Linus Torvalds: "banning AI is stupid and so are you"

Commenters debated Linus Torvalds’ blunt rejection of AI bans, with many portraying his view as “tool-is-tool” pragmatism and frustration at repeated reheated arguments. Several defended his combative tone as the product of decades protecting the kernel, and noted that large projects like Linux have lieutenants and triage workflows that can absorb low-quality contributions. Others said he’s clearly tired of the debate, and one commenter even pointed out that the quoted line didn’t appear in the message. A few argued bans on AI are performative and ineffective if they single out one tool while leaving other risky practices untouched.

A distinct set of commenters pushed back, arguing smaller projects lack Linux’s review capacity and therefore banning AI-generated code can be a necessary self-defense. Concerns included lazy or poorly thought-through submissions, potential regressions, and corporate influence steering Linux toward pro-AI positions. Some said comparing AI to editors or compilers is a false equivalency, while another dismissed widespread alarm as “concern farming.” The discussion split between confidence that established projects can manage AI-related noise and caution that less-resourced communities and security-conscious contributors might reasonably restrict AI outputs.