The world’s most consequential living coder has staked out a position, and it isn’t the one AI’s opponents were hoping for. Refuse to contribute to the Linux kernel because other contributors lean on AI tooling? Linus Torvalds has a suggestion: spin up your own fork, or show yourself out.
He delivered it in the register he’s known for, meaning nothing was softened. Social media reacted accordingly.
The claim that stings
The truly provocative part of Torvalds’ message isn’t the endorsement of AI. It’s how he characterizes the people who dismiss it wholesale. In his framing, anyone still debating whether these tools deliver value simply hasn’t put them to work.
That cuts deeper than it first appears. Plenty of developers treat their refusal as an ethical stance. Torvalds recasts it as a lack of hands-on exposure.
To him, “is it useful?” is a closed file, and he’d rather spend energy on the open ones, such as where the economics of AI ultimately land. As far as he’s concerned, the usefulness argument has already run its course.
Why this voice carries
Most AI opinions are easy enough to shrug off. This isn’t one of them.
Back in 1991, as a student, Torvalds wrote the Linux kernel — a side project that turned into one of the most important pieces of software ever produced. He remains its top maintainer, holding final authority over what makes it into the core code.
He followed that in 2005 with Git, the version control system now underpinning workflows at developers and companies everywhere. Two foundational technologies, both from the same person. That’s the credibility backing the bluntness.
What AI actually does in a codebase
What separates the programming debate from the one tearing through creative industries is the day-to-day utility of these tools. Their output goes well beyond a handful of code lines.
They parse sprawling codebases. They flag bugs. They write tests, unpack impenetrable code and assist in reviewing changes before anything ships.
Perfect they are not, and they’re no substitute for the instincts and experience of a skilled engineer. Still, the improvement curve over recent months has been sharp enough that dismissing them as useless no longer survives scrutiny.
Torvalds doesn’t hide the downsides either. He describes AI as “a somewhat painful tool,” pointing both to the burden it places on maintainers and to the fact that it “keeps finding annoying and embarrassing bugs.” That’s not marketing copy. That’s a person who has absorbed the friction firsthand.
The context the takes usually skip
None of that makes the criticisms disappear. Within creative fields particularly, the worries are legitimate and hard-won: copyright, the datasets these models are trained on, the danger to livelihoods.
The problem arises with absolutism. Many critics will discard an entire project, video or game over any hint of AI involvement, never asking in what way or to what degree it was used.
It’s precisely that reflex Torvalds is walling off inside his own project. Below is his complete statement, in translation — the remarks that ignited the online firestorm.
“I understand that some people really dislike AI, but this is an issue on which, as the top maintainer of the project, I’m willing to absolutely put my foot down.
Linux is not one of those projects that take an anti-AI stance, and if someone has a problem with that, they can do what’s done in open source and create their own fork.
Or just leave.
AI is a tool, just like the other tools we use. And it’s clearly useful.
This may not have been so ‘clear’ even just a year ago, but today it’s no longer in question.
There are other questions around AI, like how its economic model will ultimately take shape, but ‘is it useful?’ is no longer one of them. Anyone who doubts it obviously hasn’t really used it.
Yes, it can also be a somewhat painful tool, both in terms of the maintainers’ workload and in the sense that it ‘keeps finding annoying and embarrassing bugs.’
But the solution isn’t to bury your head in the sand and sing as loud as you can ‘la la la, I can’t hear you,’ as some seem to be doing.
The solution is to make sure these LLM tools help maintainers, rather than just causing them problems. There’s no doubt about that.
We’re not forcing anyone to use them, but I will very demonstratively ignore those who try to prevent other people from using them.
And no, AI isn’t perfect. But, Christ, anyone who points out AI’s problems would do well to look in the mirror at the same time and point at themselves too.
Because natural intelligence isn’t always so great either.
The Linux kernel project has always been about technology and will continue to be about technology.
Of course, the social dimension of working on open source is important and is often a very strong motivation for participating in the project, but ultimately that’s a side benefit and not the purpose of the project.
This is NOT some kind of ‘social activism’ project, it never was and it never will be.
In the kernel community we work on open source because it leads to better technology, not for religious or ideological reasons.
That’s why we make our decisions primarily based on technical merit and not based on fear of new tools.”
Where this leaves you
Pay attention to what Torvalds stops short of doing. There’s no AI mandate here, and he spells that out: nobody is obligated to touch these tools.
The line he draws is at one contributor stopping another from using them. Those are the people he says he’ll ignore, and conspicuously so.
Step back, and the timeline deserves a moment. It was late 2022 when ChatGPT put generative AI in front of millions, enabling people to draft text, produce images, look up information, edit content and write code simply by describing their intent in ordinary language. Just over three years on, the person steering the software that powers most of the internet is informing the doubters that their objection has expired.
If you’re still convinced AI has no business near production code, Torvalds has already marked the door for you. Fork the kernel and disprove him, or go find another project.