[solotronics]

This problem statement was actually where the idea for Proof of Work (aka mining) in bitcoin came from. It evolved out of the idea of requiring a computational proof of work for sending an email via cypherpunk remailers as a way of fighting spam. The idea being only a legitimate or determined sender would put in the "proof of work" to use the remailer.

I wonder how it would look if open source projects required $5 to submit a PR or ticket and then paid out a bounty to the successful or at least reasonable PRs. Essentially a "paid proof of legitimacy".

[strogonoff]

The parallel between PoW and barriers to entry many communities (be it Wikipedia editors or open-source contributors) use to sustain themselves seems apt.

Unfortunately, there is no community equivalent of PoS—the only alternative is introducing different barriers, like ID verification, payment, in-person interviews, private invite system, etc., which often conflict with the nature of anonymous volunteer communities.

Such communities are perhaps one of the greatest things the Web has given us, and it is sad to see them struggle.

(I can imagine LLM operators jumping on the opportunity to sell some of these new barriers, to profit from selling both the problematic product and a product to work around those problems.)

[Frieren]

> (I can imagine LLM operators jumping on the opportunity to sell some of these new barriers, to profit from selling both the problematic product and a product to work around those problems.)

That is their business model. Use AI to create posts in LinkedIn, mails in a corporate environment, etc. And then use AI to summarize all that text.

AI creates a problem and then offers a solution.

My current approach is to look at new sources lie The Guardian, Le Monde, AP news, etc. I know that they put the work, sadly places like Reddit and such are just becoming forums that discuss garbage news with bot comments. (I could use AI to identify non-bot comments and news sources, but it does not really work even if it says that it does, and I should not have to do that in the first place either).

[saulpw]

The community equivalent of Proof of Stake is reputation. You can't do anything until you've shown up for awhile and contributed in small ways, you gradually gain the ability to contribute in bigger ways, and if you are discovered to be malicious or corrupt or toxic, then your rights are revoked. The people who've gained this trust are presumably motivated to maintain it (although there's always the risk they sell their account/identity/soul for healthcare and do some damage before they're found out).

[strogonoff]

Reputation is always there in a community, regardless, in members’ minds. It’s just that not every community wants explicit quantified reputation, and I’m with them on that…

[troupo]

> I wonder how it would look if open source projects required $5 to submit a PR or ticket and then paid out a bounty to the successful or at least reasonable PRs. Essentially a "paid proof of legitimacy".

Badly. You will alienate most legitimate contributors, and only leave spam bots subsidized by revenue from other sources

[sails]

$5 could go towards a strict AI reject/review funnel as a prefilter