According to Tom's Hardware, Linus Torvalds told the Linux kernel mailing list that Linux 'is not one of those anti-AI projects' and that dissenters can fork the project. According to ITHome, kernel rules still require human reviewers to verify AI-generated code and take full responsibility for it.
What is Linus Torvalds's position on the Linux kernel adopting AI tools?
According to ITHome, Torvalds posted on the linux-media mailing list to make clear that the Linux kernel will not become a project that rejects AI tools outright (E1). He said AI is a development tool like any other, and that developers can decide individually whether to use it — but the kernel community will not ban large language models simply because some contributors object (E1).
In a separate, longer message on the Linux kernel mailing list reported by Tom's Hardware, Torvalds went further: "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" (E9). He added 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" (E13) — a shift from his 2024 dismissal of AI tools as overhyped, as noted by Tom's Hardware (E13). Torvalds also said the tool in question "keeps finding embarrassing bugs," and that he "will very loudly ignore people who try to argue against other people from using it" (E14).
What do current Linux kernel rules require for AI-assisted development?
Despite Torvalds's openness to AI, ITHome reports that existing kernel norms still place responsibility on humans. Current rules require that human submitters review AI-generated code, confirm licensing, and take full responsibility for it (E2). The kernel's AI-assisted development documentation specifically states that AI agents cannot add a Signed-off-by tag, because only humans can provide the legal certification required under the Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) (E7). Instead, the documentation requires an Assisted-by tag whenever an AI tool helps with development, identifying the tool or agent name and model version used (E8).
How does Sashiko, the AI agentic review system, perform?
The debate was triggered by discussion over how to use Sashiko, an open-source AI agentic code review system built by the Linux Foundation, according to ITHome (E3). Sashiko monitors the Linux kernel mailing list for new patches and checks them through a multi-stage review process covering architecture, security, resource management, and concurrency issues (E3).
According to Tom's Hardware, Sashiko's project page claims the tool can find 53.6% of bugs in proposed patches, and argues that this metric already places it above human-level review, since the patches in question had already gone through human review (E10). The tool's false-positive rate is harder to measure and is pinned at within 20% (E11).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|
| Bug detection rate on proposed patches | 53.6% | Sashiko project page, via Tom's Hardware (E10) |
| False-positive rate | Within 20% | Sashiko project page, via Tom's Hardware (E11) |
| Torvalds's prior stance on AI tools | 2024 (called overhyped) | Tom's Hardware (E13) |
What disagreement exists among Linux kernel developers over how to use Sashiko?
According to ITHome, kernel developer Laurent Pinchart argued that maintainers who plan to act on Sashiko's review findings should first classify and verify the results themselves, rather than forwarding unconfirmed AI reports directly to contributors (E4). Sashiko developer Roman Gushchin countered that requiring maintainers to first classify and verify every finding would undermine the tool's purpose of helping maintainers (E6).
Tom's Hardware reports that Gushchin, identified as a Google engineer and one of Sashiko's creators, pointed out that Pinchart's proposed approach would undermine the tool's utility, and characterized Pinchart's position as "quite anti-LLM" — a characterization Torvalds echoed in his reply (E12).
What position have developers opposed to AI tools in the Linux kernel taken?
According to ITHome, Pinchart cited generative AI usage guidance published by the Software Freedom Conservancy, which argues that free and open-source software communities should support contributors who choose not to use AI systems, and that developers should not be forced to adopt such tools (E5).
Tom's Hardware notes that AI-generated "slop" code has been a problem for some other open-source projects, specifically naming Gentoo Linux, Curl, and Ghostty, which have limited or outright banned LLM-created contributions (E15).
What does this mean
Torvalds's statement that Linux "is not one of those anti-AI projects" (E9) and his instruction to "loudly ignore" people arguing against AI tool use (E14) puts him on record against the position Pinchart voiced by citing the Software Freedom Conservancy's guidance to support AI-refusing contributors (E5). Gushchin's characterization of Pinchart's stance as "quite anti-LLM," echoed by Torvalds (E12), sits alongside the fact that other open-source projects — Gentoo Linux, Curl, and Ghostty — have moved in the opposite direction by limiting or banning LLM contributions altogether (E15). Yet even as Torvalds embraces Sashiko for catching "embarrassing bugs" (E14) and highlights its 53.6% detection rate (E10), the kernel's own documentation still requires a human to review, license-check, and take full responsibility for any AI-assisted code (E2), and bars AI agents from the Signed-off-by tag that only a human can apply under the DCO (E7) — meaning the debate over Sashiko's workflow (E4, E6) unfolds within rules that already keep final accountability with people, not tools.