I think what it means is "we will judge you based on the code you submit, we don't care if it comes from an AI". Also probably "we will judge you if you obviously don't understand the code you submit".

At least that's how I do it. When someone offers a patch to an open source project, I don't really care if that person has a PhD, or if that person does this in their free time, or if that patch is actually the result of a whole team working together. I judge the patch based on the value it brings to me as a maintainer.

Obviously the code has to be good, but also the interaction with whoever offers the patch has to be smooth: if I have a question, if I need them to confirm/change/test/elaborate on something, I need that to work.

If I feel like I would be faster doing the work myself AND this author is not putting effort into it (e.g. they just copy-paste an AI), I will not review that work. Possibly I will distrust that author. If too many contributions end up wasting my time, I will start limiting the contributions to people I know/trust, etc.

In terms of maintenance, I don't see a difference between getting a contribution from a stranger or from a stranger using an AI.

In terms of philosophy, that's obviously different: One may not want to accept contributions from people using AI because they think that AI is bad for society, for instance. And I would totally understand that. But if the stance (and it seems to be Linus' stance) is that a patch is only judged based on its technical merit, then I don't see why AI-in-the-loop would be an issue.

I've never been involved with Linux kernel work, but in terms of the "You, as a person, not the AI, are responsible for the quality" policy, this to me is a just an "obvious" policy that should be applied to any non-vibe-coded software.

It's just another way of saying, you can't have AI submit things on its own and you can't "blame" AI for anything you submit, you're expected to understand and be able to explain anything you're putting forward, if there is an issue with your submission, doesn't matter at all if you go back to AI to address it, so long as all issues are properly addressed.

The code is either of sufficient quality, or it's not, doesn't matter whether you or AI wrote it, it's your name on it, you're responsible for it and its your reputation on the line.

Basically, you can't just post slop and then say, "Oh, sorry, the AI did that." If the comments are too wordy, or the patch is unnecessary or poorly written or contains errors or doesn't follow the style guide, you submitted it, so that's on you. If you get in the habit of posting bad patches, people may start ignoring you.

Nowadays it's more correct to require commit be signed by AI - with Assisted-by: Human row...

Surprised by that. I expected more openness.

How long until we get "all FOSS code is made by AI and so it's not copyrighted" arguments when using code in unlicensed ways?

It also hides what would be a great signal on which ML models to use to get the best quality code. Like, wouldn't the community like to know which models made the code with the least bugs?

Basically, they expect everyone to always use AI all the time anyway.