Linus Torvalds tells anti-AI devs to fork Linux or move on

Many developers have strong reservations about artificial intelligence, but Linus Torvalds is not among them. The creator of Linux has made it clear that AI is now an integral part of kernel development, and anyone who disagrees can simply “do the open-source thing and fork it.”

That blunt message came directly from Torvalds on the Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML) in response to discussions about whether AI-generated code should be banned from the project. Unlike some programming communities, such as the Zig language project which has adopted strict anti-AI policies, Linux is moving in the opposite direction. Torvalds is explicitly approving AI tools for use in kernel maintenance and development.

“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,” Torvalds wrote. His reasoning is straightforward: AI is a tool, just like any other in the developer’s toolbox. “It may not have been that ‘clearly’ even just a year ago, but it’s no longer in question today.”

He is not alone in this stance. Greg Kroah-Hartman, the maintainer of the Linux stable kernel, told ZDNET earlier this year that the quality of AI-generated contributions has shifted dramatically. “Months ago, we were getting what we called ‘AI slop,'” he said, referring to low-quality security reports. “But then the world switched. Now we have real reports. All open-source projects have real reports that are made with AI, but they’re good, and they’re real.”

Other top developers agree, noting that with the arrival of 2026 frontier models like Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8, AI programming assistance has reached a new level of usefulness. Torvalds acknowledged that while questions remain about the broader economic impact of AI, the question of its utility is settled. “Is it useful? Is no longer one of those questions.”

Torvalds also acknowledges that AI has flaws. “Yes, it can also be a somewhat painful tool,” he admitted. But he dismissed the idea of ignoring the technology outright. “The solution is not to put your head in the sand and sing ‘La La La, I can’t hear you’ at the top of your voice like some people seem to do.” Instead, he argued, the goal should be to make large language model tools serve maintainers rather than burden them. “I will very loudly ignore people who try to argue against other people from using it.”

The debate was sparked by a policy statement from the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) titled “When Using LLM-backed Generative AI Systems for FOSS Contributions.” The SFC recommended that open-source projects “support, not just tolerate, those who outright reject LLM-gen-AI systems.” This stance prompted pushback from senior Linux kernel maintainer Theodore “Ted” Ts’o, who questioned how far such support should go.

“If someone rejects LLM-gen-AI systems, and the LTS kernel contains patches which are automated backported, and they object, are we bound to forswear the use of automated backport technologies?” Ts’o asked. He pointed to the practical difficulties of accommodating such objections. “I don’t think it’s obvious that we must bend over backward to oblige the needs of all patch authors.”

James Bottomley, another top Linux kernel developer, offered a clear framework. “The contributor doesn’t get to approve the tools the maintainer uses to assess and apply patches,” he wrote. “If there’s AI in there, and the contributor is an AI luddite, then the patch doesn’t get applied. Your right to ignore AI stops when it infringes others’ right to use it.”

Torvalds summed up the community’s philosophy succinctly. “In the kernel community, we do open source because it results in better technology, not because of religious reasons. And so we make decisions primarily based on technical merit. Not fear of new tools.” For Linux, AI is here to stay, and developers who cannot accept that are free to fork the project and go their own way.