Linus Torvalds To Critics of AI Coding On Linux: 'Fork It. Or Just Walk Away.' (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0184496106
- News link: https://linux.slashdot.org/story/26/07/17/1830258/linus-torvalds-to-critics-of-ai-coding-on-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/07/linus-torvalds-to-critics-of-ai-coding-in-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away/
> Writing in [2]a lengthy post on the Linux kernel mailing list this week, Torvalds said that "Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects, and if somebody has issues with that, they can do the open-source thing and fork it. Or just walk away." The statement came amid a lengthy thread arguing about the use of Sashiko, an "agentic Linux kernel code review system" that its creators claim can, in tests, independently find 53.6 percent of the bugs that would end up being fixed by human coders in later commits. But the tool can also waste maintainers' time by sending "false positive" reports of bugs that don't exist, at a rate Sashiko's maintainers estimate is "well within [the] 20% range."
>
> In discussing whether maintainers should be subjected to a flood of these kinds of automated, AI-powered bug report emails (true or false), one poster cited the Software Freedom Conservancy's [3]recent statement that the open source community "should support, not just tolerate, those who outright reject LLM-gen-AI systems" and that "every FOSS contributor deserves self-determination regarding LLM-gen-AI." In the face of that statement, Torvalds said that he rejects those who demand that their open source projects not accept any LLM-generated code or revisions. "We're not forcing anybody to use [LLM tools], but I will very loudly ignore people who try to argue against other people from using it," Torvalds said.
>
> Torvalds said his position on this is a pragmatic one that's "based on technical merit. Not fear of new tools." And when it comes to utility, Torvalds said that "AI is a tool, just like other tools we use. And it's clearly a useful one. It may not have been that 'clearly' even just a year ago, but it's no longer in question today. Anybody who doubts that clearly hasn't actually used it." [...] While Torvalds acknowledged that "AI isn't perfect," he urged detractors to compare the output of these tools to the performance of human code maintainers. "Anybody who points to the problems at AI had better be looking in the mirror and pointing at themselves at the same time," Torvalds wrote. "Because it's not like natural intelligence is always all that great either."
[1] https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/07/linus-torvalds-to-critics-of-ai-coding-in-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/CAHk-=wi4zC+Ze8e+p3tMv8TtG_80KzsZ1syL9anBtmEh5Z40vg@mail.gmail.com/
[3] https://sfconservancy.org/llm-gen-ai/llm-backed-generative-ai-recommendations.html
Results over tools (Score:2)
And contributors being responsible for what they submit no matter if it is AI or not.
Re: (Score:2)
> And contributors being responsible for what they submit no matter if it is AI or not.
Time will tell if contributors using LLM based coding tools will actually feel responsible for what they submit to the extent that they actually check and understand _all_ the code they contribute. So far, experiments have shown that one cannot expect people to remain as diligent after extended periods of LLM use. And then, there may be real trouble ahead, like LLM based tools injecting hard to spot back-doors into the code, not being noticed by overly confident LLM-tool users.
I agree with Linus' insofar
Re: (Score:2)
So far, experiments have shown that one cannot expect people to remain as diligent after extended periods of LLM use.
This is absolutely a problem if you work in a shitty sweatshop that forces you to be a sin eater for robot code.
The way we do it is, the tools are available, but you're not required to use them in any specific way or really, at all if you don't want to. You do, of course, have to get your work done and be responsible for your code. We have a spectrum of use, from all-in cascades of agents
Not surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not surprised by this. Linus was highly influential in attacking the GPLv3 way back when it still mattered. He has a pro-corporate viewpoint and likes to bully people.
Re: Not surprised (Score:2)
Of course he does. Corporations have made him wealthy. Wealthy people can afford not to have human-centric principles.
Re: (Score:2)
If Linux was meant to run on humans instead of computers, you might have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Empirically, it seems this is what it took and still takes to run the largest and most successful software project in history. It's a voluntary project, too, that anyone can fork--but the obvious consensus is that no one else can do as good of a job.
You're welcome to try a different method.
Re: (Score:1)
> As I mentioned, Linux has never been a social warrior project.
>
> If you don't have technical reasons, you don't have reasons.
That is unfortunately incorrect. Commits have been accepted into the Linux kernel that, for non-technical reasons, change or remove ungood words, such as blacklist .
Re: (Score:2)
> The article mentions the first mail:
> [1]https://lore.kernel.org/linux-... [kernel.org]
> Then Lauren Pinchart insisted that AI is bad and Linus carefully explained why he thinks they are useful:
> [2]https://lore.kernel.org/linux-... [kernel.org]
> When Pinchart doubled down, Linus Torvalds wrote a second clear statement:
> So this is where the discussion ends.
>
> As I mentioned, Linux has never been a social warrior project.
>
> If you don't have technical reasons, you don't have reasons.
>
> You can choose not to use AI, but that's your PERSONAL choice.
>
> It has absolutely no impact on anybody else, and you should not expect
> it to have any.
> and got quite clear he's not on the side of the FSF:
> It's why Linux is *not* GNU/Linux, and why we call things "open
> source" instead of "Free Software".
>
> So keep your ethics where they belong - in your personal life. Don't
> try to enforce your ethics on others.
> [3]https://lore.kernel.org/linux-... [kernel.org]
Ouch. Blunt and pointed in one exchange. LoL
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/CAHk-=wi4zC+Ze8e+p3tMv8TtG_80KzsZ1syL9anBtmEh5Z40vg@mail.gmail.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/CAHk-=wiL7kFVWNtvE5S9A4iqXYat66NaUqX1+gZT0QCndi4eQw@mail.gmail.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/CAHk-=wi7KN9_DYdmaE2chC92EhTrO=Wtx1bPBER-EQfAZ8FREg@mail.gmail.com/
Re:Second nail (Score:2)
Both systemd and AI-coded software threaten non-IT home users. Both industrializations remove agency from individual coders/users. If you don't accept the personal threat of well-funded monopolies then you probably should pay higher real-estate taxes.
That is how open source works! (Score:2)
When a groups of contributors doesn't like how the project is going, they can always fork it. That's how we got LibreOffice.
Linus is right, as usual (Score:4, Interesting)
Linus has been right so many times on these process-related subjects that it seems stupid to argue with him. No single person on Earth has better credentials at this point.
He understands that ideologues only make technical endeavors worse, and he's is correctly inviting people to prove him wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
if you want to slam your dick in a door, he wont stop you
Re: (Score:3)
Are you asking if Linus was right about something outside of the kernel that isn't properly his concern?
Here's what he had to say when asked when this holy war was perhaps at its peak:
> I don't actually have any particularly strong opinions on systemd itself. I've had issues with some of the core developers that I think are much too cavalier about bugs and compatibility, and I think some of the design details are insane (I dislike the binary logs, for example), but those are details, not big issues.
( [1]source [zdnet.com])
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-and-others-on-linuxs-systemd/
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
> He understands that ideologues only make technical endeavors worse, and he's is correctly inviting people to prove him wrong.
Well, he was proven wrong regarding his "pragmatic" use of BitKeeper, but at least he fixed that mistake by writing something better when he, too, realized how BitKeeper was not suitable for an open source project. Also, his excellent track-record did not keep him from becoming involved in the bound-to-fail "Transmeta" activities. So yes, he has excellent credentials, but he cannot predict the future, like anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Transmeta wasn't "bound to fail", that's ridiculous. Their timing was bad for sure, but that's not their fault. Transmeta has no place in the present discussion about ideologues in any case.
As for Bitkeeper, what alternative was there at the time that didn't have even worse issues? I don't see RMS suggesting any alternatives in his 2005 "thank you" letter to Larry McEvoy. In the event, Linus wrote a replacement that ended up taking over the world a second time, which makes him even harder to argue with.
Re: (Score:2)
> Transmeta wasn't "bound to fail", that's ridiculous.
Transmeta was bound to fail, and several experts in the field of CPU design pointed this out early on. For example: [1]https://books.google.com/books... [google.com] and [2]https://news.ycombinator.com/i... [ycombinator.com]
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=EwIAAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA2-PP7
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45898849
The problem with AI is over reliance .... (Score:3)
The problem with AI is over reliance. If it reports a problem, the human using the AI needs to investigate it, before submitting a bug report. If the AI offers a fix, the human using the AI needs to make sure the code meets standards (style, input validation, test code, etc), works properly, and gives it some thought regarding is it creating new bugs or exploits, before they submit a patch. It's blind trust, or superficial analysis and superficial testing that is the problem.
Re: pet project (Score:2)
Probably the dumbest thing written on the internet today. Or not.
Just walk away (Score:2)
And there will be an end to the horror
Pragmatic attitude works well on this. (Score:3)
He's typically pragmatic about it, and the attitude serves well.
Is it a real bug? Are POSIX standards violated, or user code broken by a operating system's promise? If yes, it needs to be fixed. If no, it has already wasted too much time.
Re: (Score:2)
> He's typically pragmatic about it, and the attitude serves well.
Here's a few posts from [1]Dries Buytaert [wikipedia.org], lead of the Drupal project, (UserID 1)
[2]Never submit code you don't understand [dri.es]
[3]AI rewards strict APIs [dri.es]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dries_Buytaert
[2] https://dri.es/never-submit-code-you-do-not-understand
[3] https://dri.es/ai-rewards-strict-apis
Re:Pragmatic attitude works well on this. (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't say pragmatic, no. He's tried it, found it works, and now won't listen to the people pointing out the numerous problems with it.
The slopped Linux kernel may well be a violation of the copyrights of several unknowns in Europe, for example. If you're not planning to build a Linux-based product in Europe, not a big issue I guess. Not an issue in the US. But it's amazing how many people think US copyright law is the only type of copyright law.
And that's before we get to changing the entire nature of Linux so it's no longer a project understood by human beings.
This is Bitkeeper all over again. That was the last time Torvalds made a "pragmatic" decision, effectively locking out a large number of kernel devs from kernel development, until he was forced to build Git to replace it.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say pragmatic, no. He's tried it, found it works, and now won't listen to the people pointing out the numerous problems with it.
He has pointed out AI's flaws and limitations. He has also said the beneft is it gets him to the starting point more quickly to either figure out a bug or how to do something, or even how to rewrite something he's already done. He is not blindly accepting what it says.
Trust, but verify would be closer to his thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
The e-mail thread in question is about an LLM-based code reviewer (effectively a fancy static analyzer), and not LLM-generated code. I think the copyright concerns are significantly different between those two use cases. I tend to agree that new code contributed by an LLM is likely entangled with copyright concerns depending on the origins of the LLM's training data sets; plus the hallucination and error risks are far less impactful if confined to code reviews and bugfinding. Also, at this point, I imagine
Re: Pragmatic attitude works well on this. (Score:2)
It's a pragmatic FINANCIAL decision. Five of the top funders of the Linux foundation are hawking LLMs. Linus is typically compromised by the usual capitalistic conflict of interest.