Linus Torvalds fixed a Linux bug using AI, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of the new tech

Published Aug 21, 2026, 6:21 PM EDT Simon is a Computer Science BSc graduate who has been writing about technology since 2014, and using Windows machines since 3.1. After working for an indie game studio and acting as the family's go-to technician for all computer issues, he found his passion for writing and decided to use his skill set to write about all things tech. Since beginning his writing career, he has written for many different publications such as WorldStart, Listverse, and MakeTechEasier. However, after finding his home at MakeUseOf in February 2019, he would eventually move on to its sister site, XDA, to bring the latest and greatest in Windows, Linux, and DIY electronics. Sign in to your XDA account Summary Linus Torvalds used AI to do much of the grunt work fixing a Linux kernel bug. AI sometimes insisted the bug was unsolvable, but Torvalds pushed back and persisted. LLMs help but are not replacements for deep system knowledge; verify their conclusions first. The creator of Linux, Linus Torvalds, is no stranger to using AI to fix problems. Not only has he allowed AI-written code submissions to the kernel (as long as the person running the agent takes full responsibility for any issues it has), but he has gone on record saying that he's ignoring anyone who argues against its use. Now, Torvalds has pushed a fix himself using the help of AI. And while he found it very useful for getting the job done, he also proved that LLM usage is no replacement for personal knowledge of how systems work. Linus Torvalds used AI to fix a bug, but it took a lot of finagling Torvalds' knowledge played a huge part in actually fixing it The bug in question was fixed in commit 818bebe for the Linux kernel. At the bottom of the patch notes, Torvalds notes how he used AI to help fix the problem, calling the patch a "debug session from hell, enormously helped by an AI doing much of the grunt-work." However, getting the issue fixed wasn't as simple as siccing the LLM on it and leaving for a coffee: I'd like to call it my tireless helper, but the AI several times stated flat out that this was impossible and unsolvable and that we should just write a report about it. I suspect those things have been trained by people who may not be quite as stubborn as I am. It really shows the importance of the person behind the keyboard knowing about the subject matter the LLM is chewing over. If someone wholly trusted the AI's conclusions, they would have likely given up the moment the AI told them it was impossible. It was only due to Torvalds knowing there was a problem and pushing back that the AI was able to fix the issue. Still, Torvalds notes that the AI was "adding debug code and analyzing it faithfully" after he pushed for a resolution, so he gave credit to the AI and allowed it to write the patch notes for the commit. But it does highlight a key problem with LLM usage; one should never assume it's always correct.