Where some are sick of AI usage, others are sick of debate about AI usage. And when it comes to mentioning the use of LLMs in kernel documentation, Linux creator Linus Torvalds seems to be very much in the latter camp.

As reported by The Register, Linux kernel engineer for Oracle, Lorenzo Stoakes, recently critiqued Torvalds, arguing that AI tools are not the same as any other tool and need unique documentation and flagging. Stoakes then replied to Dave Hansen, kernel hacker at Intel, saying, “We’re noticing a lot more LLM slop than we used to. It is becoming more and more of an issue.”

Stoakes argues LLMs have had a negative impact in many areas, “for which you need only take a cursory glance at the world to observe”. Furthering this point, Stoakes says, “Thinking LLMs are ‘just another tool’ is to say effectively that the kernel is immune from this. Which seems to me a silly position.”

This is where Torvalds comes into the conversation. He says, “No. Your position is the silly one. There is *zero* point in talking about AI slop. That’s just plain stupid. Why? Because the AI slop people aren’t going to document their patches as such. That’s such an obvious truism that I don’t understand why anybody even brings up AI slop.”

Torvals argues that he wants no kernel development documentation to mention AI, as “We have enough people on both sides of the ‘sky is falling’ and ‘it’s going to revolutionize software engineering’, I don’t want some kernel development docs to take either stance.”

Effectively, the ‘it’s just a tool’ statement is one that backs up this belief. Torvalds says the “AI slop issue” won’t be solved through kernel documentation, and AI documentation is, instead “pointless posturing”. It is worth noting that Torvalds does see value in AI tools, as expressed back in 2024.

Stoakes continued the debate:

“The point is

a. For the tech press to not gleefully report that the kernel just accepts AI patches now since hey it’s just another tool.

b. To be able to refer back to the document when rejecting series.

“As to point a., as I said before in other threads, I remain concerned that the second the tech press say ‘the kernel accepts AI patches now’ we’ll see an influx. It’s sad we have to think about that, but it’s a fact of life.”

As is the way within the AI debate, one side argues that accepting AI work as any other directly human created work could open the floodgates for AI agents, and another wishes for it to be welcomed as any other tool. Some within the threads have highlighted patches successfully laid out by AI, but the conversation around it seems much bigger than that. There might be ‘zero point in talking about AI slop’, and yet the thread has only grown since.