> Pandora's box is open.

And it's not Linux' task to close that, even if it could, which it cannot. How is that disingenuous?

I agree that we should keep discussing the merits and dangers of AI-aided software development. Broad, so indeed also CO2 etc. But that discussion is not something that Linux should push forward. It's a discussion that should take place outside the context of specific projects and in the context of the AI tools and providers, IMO.

It's disingenuous because it's attacking something that the article didn't say. It didn't say "kernel devs should prompt less because it uses up water."

The real argument was that AI has many externalities that should be considered (climate change, water use, energy prices, putting people out of jobs) and that Linux, as a relevant and influential political actor, should engage with these topics. It's not even giving a final determination about what Linux should do, it's just disagreeing with Torvalds' total rejection of ethical arguments about AI.

Even if you believe that the technical merits outweigh the other costs, it seems at least reasonable to engage on those grounds. But Torvalds isn't doing that.

Also, simply stating that the "cat is out of the bag" and "Pandora's box is open" isn't really an argument. These are thought-terminating cliches; not logical arguments