Linux

TL;DR: Merged code has to meet existing quality standards. What tools were used to create it is irrelevant.

Hot Take: IMO, using generated code is fine, if it goes through the exact same due diligance as normal code. (unit tests, is the algo optimised, etc.)

Because it's not like natural intelligence is always all that great either.

Wouldn’t be a proper Linus post without calling everyone else an idiot.

For all his great work on Linux (and git and others) Torvalds was never into activism so much. He declined GPLv3 (yes it would be impossible to get all contributors to sign for it). He's always been an "open source pragmatist", which is fine I guess. And I really respect his work. But at these important political points, we need someone like Stallman who has consistently proven to be on the right side of the debate

TL;DR

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.

Not a single acknowledgement of the environmental or cognitive costs of LLM use. Disgusting.

I seen alot of people say "AI is just a tool" ngl There is nothing wrong with that it's just a little overused

with that, they can do the open-source thing and fork it.

Ok regardless of your opinion on AI this is just stupid. No one is forking and maintaining the entire linux kernal.

Dude, this is lemmy. The headline should be: "AI Slop Allowed in the Linux!"

I don’t generally take issue LLMs used as a tool, but I do have a huge problem with lazy slop slingers. I also don’t like that the frontier models are closed source and rent-seeking, especially when they were trained on copyleft code and by all rights should themselves be open source if they were respecting the licenses. I’d think Linus would have something to say about that.

IMO, a decent philosophy is that LLMs can be useful tools, but if anyone can tell you used a LLM, you failed. People should have a healthy fear of being ridiculed for outsourcing their critical thinking. Anyone using a ton of tokens shouldn’t be commended; instead, the quality of their work should be called into question because they’re likely using LLMs as a crutch instead of a tool. Commits by Claude probably mean the person didn’t review the diff to clean up the slop, and also probably didn’t understand the changes well enough to write a clear commit message themselves. I wouldn’t want to see any commits crediting Claude in the Linux kernel.

Edit:

I’d also think that if Linus likes LLMs and wants to see quality tech democratized, he’d be advocating for FOSS LLMs under the Linux foundation where all code and training data are open source. What we have now with Anthropic and “OpenAI” is the equivalent of cloud-hosted Windows, and open weight models like Qwen are more like Windows XP in that they can be run locally, but they’re still proprietary and can’t be inspected, modified, or built upon. We need the Linux of LLMs.

I locally host gemma 4 e2b on a very modest spec laptop to help summarize large texts, as a rudimentary translation tool, and just as a toy. It makes sense. I see small coding models on hugging face all the time, I think we've hit a point where it's just too efficient not to atleast entertain a little bit of slop in your workflow.