Re: Environmental impact of Debian's AI usage

Hi Lucas,

On 8/13/26 9:38 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Do we really know a lot about the environmental impact of AI? I have the
> impression that we have legitimate questions or concerns about it (that
> are acknowledged in several ballot options including the one I proposed),
> but not that we are experts on the topic.

We are not experts on climate change, but really, saying at this point 
that we need more research on that before we can agree that it is 
happening, has extreme tobacco-industry-vibes. We know climate change is 
real and that it is already destroying the planet. With the current 
state of affairs, non-experts are allowed to say that.

What we are experts on, is technology. That is what LLMs are. We can see 
what they do, as anyone can, and we have a better understanding of the 
value (both positive and negative) of their contribution to society than 
others.

We can also see how much damage they do to the environment. Again, we 
are not experts on that part, but we don't need to be; it's very 
obvious. So while our impression of that damage may not be as accurate 
as it could be, there is no reason to pretend that maybe the damage is 
very minor. It obviously is not, and everyone can see it.

So why is Debian in a position to make a public statement about this? 
Because we are better at evaluating one side of the issue than others. 
And the other side happens to be very well established information 
(climate change is real and a massive problem to society, and LLMs are a 
significant part of making it worse).

Sure, we don't have all the details. But if you require "having all the 
details" for every public statement, pretty much nobody can make a 
statement about anything anymore. Which I'm sure is fine with the 
planet-destroying industry (whether that be tobacco, fossil fuels, or 
LLMs). But as responsible inhabitants of this planet, I believe we 
should know when we have enough information to make a statement, and as 
Debian we do.

> I would feel a bit ashamed if Debian made such a position statement,
> because it really sounds hypocritical, as our own house is not in order.
[...]
> I'm not denying the importance of environmental impact and climate
> change, but I think that it is an issue that should be addressed
> properly by Debian. Hence my proposal to have a team that looks at all
> this more globally, and makes recommendations to the project.

Why not both? We know LLMs are destroying the planet. We know this is a 
problem for literally every human in existence. Do we really need to 
wait until we've cleaned our room before we're allowed to help the world 
to solve this? This sounds like a delay-tactic that the aforementioned 
industries are famous for. Let's not walk into that trap.

(To be clear: I'm not accusing you of working against humanity on their 
behalf. But your arguments do sound like it, so I'm pointing it out to 
allow you to change course.)

Thanks,
Bas