Open Chaos: A self-evolving open-source project

No, it doesn't work anything like this.

> One might argue it's actually much more curated than Wikipedia

Well duh. It's vastly more "curated" since Wikipedia isn't curated at all, almost anyone can change anything at any time but changes are supposed to reflect consensus (in theory, but there are numerous rogue agents who violate the rules) and it's a single instance with a linear set of changes that only occur once a week, whereas WP is a seething mass of constant change--but with a tight fitness function due to the (again theoretical) requirement that all changes must reflect reliable sources, not the whims of the editors--totally the opposite of OC. (There are additional policies and various governing groups but these make WP even less like OC). It's beyond absurd to liken OC to WP.

You can't just "suggest" something in a PR, you have to provide the change.

Just a website? Websites can do anything. It could evolve into a whole social network.

Not a developer by trade. But incidentally, today I took my first stab at "vibe coding". I wrote a little gui program to streamline a process that I've been doing for years. The code is an absolute wreck. But the program works and does what it's meant to do. I wouldn't ever expect anyone to maintain it, but for what it is, I can't complain. The alternative would have been for the tool to have not been written at all. The level of effort was so low that a) it passed the threshold of it being worth my time, and b) if it needs to be re-vibe-coded over again, then no worries.

> It should have been abundantly clear that wasn't the way the word "evolution" was being used here to being with.

My whole point was that the sort of evolution that this will undergo isn't like biological evolution so it won't be effective the way biological evolution is. That should have been abundantly clear.

> Actually the comment you replied to used the word "metamorphosis" so what are you even going on about?

Did you ever bother to look upthread? I wrote "People talk about this "evolving"", and that comment was not a response to the one mentioning metamorphosis. See the title: "Open Chaos: A self-evolving open-source project"

I'm not quibbling and that's an offensive accusation as is your "ahckchtually" mocking as well as the rude tone of your clueless whooshes above so I will only respond you this once. Biological evolution has powerful mechanisms that this lacks ... in fact the biggest lack is that there's just one "organism" here, not a population, and just one change at a time. And your fitness function only determines whether something compiles and runs; it gives no direction to the "evolution" ... it's not being fit to anything that drives its progress (the choices come from the PRs, not from the fitness function, and they are independent of each other or at best loosely coupled--thus they aren't stable) which I explicitly pointed out previously when I mentioned the fitness function. So your "loose analogy" fails miserably and this thing is going to be directionless, as I said, and so it won't build up something like a Linux kernel or AGI (both of these have been mentioned, but hey, not in the comment that used the word "metamorphosis" -- apparently I have to say this).