Linus Torvalds rebukes anti-AI stances in the Linux kernel code review process, says 'Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects' — creator embraces AI as just a tool and 'clearly a useful one' ⁠91%

By Bruno Ferreira⁠85%

7/16/2026, 4:59:13 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 36 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 27.7% saturation with 138 hits. Analysis detected 1,745 faulty-reasoning hits from 498 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 84.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠91% (2,103 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.40% of the article peer group.

AI-generated slop code has been a plague for some open-source projects, namely but not only Gentoo Linux, Curl, and Ghostty, limiting or outright banning LLM-created contributions. 
And yet, just like both the models themselves get better and the people using them become more considerate, the landscape may be changing. 
Linus Torvalds, Linux's creator and kernel manager, has seemingly taken an accepting stance of AI-assisted tooling. 
In a long comment on the Linux kernel mailing list, Torvalds spelled it out fairly clearly: "I realize that some people really dislike AI, but this is an area where I'm willing to absolutely put my foot down [...] 
Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects, and if somebody has issues with that, they can do the open-source thing and fork it. 
Or just walk away." 
This discussion came regarding the usage of Sashiko , an opt-in (per-mailing-list) and apparently quite effective multi-stage code review tool that analyzes kernel patches. 
The project page says the tool can find 53.6% of bugs on proposed patches, and argues that that metric already puts it above human level, as the patches in question already supposedly went through human review. 
The false positive rate "is harder to measure," being pinned "within 20%". 
Crucially, Sashiko only comments on patches, and does not take action by itself. 
Developer Laurent Pinchart suggested that Sashiko's output be triaged before comments were sent out to patch authors, basing the notion on the Software Freedom Conservancy's guidelines on AI-generated code . 
Google's Roman Gushchin, one of Sashiko's creators, pointed out that doing that would undermine the utility of the tool, and that Pinchart's position was quite anti-LLM — a sentiment echoed by Linus Torvalds in his reply. 
Torvalds put it clearly: "AI is a tool, just like other tools we use. 
And it's clearly a useful one. 
It may not have been that 'clearly' even just a year ago, but it's no longer in question today," a statement that reflects his changing stance on the matter since he initially dismissed AI tools as overhyped back in 2024. 
He also noted that Linux is not a "social warrior" project, and that it's always been about improving technology. 
To drive the point home, he remarked that the tool "keeps finding embarrassing bugs," adding that he "will very loudly ignore people who try to argue against other people from using it," while highlighting the software's rapid evolution. 
Perhaps quite poignantly, Torvalds remarked that resistant developers could use some self-awareness, as "it's not like natural intelligence is always all that great either," underscoring the fact that while AI tools may not be perfect, they generally only need to be good enough for their respective use cases. 
The fact that Sashiko seemingly finds errors in code that underwent human review is quite illustrative. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.1%Bruno Ferreira: 4.1%Tom's Hardware: 3.8%Confirmation Bias15.1%This article: 7.2%Bruno Ferreira: 3.2%Tom's Hardware: 2.3%Anchoring Bias7.2%This article: 5.2%Bruno Ferreira: 8.6%Tom's Hardware: 3.5%Availability Heuristic5.2%This article: 4.8%Bruno Ferreira: 2.1%Tom's Hardware: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.8%This article: 8.0%Bruno Ferreira: 1.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.5%Hindsight Bias8.0%This article: 8.4%Bruno Ferreira: 4.6%Tom's Hardware: 3.5%Overconfidence Bias8.4%This article: 9.6%Bruno Ferreira: 16.0%Tom's Hardware: 9.2%Framing Effect9.6%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.4%Bruno Ferreira: 0.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.7%Status Quo Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.5%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.2%Bruno Ferreira: 2.6%Tom's Hardware: 6.0%Optimism Bias12.2%This article: 9.6%Bruno Ferreira: 5.4%Tom's Hardware: 2.0%Pessimism Bias9.6%This article: 12.9%Bruno Ferreira: 12.5%Tom's Hardware: 6.5%Negativity Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.4%Tom's Hardware: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 16.9%Bruno Ferreira: 1.5%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error16.9%This article: 3.2%Bruno Ferreira: 0.9%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias3.2%This article: 12.0%Bruno Ferreira: 3.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%In-Group Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 1.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Bruno Ferreira: 1.4%Tom's Hardware: 2.8%Halo Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.0%Bruno Ferreira: 4.5%Tom's Hardware: 2.0%Recency Bias8.0%This article: 7.8%Bruno Ferreira: 0.4%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Primacy Effect7.8%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Bruno Ferreira: 0.9%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Ad Hominem7.2%This article: 7.2%Bruno Ferreira: 0.9%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Straw Man7.2%This article: 27.3%Bruno Ferreira: 7.5%Tom's Hardware: 5.4%Appeal to Authority27.3%This article: 5.6%Bruno Ferreira: 3.1%Tom's Hardware: 2.0%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 3.8%Tom's Hardware: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 7.2%Bruno Ferreira: 0.4%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Circular Reasoning7.2%This article: 5.2%Bruno Ferreira: 13.3%Tom's Hardware: 6.1%Hasty Generalization5.2%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 1.6%Tom's Hardware: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 25.7%Bruno Ferreira: 7.9%Tom's Hardware: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion25.7%This article: 2.8%Bruno Ferreira: 0.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.8%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 12.7%Bruno Ferreira: 1.8%Tom's Hardware: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.7%This article: 9.6%Bruno Ferreira: 1.5%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Tu Quoque9.6%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.8%Bruno Ferreira: 0.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Appeal to Nature3.8%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.5%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.3%Bruno Ferreira: 1.5%Tom's Hardware: 1.6%Anecdotal13.3%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.0%Bruno Ferreira: 2.7%Tom's Hardware: 3.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.6%Bruno Ferreira: 0.6%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Middle Ground2.6%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.5%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.8%Bruno Ferreira: 5.4%Tom's Hardware: 2.4%Unattributed Quote7.8%This article: 14.7%Bruno Ferreira: 1.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection14.7%This article: 27.7%Bruno Ferreira: 20.3%Tom's Hardware: 7.1%Biased Writer Voice27.7%This article: 4.6%Bruno Ferreira: 2.4%Tom's Hardware: 1.3%Indoctrination4.6%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Bruno Ferreira: 1.4%Tom's Hardware: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.8%

498 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers52%attributed speech240writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageLinus Torvalds • 39 words • 100.0% coverageLinus Torvalds • 24 words • 0.0% coverageLinus Torvalds • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageLaurent Pinchart • 30 words • 0.0% coverageRoman Gushchin • 36 words • 0.0% coverageLinus Torvalds • 14 words • 0.0% coverageLinus Torvalds • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageLinus Torvalds • 19 words • 0.0% coverageLinus Torvalds • 38 words • 100.0% coverageLinus Torvalds • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Roman Gushchin

100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words14% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-41.7 ptsWriter: 41.7%Roman Gushchin: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-14.2 ptsWriter: 14.2%Roman Gushchin: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.0 ptsWriter: 10.0%Roman Gushchin: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-9.6 ptsWriter: 9.6%Roman Gushchin: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.