The title is pure clickbait, but the article is nuanced and reasonably well written, IMO.

No one wants a freaking Ubuntu chatbot on their desktop, but code submission is an entirely different issue, and I think “the submitter is entirely responsible for their code” is a very reasonable position.

And obviously, LLM-generated code policy needs to be tuned to each project and their contributor community. As an example not cited in the article, vibe-coded PRs are an ongoing plague for llama.cpp, an LLM inference engine itself, so they blanket ban them. Ironic, and perfectly reasonable. But Linus researching that Intel bug with a little help, but using his brain for the legwork and actual submission, is also reasonable.

I think you’ll find that even distros that are generally anti-AI and don’t allow its use in their own projects are pragmatic about not being able to influence other people’s software (for instance, Gentoo’s AI policy flat-out states that it doesn’t prohibit packaging AI-coded or AI-related software, although there’s been some discussion about marking it so that the user can make an informed decision).

There is too broad a group covered by “LLM Critics”. Maybe “Now hardliner LLM critics”? Idk. But fucking Sam Altman and Jenson are “LLM critics” sometimes and they probably paid for this article lol, so I doubt they are facing a dilemma about the news

The choice isn’t uncomfortable. It’s a need for a hard fork from Linus that’s always been present, and now is just more obvious because 2026 really is the year of mainstream FOSS OS use.