So perhaps the AI companies will go bankrupt and then this madness will stop. But it would be nice if no government intervenes because they are "too big to fail".
community should mean a group of people. It seems you are interpreting it as a group of people or robots. Even if that were not obvious (it is), the following specialization and characteristics (regardless of age, body size ...) only apply to people anyway.
That whole argument flew out of the window the moment so-called "communities" (i.e. in this case, fake communities, or at best so-called 'virtual communities' that might perhaps be understood charitably as communities of practice) became something that's hosted in a random Internet-connected server, as opposed to real human bodies hanging out and cooperating out there in the real world. There is a real argument that CoC's should essentially be about in-person interactions, but that's not the argument you're making.
I don't follow why it flew out the window. To me it seems perfectly possible to define the community (of an open-source software project) as consisting only of people, and to also to define an etiquette which applies to their 'virtual' interactions. Important is that behind the internet-connected server, there be a human.
FWIW the essay I linked to covers some of the philosophical issues involved here. This stuff may seem obvious or trivial but ethical issues often do. That doesn't stop people disagreeing with each other over them to extreme degrees. Admittedly, back in 2022 I thought it would primarily be people putting pressure on the underlying philosophical assumptions rather than models themselves, but here we are.
But that's really the height of silliness. I can say that all people who describe themselves as 'anticapitalist' are actually capitalists, but that doesn't change anything about those people, the ideology in question, or the world.
Are some people who call themselves antifa secretly fascists? I'm sure they are. So?
~ > time perl -e ''
perl -e '' 0.01s user 0.01s system 10% cpu 0.179 total
~ > time raku -e ''
raku -e '' 0.09s user 0.04s system 53% cpu 0.232 total
~ >
In connection to Mike Pall's comments on the status of v3.0 made last November, I would like to mention this post [1] of his, back in 2017. Mike Pall had proposed replacing LuaJIT’s 64-bit NaN-tagging with a variable-sized slot design to support larger pointers and unboxed value types. Also translating source directly to executable SSA form, without bytecode generation. Such changes might be part of the complete architecture change under consideration for v3.0.
But he has been working actively on LuaJIT. According to [1], he has come to the conclusion that, instead of working on LuaJIT 2.2, it would be a better investment of his time to go big on v3.0 and rearchitect it. LuaJIT 2.1 is to be maintained.
reply