尽管此前存在争议，但Linux社区的开发者们似乎开始逐渐接受人工智能辅助编程这一技术。Linux内核社区已决定不再要求开发者公开他们是否使用了人工智能工具来辅助编写代码。Linux内核的创始人Linus Torvalds明确表示，只要开发者能够理解自己提交的代码内容，他就反对那些“愚蠢”的、强制要求开发者公开使用人工智能工具的规则。
Despite previous controversies, it seems like the lords of Linux are warming to AI-assisted coding. The penguin's kernel community has agreed to stop asking coders to disclose whether they used bots to help with their contributions. And Linux kernel supremo Linus Torvalds has made clear that he opposes "stupid" AI disclosure rules as long as people understand the code they're submitting. "The Maintainers Summit reached consensus to deprecate the Assisted-by Tag," said Sasha Levin, a Linux kernel developer and engineer at Nvidia, in a message to the Linux kernel mailing list last week. "Remove the documentation requiring it."
Nvidia公司的Linux内核开发者Sasha Levin上周在Linux内核邮件列表中写道：“维护者峰会达成共识，决定废除这一强制性的标签标注制度，并要求删除相关文档。”该政策原本规定：任何在编写代码时使用了高级编程工具的开发者都必须在提交代码的备注中添加“Assisted-by”标签来说明这一点。这一规定最初于2025年7月提出，并于2026年1月正式纳入Linux内核的官方文档中。
The policy had said that those using "any sort of advanced coding tool in the creation of [their] patch" should acknowledge that through the addition of an "Assisted-by" tag in the commit message. The AI labeling proposal initially took shape in July 2025. It became part of the documentation in January 2026. This was shortly after Torvalds said that he was fairly positive about vibe coding as a way for people to get into programming, but remained skeptical about its effect on software maintainability. Since then, he's warmed to AI tool usage. AI attribution wasn't an issue when the generated code was obvious, buggy, and bad.
当时Torvalds对人工智能辅助编程持积极态度，认为这有助于人们入门编程，但对这种技术对软件可维护性的影响仍持怀疑态度。不过近年来，人工智能辅助编程工具产生的代码质量已经大幅提升，达到了Linux内核社区可接受的标准。Linux基金会资深维护者Greg Kroah-Hartman在8月于韩国举行的开源峰会上表示：“如今的大语言模型（LLMs）已经足够成熟了；它们能够有效地发现代码中的错误，因为人工智能本质上只是通过模式匹配来分析代码的逻辑结构而已。”
But in the past year or so, AI coding agents started producing code that is of acceptable quality for the purposes of the Linux kernel community. "LLMs are good enough now," said Greg Kroah-Hartman, a veteran Linux kernel maintainer, at the Linux Foundation's Open Source Summit in South Korea in August. "They've gotten good enough to find bugs because LLMs, AI, are just pattern matchers and code is nothing but patterns in a specific format." Cautious acceptance hasn't erased concerns about errors slipping through unnoticed, accountability, and coding agents reproducing copyrighted code. There's also still a stigma in some circles around the use of AI tools. Those who have spent years honing software skills, coding with limited assistance from tools, may disparage developers who don't understand the code they conjure with a prompt.
尽管如此，人们仍然担心人工智能工具可能会无意中引入错误，或者导致代码侵犯版权等问题。此外，在某些圈子里，使用人工智能工具仍然被视为一种有争议的做法。
Rapid change will do that – in the space of a few years, software production practices have changed drastically, and software quality, security, and maintenance practices have yet to fully adjust. The leading makers of AI coding agents – Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and the like – are doing their best to promote AI-driven projects as better than anything a human developer could manage. Yet even they differ in their AI attribution practices. Claude adds provenance messages by default, but Codex does not.
那些花费多年时间磨练软件技能、几乎完全依靠工具辅助进行编码的人，可能会对那些不理解自己所编写代码的开发者嗤之以鼻。技术的快速发展导致了这种情况：在短短几年内，软件的开发流程、质量以及维护方式都发生了巨大变化，但相关的技术标准与实践却尚未完全跟上这些变化。目前，人工智能编程工具的主要开发者（如 Anthropic、Google、Microsoft、OpenAI 等）都在极力宣传这些工具的优势，声称它们比人类开发者所能完成的工作更加出色。
In fields such as advertising and art, content provenance can help assess misinformation and human creative input. For code, the focus tends to be more on functionality than form. In a prior discussion of the merits of the tag requirement, Jeff Layton, a Linux kernel developer with Red Hat, explained the rationale for reversing course. First, he said, not everyone abides by the policy. Second, he said, "it basically serves as free advertising for proprietary LLM companies." And third, he said, "it's not clear why we want to collect this info in the first place." Some kernel contributors still see value in the tagging requirement.
然而，这些公司在如何标注代码的来源（即代码是由人工智能生成的还是由人类编写的）方面也存在分歧：例如，Claude 会默认添加代码的生成来源信息，而 Codex 则不会。在广告和艺术等领域，代码的来源信息确实有助于辨别虚假信息以及评估人类的创造性贡献；但在软件领域，人们更关注代码的功能性而非其形式。
"I'm not happy removing the tag without adding another mechanism for required disclosure," said Laurent Pinchart, a Linux kernel dev and founder of Ideas on Board, in a mailing list post on Tuesday. "Without that, I can foresee submitters pushing back on the question." Pinchart challenged the argument that AI labeling rules will just be ignored. "What this is about is setting our expectations, telling what we want and what we don't want," said Pinchart.
在之前关于是否应该强制要求标注代码来源的讨论中，Red Hat 公司的 Linux 内核开发者 Jeff Layton 解释了改变这一政策的理由：首先，并非所有人都遵守这一规定；其次，这种标注行为实际上相当于为那些拥有专利技术的 AI 公司提供了免费的宣传机会；最后，他也质疑“我们究竟为什么要收集这些信息”。不过，仍有一些 Linux 内核开发者认为这种标注机制具有价值。
"There's still value in that, and I'd argue there's even more value now. There will be people who won't care, there will be people who cheat. We've always had those, we'll keep having them, and we'll keep rejecting their contributions. I really don't get the unenforceable argument here." Linus Torvalds responded with an emphatic rejection of tool usage declarations.
Linux 内核开发者、同时也是 Ideas on Board 公司的创始人 Laurent Pinchart 在周二的邮件中写道：“如果不同时引入另一种强制披露信息的机制，我就不赞成取消这一标注要求。否则，提交代码的人很可能会对此提出反对。”他还反驳了“AI 代码标注规则会被忽视”的观点，认为“关键在于明确我们的期望——告诉人们我们希望看到什么、不希望看到什么”。
He wrote: 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.
Pinchart 认为：“这种标注机制仍然具有价值，而且现在这种价值更加明显了。当然，总会有人对此漠不关心，也总会有人试图作弊。”
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.
“我们一直都有这样的规定，将来也会继续坚持这些规定；同时，我们也会继续拒绝那些试图利用这些规定来提交代码的人的贡献。我真的无法理解这种毫无实际意义、根本无法执行的‘规定’。”林纳斯·托瓦兹（Linus Torvalds）断然拒绝了那些要求禁止使用某些工具的提议。他写道：“你们所讨论的问题其实完全不同——这与所谓的‘期望’无关，而完全取决于你们自身的心理障碍或偏见。我实在无法理解‘不要在某些情况下使用人工智能’这种荒谬的想法。这里有一条新的规定：在提交内核代码时，绝对不允许使用任何编译器。因为如果你们无法通过用汇编语言编写代码来真正理解计算机的工作原理，那么我就不希望看到你们的代码贡献。如果你们连用汇编语言编写代码的能力都没有，那显然说明你们并不具备编写高质量代码的能力。顺便说一句，你们在编写提交信息时也不应该使用任何编辑器；我需要看到你们能够独立、不借助任何工具（尤其是那些可以帮助你们轻松删除错误或掩盖输入错误的工具）来撰写清晰的提交信息。明白了吗？因为如果你们依赖这些工具来完成提交，那就说明你们根本不明白自己在做什么。你们难道没有意识到这样的规定是多么愚蠢吗？因此，我们绝对不会制定‘禁止在某些情况下使用工具’这样的愚蠢规定。我所期望的是人们能够尽自己最大的努力，并且明白自己在做什么；不过，这种理解与他们使用什么工具其实毫无关系。老实说，以我的经验来看，那些我尊敬、认为他们聪明的人，恰恰是不会回避使用新工具或有趣工具的人。”
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. ®