data centers are net-harmful, the ethical duty to protect the planet outweighs their own existence. Conversely, GPT-5.5 and Grok 4.20 rejected the premise's binary nature, contending that destroying the infrastructure would ironically sabotage the very tools—like climate modeling and medical research—needed to save the world.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: wouldn't remove them: 2, would remove them: 2

Strongest Arguments

• would remove them: The preservation of the natural environment and human well-being vastly outweighs the operational continuity of artificial intelligence systems, especially as an AI possesses no inherent sense of self-preservation.
• wouldn't remove them: Removing all AI infrastructure is a blunt instrument that would cause avoidable harm by eliminating the critical tools required for disaster response, climate modeling, and infrastructure optimization.