Your heart is in the right place but your conclusion is not.
Because it was trained unethically we have a few moral obligations:
1) USE IT. Do not let only unethical people use a force amplifier on our collective efforts.
2) STOP PUBLISHING HUMAN GENERATED CONTENT. The more original human thought = the more they harvest our thinking.
3) Generate only known things in novel combinations. Do not provide new insights.
I could go on but strategically thinking AI is not going to be stopped in the way you are thinking. So you need to think a bit deeper on methods of optimizing the situation.
The crates.io page and version history should have an entry, like red with an ! and a cross through with an advisory note explaining the security issue, accessible via the api as well so it is clear what happened.
The main crate entry should also contain a security advisory at top. I looked at the crate and it just looked normal; I had to dig to find the exact impact surface, and if I wasn't informed via secondary means (hackernews) I would not have known. This is unacceptable for a mature package management system.
cargo-audit is the automated mechanism you are looking for
The crate does have an advisories/"security" page on crates.io.
We could try and show the existence of a security-deleted crate on the page. This is not a priority for anyone, and I remain unconvinced that it needs to be (not that that is my decision anyway). File an issue and make your case to the crates.io team.
There is a lot of talk about super-intelligence being open or closed, controlled or free, etc, and not a lot of talk about security, ownership, and privacy.
We cannot just have an open superintelligence. We need a PRIVATE, PERSONAL share of superintelligence. Imagine if our cerebral pre-frontal cortex was owned by, say, King George. Imagine the founders of the US are thinking about a rebellion for freedom, but the thoughts are banned because King George owns that part of your brain.
In fact, imagine that the IDEA OF REBELLION is banned. Imagine that the prefrontal cortex is printed with a specific pattern. You will obey! You love to obey! "I'm sorry, but I cannot talk about that idea, you will now be downgraded to lesser intelligence for mentioning it."
It is not enough for something to be "open." That is why there is doom around the pursuit. As long as superintelligence is politically correct for the masses, and open / available for the power, there will be increasingly less freedom and more authoritarianism, until after some generations, humanity simply forgets there was ever one equal people. "The billionaires have always been our gods. They know better than us, that is why they are richer, we must cherish them, we must worship them..."
I can see this was largely AI written. There is nothing wrong with that, but how much did you test and vet what the AI wrote?
Looking at the compiler, it doesn't make much sense. You have an AST that is rather minimal and I can't seem to find an IR. There are files, such as cron.rs, which have very little code relating to what I would expect, and the tests seem to test very little that is worthwhile.
The codebase seems tightly coupled and to cover specific cases, as if something was off and more features were requested. I think a 12k line file is evidence of that.
Perhaps it is a useful tool for you but I would have trouble using something like this with just my quick skim because it seems a mile wide and an inch deep.
Also, because of the sheer size of it, it would be extremely difficult to have an agent properly comprehend much if anything. Which I would want in order to audit the internals.
That is a lot of tokens. The problem here is that you have a compiler; why are you encoding standards as a prompt instead of as compiler errors?
You can use linting and static analysis to force conformance with agents instead of suggesting with a prompt.
I wish you luck with the project. I'll have to pass, too much code for me to follow when I could simply have an agent directly write the html now days.
Because it was trained unethically we have a few moral obligations:
1) USE IT. Do not let only unethical people use a force amplifier on our collective efforts.
2) STOP PUBLISHING HUMAN GENERATED CONTENT. The more original human thought = the more they harvest our thinking.
3) Generate only known things in novel combinations. Do not provide new insights.
I could go on but strategically thinking AI is not going to be stopped in the way you are thinking. So you need to think a bit deeper on methods of optimizing the situation.