I think many people reading your comment and making a cursory glance at what Linus wrote will conclude he's against AI in kernel development. He may very well be, but the post you link to is in in response to this:

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?