a huge chunk of those arguments are ethical about the environmental and economic impact.

I have never seen an economic or environmental argument that puts objective numbers in context, how much more energy, water, etc. is AI using or projected to use? It's all handwaving as if every single ChatGPT query is burning down a Macaw's home tree in the rain forest and polluting a small town's water supply, single handedly raising the average ocean temperature 5C.

makes it seems that anyone that does not abide by AI is a fool and an elitist

Back in the late 80s, there was a large contingent of the workforce who felt they were "too old to learn the computer." Linus, and I, were getting our starts around then and we were the young upstarts using this "solitare playing machine" to do "a few little tricks, not sure if there's actual value to justify the cost." Through the 90s there was a good 20% or more of the workforce that probably would have been more effective in their jobs if they would have "skilled up" on "that computer stuff," but they didn't and we all got through.

Adopting AI is going to be easier than learning how to use Win95 when you're coming from dictation, letter openers and interoffice memos delivered on paper, but I won't be surprised or disappointed if a significant chunk of the workforce stays away from AI for a whole variety of reasons, and that's fine. I also highly encourage those using AI to ensure that it's actually improving their product, not just making something passable faster.

makes how you wrote your matter for some people.

Pedigree and provenance, whose child wrote this paper, who they studied under, where they grew up, all of that matters, a lot, to a lot of people, in a lot of fields. In computer code, particularly in computer code like the Linux kernel, it shouldn't.