Published on 2026-10-15. Modified on 2026-10-20.
Linus Torvalds has been using Claude Code for programming the Linux kernel which has been criticized by other developers to which Torvalds replied, "The people I respect and call intelligent are not the ones that shy away from using new and interesting tools". But that's the problem, Claude Code is NOT just a new interesting tool.
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026, Linus Torvalds wrote the following:
No. What you are about is something entirely different. It has nothing
to do with "expectations", and it has everything to do with your
hangups.
I don't understand this whole idiotic concept of "don't use AI for X".
Here's a new rule just for you: don't use compilers for any of your
kernel submissions.
Because if you can't show that you really understand what the machine
is actually doing by writing your code in assembler, then I don't want
to see your code contribution. You clearly aren't competent if you
can't write it that way.
And btw, you had better not use an editor to write that commit message either.
Because I need you to show me that you can actually write a good
commit message without using tools that make it easy to backspace and
hide the mistakes you made while typing.
Ok?
Because otherwise those tool-assisted commits of yours clearly aren't
showing that you know what you are doing.
Do you not see how UTTERLY STUPID those kinds of rules would be?
So no. We're not going to make stupid rules that say "you can't use
tools for X".
The kind of expectations *I* have is that people do their best and I
expect people to understand what they are doing.
But that understanding has very little to do with what tools they use.
And quite honestly, in my experience, the people I respect and call
intelligent are not the ones that shy away from using new and
interesting tools.
Linus
While I can certainly agree that the "AI" technology in general is very interesting, the problem is that Claude Code, which is the product Linus Torvalds has been using, is NOT just a tool like a compiler or an editor, it is a proprietary closed source product from American software company Anthropic, a company that is a part of the Big Tech AI-cartel with a very dubious history and a heavy involvement in the AI Circular Economy.
Since Big Tech "AI" (specifically) is in the hands of wicked people (see the recommended reading section), and that is beyond any shadow of doubt what so ever, is there really any need to discuss the usage of the "AI" tools they provide further? Do we seriously need or want any of that in FOSS?
Linus Torvalds, shame on you!
Still, this should not come as a surprise to anyone. Since the Linux Foundation of today are more or less run by Big Tech, Linus Torvalds has become very friendly towards all of these companies. Basically, these companies are paying Linus Torvald's bills. Part of the Linux Foundation is now also the Agentic AI Foundation, to which Anthropic has donated its Model Context Protocol (MCP), Block has donated goose, OpenAI has donated AGENTS.md. Other organizations that have joined the Agentic AI Foundation include Amazon Web Services (AWS), Bloomberg, Cloudflare, Google and others.
Perhaps another reason why Linus Torvalds also takes this stand is because he knows that machine generated code, which only concerns "AI" and not compilers nor editors, is very problematic with regard to the GPL license. The "AI" companies are not recognized under copyright law so copyright systems do not have a way for the machine generated output to contain the grant of permissions which the GPL license requires in order to perform e.g. redistribution.
By removing the previous obligatory confession of usage of "AI" tools in the development of the Linus kernel, the problem with the GPL is sidestepped. This can only be fully intentional and not just because Linus Torvalds considers it otherwise idiotic. He knows full well that if the requirement is maintained, nobody can legally use any "AI" generated code in the kernel. Without the requirement, you cannot prove that committed code has been copied from code which is under a license that is incompatible with the GPL. This is sheer hypocrisy. Just search for old videos with Linus Torvalds explaining why he thinks that Linux was such a massive success, he himself considers this to be because of the GPL.
Another reason why Linus Torvalds is perhaps also less critical against the usage of "AI" to produce code is that he himself has not produced any code at all for many years. Rather, he's just supervising and managing the developers who actually produce code. Perhaps using an "AI" is not much different for Linus from what he has been doing for so long now.
There is nothing wrong with companies using FOSS, creating FOSS, contributing to FOSS, or donating to FOSS projects, this can work very well, but all FOSS communities need to stay clear of the political influence of such companies, especially Big Tech, which is something that the Linux Foundation has failed completely at.
In general, having so many FOSS projects that have made themselves depend completely upon the services provided by Big Tech proprietary companies is so destructive to FOSS that it physically hurts just to think about it.