Linus Torvalds rebukes anti-AI stances in the Linux kernel code review process, says 'Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects' — creator embraces AI as just a tool and 'clearly a useful one'

Linus Torvalds
(Image credit: Getty Images)

AI-generated slop code has been a plague for some open-source projects, namely but not only Gentoo Linux, Curl, and Ghostty, limiting or outright banning LLM-created contributions. And yet, just like both the models themselves get better and the people using them become more considerate, the landscape may be changing. Linus Torvalds, Linux's creator and kernel manager, has seemingly taken an accepting stance of AI-assisted tooling.

In a long comment on the Linux kernel mailing list, Torvalds spelled it out fairly clearly: "I realize that some people really dislike AI, but this is an area where I'm willing to absolutely put my foot down [...] 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."

This discussion came regarding the usage of Sashiko, an opt-in (per-mailing-list) and apparently quite effective multi-stage code review tool that analyzes kernel patches. The project page says the tool can find 53.6% of bugs on proposed patches, and argues that that metric already puts it above human level, as the patches in question already supposedly went through human review. The false positive rate "is harder to measure," being pinned "within 20%." Crucially, Sashiko only comments on patches, and does not take action by itself.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware

Developer Laurent Pinchart suggested that Sashiko's output be triaged before comments were sent out to patch authors, basing the notion on the Software Freedom Conservancy's guidelines on AI-generated code. Google's Roman Gushchin, one of Sashiko's creators, pointed out that doing that would undermine the utility of the tool, and that Pinchart's position was quite anti-LLM — a sentiment echoed by Linus Torvalds in his reply.

Torvalds put it clearly: "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," a statement that reflects his changing stance on the matter since he initially dismissed AI tools as overhyped back in 2024. He also noted that Linux is not a "social warrior" project, and that it's always been about improving technology.

To drive the point home, he remarked that the tool "keeps finding embarrassing bugs," adding that he "will very loudly ignore people who try to argue against other people from using it," while highlighting the software's rapid evolution.

Perhaps quite poignantly, Torvalds remarked that resistant developers could use some self-awareness, as "it's not like natural intelligence is always all that great either," underscoring the fact that while AI tools may not be perfect, they generally only need to be good enough for their respective use cases. The fact that Sashiko seemingly finds errors in code that underwent human review is quite illustrative.

Google Preferred Source

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Bruno Ferreira
Contributor

Bruno Ferreira is a contributing writer for Tom's Hardware. He has decades of experience with PC hardware and assorted sundries, alongside a career as a developer. He's obsessed with detail and has a tendency to ramble on the topics he loves. When not doing that, he's usually playing games, or at live music shows and festivals.

  • d0x360
    Glad to hear it. AI shouldn't replace developers and at the same time developers can't be afraid to use it or deny its usefulness.

    I'm not a developer. I work in infosec but I get it and the reasoning behind the hesitance.. that said, it's not going away and anybody who rails against it is probably not on board and is going to get left behind.

    It's perfectly normal and acceptable to be critical of any technology but this isn't one to be ignoring just because you don't like it today. Get good with it now. There's tons of things I despise in tech but that doesn't mean I can ignore them. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
    Reply
  • Zaranthos
    d0x360 said:
    Glad to hear it. AI shouldn't replace developers and at the same time developers can't be afraid to use it or deny its usefulness.

    I'm not a developer. I work in infosec but I get it and the reasoning behind the hesitance.. that said, it's not going away and anybody who rails against it is probably not on board and is going to get left behind.

    It's perfectly normal and acceptable to be critical of any technology but this isn't one to be ignoring just because you don't like it today. Get good with it now. There's tons of things I despise in tech but that doesn't mean I can ignore them. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

    Well said. Anyone with their eyes wide open should see the writing on the wall that AI in some form or another is likely to be everywhere and touch nearly every part of modern life eventually.

    It takes time for technology and software to mature and AI is no different. What is different is the scale and magnitude propelling AI forward right now.
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    "ai" is fine as a tool used by people who understand and know how to use said tool and not be used by said tool.

    for reviewing/error checking/etc its fine so long as it isnt blindly trusted (people need to know if it makes mistake before pulling something flagged)


    Issue is...most people aren't that qualified...and they make and trust "ai" like it is a machine god who has no mistake ratio....
    Reply
  • johnnygeek88
    We have had code syntax checkers etc for some time now so perhaps if a LLM was made specifically to check the code of the kernel with out any auto correct features it would be safe. in my experience llms are just spewing random word generators that happen to spew non gibberish
    Reply
  • alan.campbell99
    hotaru251 said:
    "ai" is fine as a tool used by people who understand and know how to use said tool and not be used by said tool.

    for reviewing/error checking/etc its fine so long as it isnt blindly trusted (people need to know if it makes mistake before pulling something flagged)


    Issue is...most people aren't that qualified...and they make and trust "ai" like it is a machine god who has no mistake ratio....
    Indeed, and used by people who are clear-eyed about the certainty of having to deal with hallucinations or inefficiencies in the code generation.
    Problem is if more and more people don't actually learn to code and only use LLMs you might end up with less people with the skills and experience to manage the outputs.
    Reply
  • Alastor01
    As long as AI is used for what's it's supposed to be used - assistance, analysis, problem solving, etc all is good. Boring stuff. Complicated stuff. Repeated stuff.

    It shouldn't touch creative fields at all. No low effort pictures, music, videos, etc. This does hurt talent. It shouldn't be a chat agent either. For those, you need humans. Or the quality and experience suffer tremendously.
    Reply
  • usertests
    Alastor01 said:
    As long as AI is used for what's it's supposed to be used - assistance, analysis, problem solving, etc all is good. Boring stuff. Complicated stuff. Repeated stuff.

    It shouldn't touch creative fields at all. No low effort pictures, music, videos, etc. This does hurt talent. It shouldn't be a chat agent either. For those, you need humans. Or the quality and experience suffer tremendously.
    That's not going to work out. The category of boring/complicated stuff you approve of is where hallucinations can cause the most headaches. And "assistance" sounds like "chat agent" to me, what's the distinction?

    The creative fields? Image generation is very good, and requires relatively few resources, and video generation is following quickly. Music generation is harder to get right but has become better than I could have anticipated (but the MAFIAA is currently trying to kill it). These are error tolerant because there's an effectively infinite amount of acceptable variations, and the prompter can try, try, try again, or use inpainting or other techniques to fix mistakes as they see fit.

    The "AI slop style" that gets backlash is generally a product of laziness, accepting the first output you get, and not trying to change the style. If you put in more work, you can get a more unique output. If people are punishing slop-looking styles by not clicking on them, you have to diverge from that or die out.

    It's the choice of humans to make this stuff, and it can often be done on consumer-grade hardware. So it can't be stopped. It could lead to more indie films challenging Hollywood blockbusters, or at least accomplishing a lot on tiny budgets. Human talent/skills could suffer, but people who know how to draw by hand, about scene composition, etc. are going to be the most effective users of AI tools.
    Reply
  • LordVile
    He’s paid by Google, meta, Microsoft and Amazon obviously they’ve had a word
    Reply