stallman was right all along I'm going back to the cathedral, everyone can go to hell

AI can be useful for developers, but I still think someone needs to check what it produces

Well, what exactly did the AI do?

If Linus said, "fix the kernel" and the LLM generated 1,000 lines of code that he dropped in, saw it was working, and called it a day, then that would be a problem.

If Linux said, "Where is the problem?" and LLM told him and then he fixed it himself, that's not a problem.

I don´t have a problem with LLM even generating code, I have a problem with programmers not understanding their craft and publishing code they don't fully understand.

The problem is that practically you need to take a hard line because how are you supposed whether something is unexamined slop or if it's been fully understood by a human? The only way to be sure a human understood it is to be sure a human wrote it, so blanket generative AI bans make sense.

Headline is a neuron activation lightning rod. Torvalds used the model to debug, the code is a one word fix he probably wrote himself.

This is the actual commit:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/818bebeb63dd6bf5f4e07e145f6cdbace520a34c

It fixes a goof where Intel Xe drivers allocate a few kb of memory that is used by the system during boot that causes the video to stop working. The fix is round_down() the memory allocation instead of round_up() the memory allocation. That's pretty much the entire code change. round_up() -> round_down(). The commit message makes a lot of sense, and this bug is something you'd be spending a lot of time on manually debugging due to how insidiously subtle it is. Torvalds used the AI model to help debug the problem, but I'm pretty sure a one word change in code is not an AI generated code... and if changing one word is what the AI really did in the end, where do you draw the line at copyright? Challenging the copyright of individual words is impossible to enforce, because the word is used everywhere.

Jesus this seems like a psyop to fuck with us.

Since Linus spends most of his time reviewing changes to the code in the kernel, he's probably one of the few people I'd trust to have properly vetted any AI code he used.

That being said, since you have no idea what code was scraped to generate the fix, it seems to me that it might not be able to be licensed under the GPL, though I'm no lawyer.

Reading these comments I have to contend that the halo effect is indeed powerful.

IMO it's immoral to use LLM's for any and every purpose and I think every slopper should be called out; no matter how accomplished they are.

We already knew linus was pro-ai

Remember he said "trust me bro" /s /ns

I guess Linux is turning into AI slop as well. God it feels like everything we hold dear is under attack these days. Is BSD any better or are they sycophantic AI bros too?

The title is pure clickbait, but the article is nuanced and reasonably well written, IMO.

No one wants a freaking Ubuntu chatbot on their desktop, but code submission is an entirely different issue, and I think "the submitter is entirely responsible for their code" is a very reasonable position.

And obviously, LLM-generated code policy needs to be tuned to each project and their contributor community. As an example not cited in the article, vibe-coded PRs are an ongoing plague for llama.cpp, an LLM inference engine itself, so they blanket ban them. Ironic, and perfectly reasonable. But Linus researching that Intel bug with a little help, but using his brain for the legwork and actual submission, is also reasonable.

There is too broad a group covered by "LLM Critics". Maybe "Now hardliner LLM critics"? Idk. But fucking Sam Altman and Jenson are "LLM critics" sometimes and they probably paid for this article lol, so I doubt they are facing a dilemma about the news

Haiku, anyone?

I think you'll find that even distros that are generally anti-AI and don't allow its use in their own projects are pragmatic about not being able to influence other people's software (for instance, Gentoo's AI policy flat-out states that it doesn't prohibit packaging AI-coded or AI-related software, although there's been some discussion about marking it so that the user can make an informed decision).

The choice isn't uncomfortable. It's a need for a hard fork from Linus that's always been present, and now is just more obvious because 2026 really is the year of mainstream FOSS OS use.

What is wrong with this comment section

And this was a debug session from hell, enormously helped by an AI doing much of the grunt-work.

i feel this in my soul since i'm the only one responsible for an abandoned code base with only a part time fresh graduate too inexperienced to help -- i've lost track of the number of rabbit holes that would have been impossible without gemini.

Many people have contibuted to linux. Linus is a boomer turd looking for the spotlight. He is washed up. He a sloppy boy! I no longer care what he has to say. Yeet kill your idols