Re: [PATCH] docs: remove Assisted-by references

[Joshua Peisach]

On Mon Oct 26, 2026 at 3:39 PM EDT, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 at 09:04, <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2026-10-21 at 16:07 +0000, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> > >
> > > It *is* possible to make a deterministic LLM, and this is why I think
> > > it
> > > is critical to my personal future to have an LLM that can actually be
> > > understood by a human instead of a random number generator casino
> > > that
> > > sometimes puts "4" in your private key.
> >
> > I hate to break it to you but that is literally not how large language
> > models work.
>
> More importantly than that - the whole "deterministic" part is a total
> red herring.
>
> We shouldn't even reply to that idiotic argument.
It's not idiotic. Would it be considered non-deterministic for a human
to intentionally add a line of code causing a kernel panic for no
reason at all? Or an LLM telling me to jump off a bridge?

When it comes to human development, people *know* what they are putting
in. An LLM does not think about the words it is spitting out.
> Why? Nobody is arguing that we should stop take human patches because
> "they aren't deterministic".

Except humans want to actually contribute to the kernel, not make their
slavemaster happy.

> So anybody who thinks we shouldn't use LLM as tools because of that
> reason is just being dishonest. It's just a disguise for "I don't like
> AI". It's not an argument, it's a complete strawman.
>
> We have had non-deterministic tools in the past. One trivial example
> of that is just different compiler versions that have slightly
> different instruction weights or just different rules. Even when they
> are individually deterministic the end result is effectively that
> different people will get different results.
>
> And not all tools have even been individually deterministic - actual
> real non-deterministic behavior exists in non-LLM tools either becasue
> they have timing issues or are explicitly using random numbers as a
> way to get their results: Monte Carlo simulations is a very real
> thing.
>
> And yes, non-determinism adds a wrinkle to things and it's something
> that needs to be taken into account (and people often add things like
> explicit seeds to avoid it when they need explicit determinism from
> otherwise non-deterministic algorithms). So non-determinism is
> something that should be weighed as a factor against what else the
> tools brings you.
>
> But it's not actually an argument against LLM's.
>
>               Linus

Well said. But also, we won't be able to "submit bug reports to LLMs"
like for years people have submitted bug reports to compilers.

-Josh