I suspect this is wrong. If you are correct, that implies to me that LLMs are not intelligent and just are exceptionally well tuned to echo back their training data. It makes no sense to me that a superior intelligence would be unable to trivially learn a new language syntax and apply its semantic knowledge to the new syntax. So I believe that either LLMs will improve to the point that they will easily pick up a new language or we will realize that LLMs themselves are the dead end.
I don't think your ultimatum holds. Even assuming LLMs are capable of learning beyond their training data, that just lead back to the purpose of practice in education. Even if you provide a full, unambiguous language spec to a model, and the model were capable of intelligently understanding it, should you expect its performance with your new language to match the petabytes of Python "practice" a model comes with?
None of this should be considered critical of this project specifically, very few share "how the sausage is made". You're breaking new ground with a comment about being AI generated prominent in the README, I hope that catches on.
I don't disagree with your sentiment, I am also more interested in human-written projects, but I'm curious about how this works. Would a new sorting network not be open source if found by a closed source searching program, like AlphaDev? Would code written with a closed source LSP (ie. Pylance) not be open source even if openly licenced? Would a program written in a closed source language like Mojo then be closed source, no matter what the author licences it under? The line between input and tool seems arbitrary at best, and I don't see what freedoms are being restricted by only releasing the generated code.