Linus Torvalds says AI slop issue won't be solved with kernel documentation

Linus Torvalds: "The AI Slop Issue Is *NOT* Going To Be Solved With Documentation"

"| Thinking LLMs are 'just another tool' is to say effectively that the kernel | is immune from this. Which seems to me a silly position. No. Your position is the silly one. There is *zero* point in talking about AI slop. That's just plain stupid. Why? Because the AI slop people aren't going to document their patches as such. That's such an obvious truism that I don't understand why anybody even brings up AI slop. So stop this idiocy. The documentation is for good actors, and pretending anything else is pointless posturing. As I said in private elsewhere, I do *not* want any kernel development documentation to be some AI statement. We have enough people on both sides of the "sky is falling" and "it's going to revolutionize software engineering", I don't want some kernel development docs to take either stance. It's why I strongly want this to be that "just a tool" statement. And the AI slop issue is *NOT* going to be solved with documentation, and anybody who thinks it is either just naive, or wants to "make a statement". Neither of which is a good reason for documentation."

Linus: Stop making issue of AI slop in kernel docs

'Because the AI slop people aren't going to document their patches as such' Today, it is hard to escape LLM bots and the endless slop they emit, but the Linux kernel might be largely safe ... for now. Linus Torvalds has spoken up on the contentious topic of LLM-assisted software development. Despite his previous guardedly positive stance, for now, he seems to have come out strongly against it in the context he cares about the most - developing code for the Linux kernel. But he also doesn't want the documentation to become a political battlefield over this point. He was responding to a message from Oracle-affiliated kernel developer Lorenzo Stokes, which seems to us to be guardedly anti-LLM: "Thinking LLMs are 'just another tool' is to say effectively that the kernel is immune from this. Which seems to me a silly position." Torvalds replied: No. Your position is the silly one. There is zero point in talking about AI slop. That's just plain stupid. Why? Because the AI slop people aren't going to document their patches as such. That's such an obvious truism that I don't understand why anybody even brings up AI slop. So stop this idiocy. The documentation is for good actors, and pretending anything else is pointless posturing. As I said in private elsewhere, I do not want any kernel development documentation to be some AI statement. We have enough people on both sides of the "sky is falling" and "it's going to revolutionize software engineering", I don't want some kernel development docs to take either stance. It's why I strongly want this to be that "just a tool" statement. And the AI slop issue is NOT going to be solved with documentation, and anybody who thinks it is either just naive, or wants to "make a statement". Neither of which is a good reason for documentation. Rather than try to paraphrase the great man, we thought we'd just give you his own words. However, we do also face the slight issue that it's not entirely clear to us what Torvalds's position here really is. Stokes was replying to an email from Dave Hansen. As Linux benchmark and commentary site Phoronix reported in November, a team is working on a set of clear, unambiguous guidelines concerning LLM-bot-assisted contributions to the kernel. It's a pressing issue. People are already using LLM coding assistants to work on kernel code: for instance, last year, Wikimedia developer Dmitry Brant blogged about Using Claude Code to modernize a 25-year-old kernel driver. The Register has reported on Torvalds's various comments on LLM-bot-assisted coding several times in recent years. In 2024, he said that 90 percent of AI marketing is hype. (To be honest, the Reg FOSS desk thinks that's generous: we'd be happy to learn it was as low as 90 per cent.) A year later, he commented that he was OK with vibe coding as long as it's not used for anything that matters, which was a little unexpected. The Reg's own Rupert Goodwins begged to differ, writing "Vibe coding: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing (Sorry, Linus)". For now, LLM coding assistants are so popular with so many that Torvalds is right: if the kernel flatly prohibits their use, then they'll get used anyway. They can and do emit code-like text, and lots of it, and currently they're cheap. Ban them, and they'll still be used - the users will just deny it. Of course, they might not remain cheap. This vulture strongly suspects that another AI winter is coming. The first one was circa 1984, and the second about a decade later, with the end of the Fifth Generation Computer Systems project sponsored by Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). Now, all that is left of the FGCS is a web museum. We suspect that the third and biggest AI winter is imminent. Some analysts think so too, while others feel that what's left behind will remain valuable. Right now, the "generative AI" industry is spending vast amounts to subsidize these models and their use, propping up the US economy in the hope of future trillion-dollar-scale profitability. If that doesn't happen and the industry collapses, the coding-assistant advocates may suddenly find that plain old human brainpower is much cheaper than hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of datacentres. Some large model prices are already increasing sharply. Put another few zeros on the end of the pricing and we suspect people may get much less keen on using them. This may yet prove to be a self-correcting issue, given a few years. ®

'There is *zero* point in talking about AI slop. That's just plain stupid': Linus Torvalds weighs in on AI debate in Linux kernel documentation

Seems there's no way to avoid the AI debate. Even when you think the debate shouldn't exist. Where some are sick of AI usage, others are sick of debate about AI usage. And when it comes to mentioning the use of LLMs in kernel documentation, Linux creator Linus Torvalds seems to be very much in the latter camp. As reported by The Register, Linux kernel engineer for Oracle, Lorenzo Stoakes, recently critiqued Torvalds, arguing that AI tools are not the same as any other tool and need unique documentation and flagging. Stoakes then replied to Dave Hansen, kernel hacker at Intel, saying, "We're noticing a lot more LLM slop than we used to. It is becoming more and more of an issue." Stoakes argues LLMs have had a negative impact in many areas, "for which you need only take a cursory glance at the world to observe". Furthering this point, Stoakes says, "Thinking LLMs are 'just another tool' is to say effectively that the kernel is immune from this. Which seems to me a silly position." This is where Torvalds comes into the conversation. He says, "No. Your position is the silly one. There is *zero* point in talking about AI slop. That's just plain stupid. Why? Because the AI slop people aren't going to document their patches as such. That's such an obvious truism that I don't understand why anybody even brings up AI slop." Torvals argues that he wants no kernel development documentation to mention AI, as "We have enough people on both sides of the 'sky is falling' and 'it's going to revolutionize software engineering', I don't want some kernel development docs to take either stance." Effectively, the 'it's just a tool' statement is one that backs up this belief. Torvalds says the "AI slop issue" won't be solved through kernel documentation, and AI documentation is, instead "pointless posturing". It is worth noting that Torvalds does see value in AI tools, as expressed back in 2024. Stoakes continued the debate: "The point is a. For the tech press to not gleefully report that the kernel just accepts AI patches now since hey it's just another tool. b. To be able to refer back to the document when rejecting series. "As to point a., as I said before in other threads, I remain concerned that the second the tech press say 'the kernel accepts AI patches now' we'll see an influx. It's sad we have to think about that, but it's a fact of life." As is the way within the AI debate, one side argues that accepting AI work as any other directly human created work could open the floodgates for AI agents, and another wishes for it to be welcomed as any other tool. Some within the threads have highlighted patches successfully laid out by AI, but the conversation around it seems much bigger than that. There might be 'zero point in talking about AI slop', and yet the thread has only grown since.