Furthermore your comment ignores key arguments in the article, particularly the argument that contributors should not be forced to participate in AI-based ceremonies such as LLM code review that they may object to on personal ethical grounds.
Remind me please, how much exactly do data centers contribute to greenhouse emissions? And how much something like, I don't know, meat production contribute?
If my Googling is correct, apparently a single ChatGPT query produces ~0.004 kg CO2e/kg. Beef production contributes ~60 kg CO2e/kg. So you'd need to make, err... over 15k ChatGPT queries to produce as much emissions as eating a single kilogram of beef.
I've seen anti-AI protests. Where are all the anti-meat protests? I don't mean to engage in whataboutism, I'm just saying -- if your goal is to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere then there are bigger fish to fry, instead of just virtue signaling because there's a new trendy bogeyman in town.
I've seen anti-AI protests. Where are all the anti-meat protests?
Fucking everywhere bro.
29.08.2026 end-of-speciesism.org/en/
1.10.2026 wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Vegetarian_Day
2.10.2026 dayforanimals.com (birthday of Gandhi)
1.11.2026 wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Vegan_DayThat means you are likely responsible for more water wastage than a datacenter
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.
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
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.