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

> These are thought-terminating cliches; not logical arguments

Consider sometimes terminating some thoughts and replacing them with actually useful ones. It’s good for you and your goals regardless of what they are.

People burning thought-hours on pretending that we can make AI go away are basically doing nothing except emitting CO2 and consuming water. If you want change, start with yourself!

Anyway, so far zero actionable suggestions for Torvalds in the article or in this thread. Great job so far.