And that's why a nuanced view to define what kinds of AI contribution are done with direct human involvement, oversight, and review to create high-quality code (yes, it is possible) and what kinds are problematic and dangerous is important. Both in defense of the Linux kernel project's position, and in criticism of it. Otherwise I feel like everyone on both sides is just going to be shouting past each other with nobody actually ever reaching the point of how we are realistically ever going to build reliable and maintainable software going forward in a world where the AI pandora's box has already been opened and and short of an absolute total war against the technology (which may be justified, but is not likely to happen and is not achievable or winnable from the efforts of a single project) it has been released into the wild and is not going away and people are not going to stop trying to use it.

Public shaming of AI usage is a valid strategy against its adoption and possibly the most viable one we have, but plenty of people are completely immune to it and will continue to be. It's never going to stop it completely and maybe it's a wasted effort. At the end of the day, the work still needs to get done, and arguing about how exactly it gets done simply isn't getting any of the necessary work done.