Mine is that the useState hook is an actual plague on the entire React ecosystem. Regardless of your opinions of React, if you wanna use something then use it right.
Mine is that the useState hook is an actual plague on the entire React ecosystem. Regardless of your opinions of React, if you wanna use something then use it right.
I agree that everyone needs to think for themselves, absolutely.
However, I struggle with this and it’s kind of what I’m getting at:
Firstly, you’ll be hard pressed to find someone who hate’s AI more than me. It literally keeps me awake at night. I hate the environmental impact. I hate the people it’s enriching. I hate the work it’s stealing. I don’t often use the word “hate” but it really does apply here.
That said, I always try to defer to the opinions of people with more experience than me, and as regards kernel maintenance and Linus, that’s certainly true.
You’ve probably heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I know a bit about code, a bit about FOSS, a bit about linux, AI, and communities. So it’s easy to underestimate the yawning chasm of experience and knowledge between myself and Linus.
That doesn’t mean we have to blindly accept the opinions of others (I honestly haven’t accepted Linus’ opinion myself), but I’m aware of the profound discrepancy between my opinion and his and it concerns me.
All that aside, is it possible to acknowledge that something is the correct course of action even if it’s not the ideal? I haven’t been following the Linus / AI thing, but as I understand it a project like that kinda has to allow AI bug reports because threat actors will certainly be using AI to find exploitable bugs.
https://pivot-to-ai.com/2026/10/14/linux-kernel-goes-full-ai-slop-code-hides-chatbot-commits/
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-Foundation-25p-AI-Slop
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=14c897740388216acd59477a382de327d5e27ba4
My argument against Linus would be that the non-LLM tooling is auditable and known. I know I can trust all the tooling below it and only read your code, but with LLMs they are explicitly trying to replicate good looking code and can generate a ton of it, so it becomes incredibly difficult to actually audit.
Again this is part of the discussion about Linus decisions which has been had ad-nauseum.
With the greatest respect, responding to this comment would be to engage in a discussion of whether Linus is right in this particular instance. I’m not willing to do that because I’m sure that’s a conversation that’s been had a billion times.
I was / am happy to talk about how we injest the opinions of experts in a more general way.
Could you be serious, though?
it gets down to whether experts are experts at everything. Linus is not an expert at anything outside of kernel maintenance. His opinions on whether we should use LLMs are null and void considering the massive effect on the planet. It’d be like if a nuclear engineer said we should be building more nuclear bombs for everyone to use, just so they could use nuclear engineer more freely. Like, their opinions about nuclear energy might be fine, but their opinions that have an effect on the entire planet are completely wack.
That’s a really good point. There’s loads of examples of this, like doctors don’t give good nutrition advice, et cetera.
He doesn’t really need any latitude to offer an opinion on whether these tools should be used on the Linux kernel.
Whether you should use an LLM to plan your shopping list, or understand your toddlers behavior, is not something you should listen to Linus about.