diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | content/blog/2026-07-16-re-torvalds-on-ai.org | 88 |
1 files changed, 88 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/content/blog/2026-07-16-re-torvalds-on-ai.org b/content/blog/2026-07-16-re-torvalds-on-ai.org new file mode 100644 index 0000000..da87792 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/blog/2026-07-16-re-torvalds-on-ai.org @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@ +#+date: [2026-07-16 Thu 12:37:35] +#+title: Re: Quoting Linus Torvalds +#+description: Discussing Linus Torvalds' thoughts on the use of AI in the Linux kernel community. +#+slug: re-torvalds-on-ai +#+filetags: :linux:ai: + +* Linus on AI + +Linus Torvalds' recent defense of AI in the Linux kernel sparked the predictable +backlash, but the real debate is far more nuanced than that. + +This specific blog post is in response to [[https://simonwillison.net/search/?q=linus+torvalds&type=quotation&type_label=Quotation&sort=date][Simon Willison's]] post of the quotation +below on his website. + +As Linus says in his message: + +#+begin_quote +I realize that some people really dislike AI, but this is an area where I'm +willing to absolutely put my foot down as the top-level maintainer. + +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. + +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. + +There are other questions around AI (like what the economy of it will actually +look like in the end), but "is it useful" is no longer one of those questions. +Anybody who doubts that clearly hasn't actually used it. + +— Linus Torvalds, [[https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/CAHk-=wi4zC+Ze8e+p3tMv8TtG_80KzsZ1syL9anBtmEh5Z40vg@mail.gmail.com/][Linux Media Mailing List]] +#+end_quote + +* My Thoughts + +...and I agree. I do understand some of the push-back from others - such as [[https://lobste.rs/s/pb6d8m/linus_torvalds_on_llm_usage_kernel][the +commenters on lobste.rs]]. + +However, online communities tend to drift into the extremes and hard-line their +opinions without considering broader context. + +Linus is right that AI is a tool and a very useful one. The commenters are right +that there are additional considerations, such as environmental concerns and +social/cultural impacts, that we need to consider as we approach the usage of AI +tools. But "AI is bad and should be banned" is neither an answer to those +questions nor is it an informative take on the collective AI options out there, +beside the top AI offerings. + +This push-back often conflates different issues and muddies the waters of the +argument: environmental cost/impact, job displacement, corporate capture of +open-source labor, and code quality. These are all valid concerns and absolutely +deserve attention. But the solution isn't to bury our head in the sand and avoid +it. The solution is a logical review of the options and clarifying your stance +as a maintainer - write up clear contribution guidelines and code review +standards. These steps work regardless of your stance on AI as a maintainer. + +The bottom line here is that AI tools exist and will not be going away. +Developers will approach our projects with these tools, not to mention attackers +or hackers looking to exploit open-source projects. + +The goal, then, is to level the playing field. How can we enable open-source +project maintainers to effectively and efficiently maintain their projects while +protecting both their sanity and users? + +Each project may approach this differently, depending on their individual values +and concerns, but it's silly to dismiss AI outright without discussion. If a +project's set of maintainers or community decides to ban AI, that's their right. +But if a maintainer chooses to allow AI in some or all cases, that's also their +choice. + +The reality is simple: maintainers set the rules for their projects. Some will +embrace AI and some will outright refuse, and we should respect the rules on the +projects we contribute to. The Linux kernel's openness to it doesn't obligate +anyone else to accept AI. Linux is saying we get to choose when working on the +kernel and that's worth defending. Personally, I appreciate that he's willing to +take a stance one way or the other, rather than avoid making a statement just to +avoid the conflict. + +Lastly, I know some have noted Linus's (often brusque tone) again regarding his +"fork it or walk away" point. I'll be honest, I agree with him wholeheartedly +here. That's the whole point of open-source. You don't have to use AI to work on +the kernel and if you have a strict rule against being involved with projects +that involve AI, fork it and maintain a non-AI version. Build a community around +it if your feelings are popular with others. |