“So just to make it really clear: If you found a bug using AI tools, the chances are somebody else found it too. If you actually want to add value, read the documentation, create a patch too, and add some real value on top of what the AI did. Don't be the drive-by ‘send a random report with no real understanding’ kind of person. OK?”

Makes sense to me, most of the time the AI output need to be used as input for a human who can then deliver the real value, or at least verify the correctness of the AI output.

Short version: AI is not a shortcut to being a Linux programmer and contributor. You still actually need to know how to read/write code and documentation.

Which should be obvious but the hype has brainwashed the masses into thinking they can be overnight successes using AI. 😒

the linked source is the kernel mailing list.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2026/5/17/896

"
From Linus Torvalds <>

Date Sun, 17 May 2026 14:29:22 -0700

Subject Linux 7.1-rc4

You all know the drill by now - another week, another release candidate.

Things continue to look fairly normal (where "normal" is the "new
normal" with a fair amount of changes). Drivers are about half the
patch, with GPU leading the way as is tradition. But there's a little
bit of everything in driver land.

The rest is mostly networking, core kernel, filesystems, and arch updates.

Some of the documentation updates might be worth highlighting: the
continued flood of AI reports has basically made the security list
almost entirely unmanageable, with enormous duplication due to
different people finding the same things with the same tools. People
spend all their time just forwarding things to the right people or
saying "that was already fixed a week/month ago" and pointing to the
public discussion.

Which is all entirely pointless churn, and we're making it clear that
AI detected bugs are pretty much by definition not secret, and
treating them on some private list is a waste of time for everybody
involved - and only makes that duplication worse because the reporters
can't even see each other's reports.

AI tools are great, but only if they actually help, rather than cause
unnecessary pain and pointless make-believe work. Feel free to use
them, but use them in a way that is productive and makes for a better
experience.

The documentation may be a bit less blunt than I am, but that's the
core gist of it. So just to make it really clear: if you found a bug
using AI tools, the chances are somebody else found it too. If you
actually want to add value, read the documentation, create a patch
too, and add some real value on top of what the AI did. Don't be the
drive-by "send a random report with no real understanding" kind of
person. Ok?

• Linus

"

Too bad the old Torvalds has gone, replaced by this mild-mannered gentleman. The idiot submitters could really do with a bit of stern telling-to.

It's worth mentioning that the recent high CVE privilege escalation bugs were discovered by AI.

There is some good, but it's important that the submitters include very clear POCs to make verification trivial for maintainers.

Better get an AI to manage the mailbox then eh /s

maybe he will finally stop using a fucking mailing list then

Didn't he say it's okay to submit AI slop code "as long as submitters take responsibility"? Didn't he also say AI writes better code than him?

If this wasn't an invitation to submit slop code PRs, I don't know what it was.

You asked for it and now you have it.

I guess it's time to use AI to manage that mailing list...

What a fucking headline. Just wow. Care to mention the context and the part where he said it was helpful?

Only "almost" so it's still fine. /j