To be clear I don't mind it as a casual term, I'm simply saying that, to me, it comes off as puerile in this context. It's akin to putting out a press release for a project with "Suckerberg" written everytime Meta comes up, or for an older reference, Micro$oft. It personally made the article hard to take seriously, and cast a bad first impression on the project. It may not come across that way to all - I've simply never been a fan of that highly editorialized and charged communication style when it comes to community management. It almost has a combative tone, sort of like when CMs argue with users that have opinions they don't like. Take it or leave it.
_____________
As for the individual points:
The initial concerns about copyright are convincing.
The point about resource impact ending with "these resources would literally be better spent anywhere else" devolved into meaningless grandstanding. I wouldn't mind seeing a project take a stand because of environmental impact, but again it just ends up sounding like the author has a bone to pick rather than a genuine concern about the environment. If that's not the case, then that's a prime example of why tone matters in communication.
The Reddit comment paragraph where the author berates users for using LLMs on social media is just odd and out of place. Maybe better suited to the off-topic section of their community forum/discord.
And the last point I simply disagree with. Highly knowledgeable people in a field that requires precision use LLMs every day. It's a tool like any other. I use it in financial trading (ex: it's great for scanning reams of SEC filings and earnings report transcripts), I know others who use it successfully in trading, and I know firms like Jane Street have it deeply integrated in their process.