What are your thoughts on requiring payment to participate as a way to reduce spam? I realize that in this particular context payment could prevent participation for some, however, are there other reasons why payment would be ineffective?
The first reason that jumps to mind is that cost is not a factor for everyone. For almost any given price level, there are actors for whom the cost is still worth it.
Some examples and their given cutoff point, at which the payments are no longer worth it:
Lower cutoff:
- Marketers selling a product -> when customer acquisition is more than the product margin, or investors decide the growth isn't worth it
Medium cutoff:
- Private organizations pushing an ideological viewpoint -> when the private money runs out, higher tolerance here because profit isn't the point, and actors are more likely to consider pushing the ideological viewpoint as worth spending money without direct profit return
High cutoff:
- State actors working against either other states or to squash internal resistance/political opponents -> virtually unlimited depending on how rich the country is
Requiring payment to prevent spam makes sense in narrow use cases, like Steam's $100 fee per game preventing the worst of the flood of cheap garbage. However, I don't think there is any price level that can "clean" general human communication online.
This seems like it could work in some way, but it's important to recognize that spam, and LLM usage already require payment in some form or another. There's a cost to sending out millions of emails just like there will be a cost for generating millions of LLM generated posts. So with that framing, it's obvious that spammers, using AI or otherwise, are willing to expend capital to produce spam. There may be a threshold of cost they won't be willing to exceed, but there's no principle here which can be applied universally.
That was always required for sybil attacks. But if the long-term benefit exceeds the cost of membership, it will be paid. Think of a conqueror renting an army for a small bit of time to go pillage and gain very long term control of a village.
I am in a good position to speak about this since I designed decentralized social platforms like https://qbix.com and smart contract platforms like https://intercoin.app that build coins for communities.
If anyone can make an account, your community has unlimited cost dealing with it. It could be a sleeper account acting like a human, until one day the cost starts getting imposed in the form of, say, coordinated swarm vandalism:
But it could be a LOT more subtle and plant the seeds to move opinion of a forum gradually towards anything you want, including simply accepting and upvoting articles from your domains where your bots create content.
If you just mint a coin and give it out for basic tasks, people will take advantage of that by creating many accounts. You have to start asking people to appear in person to get a certificate at least — which is what Sam Altman’s Worldcoin is about. But you don’t need to go that far, every community can just have in-person get togethers once in a while to say hi to each other (“shocker!”)
I foresee a lot of people starting to retreat to gated communities. The thing is that anyone can invite a bot in. If you give everyone N invites, and the people they invite N invites, they’ll eventually use them tk invite N to the power X people. And those people might be real, but eventually may run a bot once in a while. You may think that’s not likely but actually it has already has been happening, people loove to run automation on their own behalf, and have no idea what it does, exposing themselves to compromises and attacks at scale:
packages in package managers
NYC landlords pricing apps
wall street trading bots
But as I say, the real trouble begins when people start to prefer bots. They choose convenience over security and truth. Bots won’t have resistance to an agenda and a lie like humans will.
I guess our only hope is to dilute the bot swarms with opposing bot swarms, like Bitcoin miners competing kind of. But at that point the entire internet will be a DARK FOREST.
I'm guessing emotional pre-prompts are difficult. The current offerings like ElevenLabs and WellSaidLabs provide amazing voices for narration but lack any way to change the emotions (e.g. happy, angry, excited, etc.). I wonder what are the technical hurdles to adding this variability?
> Deposit insurance is a fundamental difference between bank IOUs and non-bank IOUs.
Deposit insurance is a fundamental difference but it's not the main difference. Individuals and most non-banks don't have access to Federal Reserve accounts and therefore access to reserves. The main distinction between a bank and a non-bank is the ability to create IOUs ultimately backed by reserves (whether they have sufficient amounts or not) which can only be created by the FR (and in this context) to back a bad IOU. Whether the new reserves go directly to backing up the IOU or indirectly via added liquidity is irrelevant. A bank can create a misguided IOU that defaults, which if too big to fail, is a liability that the FR and thus all holders of the IOUs, cash, and reserves must bear.
This is not entirely accurate. Suppose a fraudulent bank decided to credit my account with a trillion dollars. The federal reserve would not honor this IOU with actual dollars. This is in stark contrast to federal reserve's ability to create a trillion dollars. They could create an actual trillion dollars and give it to a corrupt politician. A regular bank does not possess this ability.
What does a fraudulent bank have to do with the fact that the FR is the ultimate backstop to loans (IOUs) created by a bank...a "power" you claim is the same as a non-bank created IOU or a an individual IOU? Further not sure how your example refutes my previous reply's accuracy, regardless, if a bank makes a bunch of fraudulent loans adding up to a Trillion dollars and it isn't discovered until those loans are cross-collateralized sufficiently to cause systemic risk, you can bet the FR will back those loans. Finally, given a bit of time a single Trillion dollar loan may not seem as large as it does now. :)
> What does a fraudulent bank have to do with the fact that the FR is the ultimate backstop to loans (IOUs) created by a bank...a "power" you claim is the same as a non-bank created IOU or a an individual IOU?
I'm not claiming it's the same. I'm saying these are differences of degree (my IOU vs bank's IOU), whereas the difference between central bank IOU and bank IOU is fundamental. We have several historic examples of central banks ruining entire economies by printing excessive amounts of money causing hyperinflation. Do you have a single example of a regular bank printing so much money that it causes hyperinflation? No. Why is that, if it's so easy for a regular bank to print a trillion dollars of fraudulent money without anyone noticing?
Without sarcasm, given the latest purchases of assets beyond Treasuries and MBS, why do you think the Federal Reserve has purchased assets at market rates?
It's my understanding that their asset purchase programs involve just buying things normally on the open market. It's of course a bit more complicated than "market rate", since large purchases marginally affect the price, but as far as I know nobody gets a special deal where the Federal Reserve pays 1.5x what the bonds are worth.
Even, even better that "central bank" could choose winners and losers providing credit to certain participants eliminating the need for petty "price discovery" and creating a system where 20.5 million people can lose their job on the same day something called "the stock market" goes up 400 points...a pure "stable" utopia!
