> *On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 at 13:20, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:* > > > Thinking LLMs are 'just another tool' is to say effectively that the kernel is immune from this. Which seems to me a silly position. > > No. Your position is the silly one. > > There is \*zero\* point in talking about [[AI Slop|AI slop]]. That's just plain stupid. > > Why? Because the [[AI Slop|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|AI slop]]. > > So stop this idiocy. > > ==The documentation is for good actors, and pretending anything else is pointless posturing.== > > As I said in private elsewhere, ==I do \*not\* want any kernel development documentation to be some AI statement==. 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. > > ==It's why I strongly want this to be that "just a tool" statement.== > > And the AI slop issue is \*NOT\* going to be solved with documentation, and anybody who thinks it is either just naive, or wants to "make a statement". > > Neither of which is a good reason for documentation. > > [[Linus Torvalds|Linus]]