[zrm]

Just require people submitting a bounty to post an evaluation fee. If it's a real bug they get a refund and the bounty. If it's AI slop, you keep the evaluation fee.

[irjustin]

> If it's AI slop, you keep the evaluation fee.

The number of problems this creates absolutely isn't worth it.

You've traded higher barrier of entry for a PR nightmare when someone publicly complains that you ate their legit submission fee as a money grabber.

[zrm]

Bounties already have that whenever you reject one for being nothing.

[irjustin]

Agreed, but that's a way easier line to defend than AI vs Human. The amount of subjectiveness human-ai discussion .... well we can't tell anymore.

[zrm]

You don't have to determine if it's an AI or not. If AI finds a real bug then it can get the bounty. If a human pays to make you read artisanal hand-crafted word salad then they don't get a refund. Real bugs get the bounty, imaginary bugs pay the fee.

[Salgat]

This might work but only if the evaluations are done through a trusted third party entity where none of the money ever reaches the company you're submitting to.

[zrm]

You only need things like that for non-iterated games. A company that gets a reputation for keeping the money when it's a real bug would stop getting real bug reports.

[cassianoleal]

Weird argument. You're trusting they will pay the bounty if it's a real bug, why not trust they will refund the fee?

[Salgat]

Building trust is the hard part, which is why you aggregate all that trust into an entity that everyone else is verifying as trustworthy.

[cassianoleal]

In this case, who is that entity?