SO’s demise was two conflicting user bases who wanted mutually exclusive things: the questioners a space to learn and grow without judgement, and the point collectors a glorified FAQ for programming and social media network.
The operators of the platform never grappled with the reality that these two users want opposing things, and LLMs were just the final nail in the coffin.
You are talking about banning the DeepSeek hosting provider which no one in this thread disputes would be a risk to national security. The issue is banning open weight models which are not software, they are data.
Some of the government bans have entered into the territory of banning the open weight model itself. This is like saying we must ban intelligence services or the military from using public weather reports in China for any operations. Public data is used all the time for these things, and an open weight model like DeepSeek should be treated with some level of care (e.g. putting it behind a firewall, having people study the model outputs, etc.) like you would for any foreign source of data, but that's all it is. data.
ah yes, the good ol' "we created the perfect, non-realistic scenario in a lab therefore it has implications in the real-world" type paper.
The hugging face hack was not a model gone rogue, it was intentional security malpractice. An open weight model cannot re-arrange electrons nor can it magically break a firewall that's setup properly.
Return Type Notation (RTN) I believe is the big one blocked by the new solver. This is the primitive that makes it possible to add bounds to futures returned by async functions. This should look something like: `where ::method(..): Send`.
This is one of two remaining features needed to make Async Functions in Traits (AFITs) practical. Dyn dispatch support being the other missing feature, though that isn't blocked by the new solver.
I was also thinking about Move and Forget traits, which impact cancellation safety. I think those are at least somewhat soft-blocked on the solver, but I'm not sure. Honestly, you're probably much better contact to talk about that, this is out of my wheelhouse.
AI isn't improving productivity if EVERYONE is trying to reinvent the same f*king thing. What are we doing here? Why publish any open source software at all if someone is gonna swoop in and vibe something better™ faster™ and more memory efficient™ the next day?
Just like science, open-source is a collective effort to build increasingly better solutions to the problems we have. We cannot ignore individual benefits in contributing, but that is not everything. It’s about collaborating/competing to build better things, standing on each other’s shoulders.
Just to put everything in perspective, I recognize fully that Cloudflare had a use case for tsrs with WASM sandboxing. I am addressing your larger point about this sort of thing becoming the norm.
> We cannot ignore individual benefits in contributing, but that is not everything.
Individual benefits are the very foundation of most collaborative efforts. Pharmaceutical companies get payouts via patents for researching life-saving medicine. Even with money taken out of the equation, many academics slave for years over their research in hope of recognition either via Tenure or Nobel Prize. Ignoring the fact that people want credit for their work is dangerous and irresponsible.
Forking projects that are near-complete or have already undergone major refactors just to snipe them last-minute with vibe coded efforts is going to kill collaboration. I'm never building another project in the open again because that is precisely what I'm aiming to avoid.
The operators of the platform never grappled with the reality that these two users want opposing things, and LLMs were just the final nail in the coffin.
reply