This whole controversy reminds me of that Rhodesian designed shotgun marketed as "Street Sweeper" in the US. Making a tool is one thing. Brandishing its unsafe working end to potential customers in an attempt to impress them, alas, could lead to interesting situations...

This is on projects that are not serious. So I will treat it as such.

You should worry if vibe-coders submit patches to the Linux Kernel and they do not understand them.

2023: ok it got the whole function right, still just pattern matching though

2024: cool it banged out that component in one prompt, but it's just boilerplate

2025: it one-shot an entire app, whatever, just glue code

2026: nah man that's nothing, it's just filling in competency gaps for one of the greatest programmers of all time

I'm just saying that we should highlight that:

1. LLMs _allow you to send patches end-to-end without expertise_.

2. As a result, even though the community (rightly) strongly disapproves of blanket dismissals of series, if we suspect AI slop [I think it's useful to actually use that term], maintains can reject it out of hand.

Point 2 is absolutely a new thing in my view.

What Linus is saying in his response to the above, is that if people use AI to produce slop and submit that, the documentation saying "don't do that" won't discourage them, therefore there's no need to pollute the documentation with that.

Which...makes sense?