"I'm actually quite confused as to your saying "before any such claims are made"—I have made no claim that such a thing does exist, only that this site could be used to achieve the existence of such a thing"

I am challenging the claim that "this site could be used to achieve the existence of such a thing". The claims on the site itself are (imo) not worth challenging.

I am saying that languages are different across multiple dimensions sequential vs concurrent (different types say threads, vs message passing ), paradigms - objects, vs functions vs imperative, many kinds of type systems, memory management strategies and so on) that the "automatic translation to get a standard library" is a doomed effort with today's technology in spite of the advances made to date in operational and denotational semantics.

At best, a lot of research needs to eb doneto make such a thing possible.

Is it possible? I guess, eventually. Is it probable in say the next five years? Imnsho, no.

And with that I have said everything I wanted to and this thread is getting too large, which is always a sign that it is time to stop.

Good luck with any effort you make to write such an automatically translatable collection of algorithms. If you can pull it off, I'll be the first to admit my error.

Over and out.

EDIT: I see you added "I'm talking about a completely hypothetical future thingy"

and

"in other words, making your compiler an AI".

OK then, I withdraw my arguments. Sufficiently advanced technology is, after all, indistinguishable from magic, as Arthur C Clarke said.