Linus's policy on patch acceptance covers the LLM problem: it must still be audited by a maintainer before acceptance (and thus, actually be decent code), but also, because of LLMs, be significantly produced by a human, as machine written code cannot be Copyrighted, thus, cannot be Open Source, and thus, cannot be in the kernel because it isn't open source.

Nobody is really against LLMs producing, for example, exploits for novel security bugs to assist security researchers in patching those bugs. The exploit itself does not need to be Copyrightable nor Open Source. Nor is anybody against LLMs accelerating debugging, and helping find the location and root cause of the bug; again, that is not producing the end product code, thus does not need to be Copyrightable nor Open Source.

Stephen Wolfram also looks favorable to using AI in programming and he has been programming a lot. I guess the context of how these tool are used is the important part here.

I would guess Linus has reviewed more code than anyone else in the world, so in that sense I'm not that surprised.

I also don't think the C++ thing was out of a stubbornness for the old way of doing things, but had concrete reasons to reject it. I guess it was a little of both maybe 20 years ago.

But there's Rust in the kernel now too.

I recently attended an academic computer science conference. Several people I have looked up to my entire life were there, which also gives you an idea of their age (I am 40). They're all using AI. They are not mindless boosters about it, but clearly find it a useful tool in the toolbox.

Yes.

He is now the leader of a cabal of maintainers, and the only coding he does now is minor fixups for branch merging.

I suspect he still codes his own pet projects in his off time though, that's how we got git after all.