Linus Torvalds used AI to fix a Linux bug, and now LLM critics face an uncomfortable choice

Published Aug 31, 2026, 12:30 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. The open-source community is undergoing a huge shift right now. AI coding and bug-fixing have gotten to the point where people maintaining software have to draw a line in the sand: are LLM contributions allowed? And if so, how much is too much? We're seeing that very debate being held among Linux distros. We've only just heard that Debian has given AI code the green light; meanwhile, the Fedora community has been largely unreceptive of the idea. But one thing has held: the creator of the Linux kernel, Linus Torvalds, has allowed people to submit AI-generated code. And recently, he even used AI to fix a Linux bug. And while that holds true, critics will likely need to find a compromise if they want to continue using open-source software. The world of big open-source software is mostly adopting AI in some way or form People who don't want it are getting shoved out People have all kinds of reasons why they don't want to develop using AI tools, or use products that utilize it. For some, it's an ethics problem; they see LLMs as plagiarists that steal code from other sources and regurgitate it in projects. For others, it's about the environment, as we see data centers rolling out worldwide, driving demand for electricity and causing noise pollution. And others still are concerned about the legality of using AI-generated code. However, it seems that the big names in open-source software are adopting AI in some way. Yes, if a project is built and maintained by a small team or individual, it's a lot easier to ban LLM coding; however, as soon as you go big (like for a Linux distro), you'll see much more lenience. We've seen the Linux kernel make room for AI code, and several large distros have allowed it. Some have been more lenient than others; for instance, while AI-written code is allowed on Fedora, developers have to declare it in their submissions. Usually, AI-accepting distros allow AI code without declaration as long as the submitter takes all responsibility for it, and from what I've seen, that's the most agreeable stance for people who aren't against AI code. Some distros drew a hard line, though. Both Gentoo and NetBSD have strictly forbidden AI code, to the point where the latter specifically labels LLM outputs as "tainted." But it seems the general shift is moving toward accepting AI code. The votes on whether or not to ban AI code in Debian showed that banning it was one of the least popular options, to the point where a Debian developer quit after seeing the results. Open-source software is becoming a weird hybrid of AI and human code It's hard to separate the two now So, the solution seems obvious. If you want to use software that doesn't use AI code, just...don't use software that allows AI code. And again, when you use small-scale software made by a close team, that's very easy to do and enforce. But when open-source software comes with moving parts from lots of different developers, it can be really hard to find an app that really, truly doesn't use AI code. Take the Linux kernel, for instance; you could find a distro that doesn't use AI code, and you can take solace knowing that the people managing Linux's compiler have banned LLM code. However, given how the Linux kernel accepts AI code (some of which was Torvalds' own generations), you're now using an OS that, at some stage, had an LLM make code for it. AI code bans may be impossible to enforce in the first place Bans may only be as good as the paper they're written on So let's say we do a blanket ban on all submitted code to the Linux kernel and for all distros. Now we have another problem: how do you enforce that? When trying to detect if an AI wrote an English passage, it has some telltale signs. It likes to use the em-dash, and there are specific cadences that 'sound' like an LLM wrote them. And while AI-written code may also have some tells, it's a lot harder to identify it than with writing. As such, even with an LLM ban, there's still a chance that someone, at some point, used LLM code in the project. It may partially be why some codebases are accepting of AI code; given how it's so difficult to detect, trying to enforce a ban may mean that some human-made code is flagged as AI-written while LLM-generated code gets through without a hitch. AI code opponents may need to define a set amount of 'acceptable LLM code' If it can even be done So if you're someone who opposes using AI code in projects, what do you do? It seems that no matter what OS or software created by a large team you use, there has likely been AI-generated code at some stage of its development. This then begs the question: if you're forced to accept that the OS you're using has AI code in it somewhere, then what's the upper limit until it's too much? If you accept AI code at the kernel level, are you fine with it on the distro level too? Or would you prefer to use a distro that didn't use it? There's also the element of using an AI for non-code purposes. Take, for instance, the people who use AI agents to scan the code and report bugs. In my earlier example with Torvalds, he also used LLM code to fix the bug, but you don't need to do that step. You can have the AI find a bug, write a report, and have a human fix it instead. That'd be fine for someone concerned about legal issues or plagiarism, but there's still the environmental factor. The truth is, I don't really think there is a way to 100% guarantee that the code you're using is free of AI code when the development team gets into double digits. People may need to focus less on having their software be 'AI-free' and more on aligning themselves with the people who aim to minimize exposure to AI as much as possible, such as Gentoo and NetBSD. Sure, the Linux kernel may have AI code in it, but at least your distro rejects it, and a strong anti-AI stance will likely attract and keep developers who will also avoid using LLMs. Going 'AI-free' these days is surprisingly difficult While people once fled Windows to escape its AI implementations, the world of LLM coding has made its mark on open-source software. Granted, Linux doesn't have an AI assistant that's nearly as ubiquitous as Copilot, but for people who'd rather not use applications with AI code, finding a way to "stay clean" is getting nearly impossible.