Linus: 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.
2026-07-16 14:28 UTC
Replies (7)
-
@tirateimas@lemmy.pt 2026-07-16 14:44
Reading the whole message, his position seems totally reasonable.
-
@KindaABigDyl@programming.dev 2026-07-16 15:06
It’s going to be a sad day when Linus finally leaves the kernel
-
@gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 2026-07-16 15:39
the issue on ai is actually about tradition vs. modernity, in most cases. if you add up to that the fact that it’s coupled with automation, which a lot of people consider a bad thing because it eliminates jobs from the market… it was capitalism all along.
-
@notaviking@lemmy.world 2026-07-16 15:49
It was a totally measured and well thought argument. Not singing Nirvana nor Apocalypse when it comes to AI but embracing technological progress in a measured way
-
@geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 2026-07-16 15:56
Based. But the AI slop machine is something to be aware of. AI can get you 90% of the way there nowadays but without the remaining 10% error checking you’re not gonna have a good time.
-
@hello_hello@hexbear.net 2026-07-16 16:47
What’s interesting is that the discussion in which Torvalds decides to interject in is when Pinchart brings up the ethics of using LLMs in development as Torvalds quickly points out that the goal of the project is not to be a “social warrior” (barely indistinguishable from calling others SJWs), he even makes a reference to veganism as a metaphor. In the end, I think Giacomo Tesio’s response is the most poignant (lore.kernel.org/…/20260716112048.2dc10a3f@hermes.…) On the other hand, legitimizing any of the several AI issues is a greet concern for the LF members [2] that includes companies such as Google, Meta, Microsoft and Anthropic that are collectively exposed for trillions of dollars over the AI bubble. It’s not that you must be “pro-AI”, but if you are not, you will be countered or silenced in every influential technical spaces. So neither inclusiveness or developers’ alienation are relevant ethical issues in this list, just political tools or not. Linus faithfully serves the interests of his employers, so no argument, either ethical, technical or whatever, really counts here whenever its effects could annoy them. The LF patrons are all embroiled in the western AI bubble, so it’s difficult to ascertain whether Torvalds could ever not take a positive stance or even directly advise others to use LLMs. It’s probably not worth taking Torvalds’ arguments seriously and instead look at the bigger picture: The Linux Kernel is a titanic C project which hits the limits of the guarantees that the C compiler and coding guidelines can provide. Using an LLM to find memory bugs is necessary considering attackers can do the same thing (with the recent Copyfail and dirtyfrag attacking unsecured modules). The non-LLM answer was to incorporate a stronger compiler in the form of Rust for future drivers and modules (even better would be to rewrite the kernel in Rust), which eliminates this repetitive class of memory vulnerabilities. In a more centrally planned computer science field, C would be deprecated rather than become the parasitic bedrock of everything above it. It’d also be better if we actually had multiple kernels that were supported on the level of Torvalds’ Linux git tree rather than a monoculture where everyone is destined to hover around Torvalds’ tree because “out-of-tree” linux kernel stuff is a pain, much less a fork. Also if your foundation receives millions in grants and employment contracts from silicon valley, telling others to “make a fork” isn’t a realistic measure.
-
@kibiz0r@midwest.social 2026-07-16 20:25
Ehhh, probably the most pragmatic option for someone in his position, but I’m not gonna take that as an even-handed analysis of AI in open source, the software industry, the economy, or civilization writ large. There was a post earlier today that directly counters the “just a tool” trope. (And if you’re thinking “but this is Linus! What credentials could this rando possibly have?”, allow me to preface their essay+video with a note that this guy has experience at high levels in the industry and then quit the industry to get a PhD with a focus on the social impacts of software development tools.) And Cory Doctorow has a book (and many blog posts and speaking engagements covering the same content) about the precise harms (and non-harms) of AI. Dr. Fatima (on Youtube) also has a pretty well-rounded take. And Baldur Bjarnason makes some good points from a cognitive science perspective, though I think he’s ultimately out over his skis quite a bit.