Nope, it's not. You're also one of those guys who say, "Why did this stupid guy get promoted to management? He's the worst coder on our team." Yes, you might be right. But it's actually a good thing not to promote the best coder to management, because that's not the skill set required for the job. A manager relies on the best coders' opinions when it comes to code. The manager's job is to be the best at managing tasks, budgets, teams, and requirements. Linus isn't getting paid for writing code, not even for checking code in detail. Mostly this is done by other people supporting him. The outstanding thing about him is that he happens to be exceptionally good at both. But he's getting paid for managing this project. If he chooses to code, it's usually because he finds an idea particularly interesting intellectually and wants to get it done, or because a problem is exceptionally hard to solve and requires some groundbreaking decisions with a potentially large blast radius. That being said, it shows exactly the opposite of putting him in a bad light. He sees a tool that makes his work faster and more efficient while still allowing him to maintain quality. And your comment suggests you've never used Claude Code or any equally capable coding assistant in most recent time. Quality is no longer the issue you seem to think it is. The world has moved incredibly fast over the last 1–2 years. All the noise about AI bug fixing in the Linux kernel shows exactly this: maintainers aren't primarily complaining that the patches are bad or entirely wrong. They're complaining that there are too many (!) of them. That's a very important distinction. So AI is able to find and fix bugs much more quickly and, in many cases, just as reliably as human coders, potentially doing work that would otherwise require enormous amounts of developer time. Why would any intelligent person not use this tool to make much more efficient use of his precious $1.5-million-a-year time?