Hacker News Reader

Comment by k2xl | Hacker News Reader

Isn't there some alternative approach? I.e when someone submit ai slop they get a strike. Three strikes and you are suspended from submitting to the bug bounty for x months/years?

*Edit - I get it. It seems like the authentication is a challenge.

View on HN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack

New identities are cheap.

I think that's the problem, or at least a problem, and a growing one.

How about "It costs $1000 to submit a bug bounty for approval", and raise the reward to $2000 (or $5000 if it's in the cards, since that will have a deterrant impact on non-AI responses).

Denominated in BTC to avoid chargebacks etc.

I think that's entirely sensible. Doesn't even have to be that expensive, just expensive enough to deter people who go "oooh, free money", and expensive enough to compensate for having to review slop far enough to realize it's slop.

Wouldn't be surprised if a dollar per entry already made a whole lot of difference.

you still need to spend effort reviewing the code to figure out when you can give a strike. Thrice for an actual ban. This would still waste precious maintainer time.

They mentioned they had identified alternatives but it would be costly to implement them. One can imagine that ban evading by generating a new user account would be easy for an LLM agent. It's going to be a long, long game if whack-a-mole.

This probably gets solved outside of the level of an individual project. No small team can handle this without building a whole product just to handle the bug bounty.

Such a person can just make a new account and go back at it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com