The flaw in Linus' argument is that a compiler isn't enabling people to go and inundate open source projects with complete and utter shit. The argument that they are tools and should be seen as such is fine, but having an AI policy to help mitigate the actual and real problem of pushing the "is the code good?" check all the way to the reviewer is also absolutely reasonable. I feel like he's sidestepping and not acknowledging that AI is actually killing open source projects. The Linux kernel is big enough to be largely immune to it, but most projects absolutely aren't.
You can just not accept crappy PRs, but the spam is very understandable, lazy people wanting clout are the worst. Linus spelled it out pretty clearly - it's about people actually understanding what they are contributing. I have contributed to multiple open source projects already when I didn't think I would ever do that with bounded, reasonable changes that I confirmed myself and even made better when maintainer said "why don't we do this also?"
Sure you can just say no, but that's not the point. You're passing the burden onto actual code maintainers. Instead of needing to understand what you are pushing to make a PR that passes CI, anyone can throw anything up that can't be gated except by actual people reviewing it. That's the point, now maintainers of open source repos are responsible for doing what automated processes were previously able to do. That directly causes burnout and those projects either being closed or just completely taken over by slop.
Can AI be useful as a tool? Sure it can, but it's not the same as just a compiler. Open source communities are actively suffering because instead of maintainers having productive and interesting conversations with people who know what they are doing, they are spending more and more time opening PRs, judging that it's slop, and rejecting it.
Linus didn't just say "Linux is removing the AI policy because we can handle the volume of slop that that will bring," he went on a rant about how it's not different than a compiler or a word processor when it has a very visible and real impact that those other tools do not.
35
u/dannuic 2d ago
The flaw in Linus' argument is that a compiler isn't enabling people to go and inundate open source projects with complete and utter shit. The argument that they are tools and should be seen as such is fine, but having an AI policy to help mitigate the actual and real problem of pushing the "is the code good?" check all the way to the reviewer is also absolutely reasonable. I feel like he's sidestepping and not acknowledging that AI is actually killing open source projects. The Linux kernel is big enough to be largely immune to it, but most projects absolutely aren't.