> The right script, with the right prompts can be tailored to create a loop, allowing the premium model to continually be invoked unlimited times for no additional cost beyond that of the initial message.
In that world there's a process called "staking" where you lock some tokens with a default lock expiry action and a method to unlock based on the signature from both participants.
It would work like this: Repo has a public key. Submitted uses a smart contract to sign the commit with along with the submission of a crypto. If the repo merges it then the smart contract returns the token to the submitter. Otherwise it goes to the repo.
It's technically quite elegant, and the infrastructure is all there (with some UX issues).
But don't do this!!!!
I did some work in crypto. It's made me realize that the love of money corrupts, and because crypto brings money so close to engineering it corrupts good product design.
The "money goes to the repo part" is the problem here, as it incentivizes maintainers to refuse legitimate pull requests.
Crypto has a perfect way to burn money, just send it to a nonexistent address from where it can never be recovered. I guess the trad fi equivalent are charitable donations.
The real problem here is the amount of work necessary to make this viable. I bet Visa and Mastercard would look at you funny if your business had such a high rate of voluntary transaction reversals, not to mention all the potential contributors that have no access to Visa/MC (we do want to encourage the youth to become involved with Open Source). This basically means crypto, and crypto has its own set of problems, particularly around all the annoying KYC/AML that a normie has to get through to use it.
You can reduce the transactions with payment providers. Instead of money exchanging from contributor to maintainer, have a token exchange. Contributors fund tokens with real money, and pull requests cost and refund tokens. Like an escrow account. But the money never goes to the target system. There are no perverse incentives to steal tokens. If you get a reputation of not refunding tokens (which have no value to a maintainer), then contributors will dry up.
Probably just making it non refundable works almost as well (since time really is expended reading it), without the hassle of spinning up an intermediary layer blockchain.
> I bet Visa and Mastercard would look at you funny if your business had such a high rate of voluntary transaction reversals
Plenty of businesses do the “your credit card will be charged $1 and then reversed” as a verification method that I don’t think it would be a major issue. I do wonder how much those companies are paying for that, though… I am guessing they lose some of that $1.
> I bet Visa and Mastercard would look at you funny if your business had such a high rate of voluntary transaction reversals
…you might be right, but I do wonder if the situation would be different if “your business” was “Microsoft”. Obviously they would discuss this plan ahead of time.
> The "money goes to the repo part" is the problem here, as it incentivizes maintainers to refuse legitimate pull requests.
That's not true. The issue is that the system the comment you're replying to described is escrow. Escrow degenerates in the way that you describe. I explain it a bit more in this comment elsewhere on this post:
A straight up non-refundable participation payment does not have this issue, and creates a different set of incentives and a different economy, while there also exist escape hatches for free-of-charge contributions.
> The real problem here is the amount of work necessary to make this viable.
Not necessarily. This article mentions Tezos, which is capable of doing such things on-chain already:
> all the annoying KYC/AML that a normie has to get through to use it.
There are always escape hatches. If your code is so great that people will want to pull it, then you don't pay to push. If it's not really that great, then what are we talking about? Maybe it disincentivizes mid code being pushed. So be it.
You can make friends, you can make a name for yourself, you can make a fork that's very successful and upstream will want to pull it in, you can exert social pressure / marketing to get your code merged in. Lots of options that do not involve KYC/AML.
For everyone else, I'd say KYC/AML are a good idea because of the increasing amount of supply chain exploits being pushed out into repos. If pushing by randos is gated by KYC/AML, then there's at least some method of chasing the perps down and taking them to justice.
That's a win-win-win-win situation. Less mid code, less exploits, earnings for maintainers, AI slop blocked. Absolutely amazing.
It feels like the problem here comes from the reluctance to utilize a negative sum outcome for rejection. Instead of introducing accidental perverse incentives, if rejected your stake shouldn't go to the repo, 50% could be returned, and 50% deleted. If it times out or gets approved you get 100% back. If a repo rejects too often or is seen doing so unfairly reputation would balance participation.
> No, the perverse incentive is that there will be RepoCoin, and the people involved will be incentivized to make the price of that as high as possible.
Isn't this problem unrelated to cryptocurrency?
There will be the US dollar, and the people involved will be incentivized to keep its value high, e.g. by pressuring or invading other countries to prevent them from switching to other currencies. Or they'll be incentivized to adopt policies that cause consumer and government debt to become unreasonably excessive to create a large enough pool of debts denominated in that currency that they can create an inordinate amount of it without crashing its value.
Or on the other side of the coin, there will be countries with currencies they knowingly devalue, either because they can force the people in that country to accept them anyway or because devaluing their currency makes their exports more competitive and simultaneously allows them to spend the currency they printed.
If anything cryptocurrency could hypothetically be better at reducing these perverse incentives, because if good rules are chosen at the outset and get ossified into the protocol then it's harder for bad actors to corrupt something that requires broad consensus to change.
Sure, but your average developer doesn't have a lot of agency in if the US invades another country in order to increase the value of the coin they got for having a PR merged.
But with crypto they do. See for example all the BAGS coins that get created for random opensource projects and the behavior that occurs because of that.
Just use a stablecoin, don't float a "utility token" those things are stupid. Have a smart contract receive a USDC deposit. If the maintainer "times out" reviewing your PR, the contract returns all the deposit. If the maintainer does not accept your PR, the contract burns 0.5x of the deposit and returns the rest. Maintainers can decide to turn off the time-out for very popular projects where you probably would have devs trying to spam PRs for fame/recognition, but hopefully the deposit price can accurately reflect the amount of spam the project gets.
Utility tokens are fundamentally equities and you need to firewall equity from an organization the same way companies in most market economies are regulated.
The average developer also doesn't have a lot of agency with respect to how major chains like Ethereum are run either, but they can use them.
Creating your own chain just because you can rather than because you actually have a reason to implement the technology in a different way than anybody else should be disfavored and viewed with suspicion.
It's a huge shame that crypto has been so poorly-behaved as an industry that almost nobody is willing to touch it except for speculation. It could be useful but it's scared away most of the honest people.
The fact that people around the world are trading hundreds of billions of dollars of stable coins [1], with India, Pakistan, the Philippines and Brazil in the top five countries [2], not least of all for the purpose of "greater monetary stability" [3], I think points toward the revolutionary usefulness of its inherently non-speculative properties (as referenced in positive applications of crypto in above comments).
It really has been a shitshow of get rich schemes, and yet crypto keeps not dying, instead increasingly getting applied to extremely valuable real world every day use cases, which I think is evidence of the value of the inherent technology.
My point is that despite the incredible greed and desperation it not only doesn't die, its practical uses are growing. The numbers say that the actual value exceeds the grift.
"It's made me realize that the love of money corrupts".
Yep. How about $1 per PR. The submitter gets to choose from a list of charities. No refund if the PR is accepted.
The goal is to get rid of junk PR's. This would work. There could be a central payment system, which any open source project can integrate with. It could accept payment in say India, of the Indian PPP of $1, so you aren't shutting out poorer developers.
I would not pay any amount of money, even a trivial one, for the privilege of being able to do free work for a project - and I don't think I'm an outlier here.
Another way to think of it is: paying $1 to have your pr and concerns elevated above the supermajority sea (that which will be ai driven contributions). For that cost, it's a steal of the deal.
Then, from the perspective of "it's a donation to a project you care about" it becomes even more rational. But the project itself getting the money has all the problems others have outlined already, so that idea's a bit bust.
But I'm already donating my time by creating a PR, it definitely would disincentivize me to make PRs if I had to also pay in addition to already doing the actual work. Just always such a shame that the good people have to suffer because of the actions of the shitty people...
If that's actually the opinion of the maintainer, why even accept PRs at all? At that point, just categorically deny any. I was thinking more of actual community projects that _want_ community PRs. Those seem to have welcomed my contributions in the past, but of course they were not just AI slop or other low effort PRs.
Most of my PRs are drive-by PRs: I have an problem, maybe a bug or missing feature, that annoyed me enough to fix it. And because I want to use future versions without the work of maintaining a fork I instead invest the work to upstream the fix. A step that is sometimes more work than the fix itself. At that point I wouldn't mind paying $1 to get that PR looked at and merged.
But that is not the only type of PR. We clearly need escape hatches for people who engage with a project on a deeper level.
I think the core insight here is about incentives and friction, not crypto specifically.
I’m working on an open source CLI that experiments with this at a local, off-chain level. It lets maintainers introduce cost, review pressure, or reputation at submission time without tying anything to money or blockchains. The goal is to reduce low-quality contributions without financializing the workflow or creating new attack surfaces.
You don’t need a third party, or anybodies permission, nobody can censor you or block your transactions, you don’t need a bank account with everything that entails. The barrier of entry is the same as creating an SSH keypair. It works globally, fast, cheap. You do not need to trust anybody, all the code is open and the ledger is cryptographically verifiable by anyone. There are lots of advantages.
I don't understand what this comment is trying to say.
The commentator mannykannot didn't really comment on the politics other than to agree that 1984 is a criticism of Stalism (which... I don't think anyone would argue with?).
Orwell also wrote "Animal Farm" which is a criticism of Fascism, and Asimov leads with this.
Correct. More to the point, when it appeared many on the left attempted to wave this away by claiming that it was, as one put it, a "gentle satire" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm#Reception> when anyone who has read Animal Farm knows that it is in no way gentle in its satire.
What nl is attempting to do above is the latest iteration of what Animal Farm and 1984 both received from those who could not stand the spotlight of their scrutiny: Claim that the target is something else, and/or that Orwell's attacks are so pedestrianly obvious (since "everyone knows" that Stalinism is bad) as to be pointless.
Well, the only difference between Fascism and Stalinism was more or less that Fascism was anticommunist (communists and fascists were killing each other in Italy when Mussolini, a former socialist, was raising to the power) but Stalinism was communism only because Stalin had to wave that ideological flag to become leader of that country in those times. Both were nationalistic (Stalin de facto killed internationalism), had control of economy, had full control of society. Dictatorships.
The deterministic part (calculations) is done by Excel.
The non-deterministic part is turning human instructions ("calculate the NPV over 10 years for X given Y") into Excel.
This is already a non-deterministic process (humans are non-deterministic!). The question is if an AI model can be more reliable than humans, and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be.
The correct path is pretty clear, so the logits for following that path are going to be a long way from off-path.
For something like this the real problem is training the model to use Excel (which will show up by it being confused which sheet it is on or trying to use the wrong window or things like that), not the non-determinism.
so basically what you're saying is that: it doesn't do the math, it tells the math-doing-thing what math to do. Basically, instead of humans using Excel, imagine AI using Excel?
Yet I don't understand the aha moment here? It might save analyst time but aren't there already enough automation that you don't really need to tell the AI to tell the math-doing-thing to do the math because the math-doing-thing is already optimized for most general functions? What are we gaining from adding the non-deterministic process here when the real non-deterministic process is still the human being prompting what to do?
Seems like a solution to a non-problem from my pov.
Sure in the sense that you're setting up a program that has inputs and outputs etc. But then all math is programming. All language is too, even speaking can be considered programming if you're stretching the definition enough. But I will disagree that setting up spreadsheets = basically software engineering.
The LLM just needs to make sure it uses it appropriately. Doing that bit is the non-deterministic part, but the NPV calculation itself is completely deterministic.
When you setup a spreadsheet, you choose a column or cell to show the NPV. You use the npv formula on this cell and apply it to inputs from other columns or cells.
This process of deciding what data to put in what column and how to apply NPV to it is non-deterministic. You could choose to put it in column A, or column B or maybe even row 3 - it depends!
Do you really think you come off as a good person posting things like this? This place is to satisfy intellectual curiosity, not to lord your supposed intelligence over others, without even proving it exists in the first place.
I don't think so. I am aware that large contexts impacts performance. In long chats an old topic will someone be brought up in new responses, and the direction of the mode is not as focused.
It's a product that gives system administrators a power trip. Imagine you control every capability of an AI and you're not qualified to have engineered it. You would give more access to your favorite departments, projects, and coworkers while keeping the defaults as restrictive as possible. I've seen this happen in real time across many different companies. I've known people who were reported to HR by them for using HuggingFace.
> you shouldn’t expect it to be fair about any socialist or communist countries, usually classified as brutal dictatorships,
The World Fact Book doesn't have this kind of commentary. For example read the entry on North Korea. I've excerpted the most critical parts here, and I think they are a long way from your characterization:
> After the end of Soviet aid in 1991, North Korea faced serious economic setbacks that exacerbated decades of economic mismanagement and resource misallocation.
> New economic development plans in the 2010s failed to meet government-mandated goals for key industrial sectors, food production, or overall economic performance. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, North Korea instituted a nationwide lockdown that severely restricted its economy and international engagement.
> As of 2024, despite slowly renewing cross-border trade with China, North Korea remained one of the world's most isolated countries and one of Asia's poorest
Blaming DPRK's "economic mismanagement" while making no mention of the Western sanctions on DPRK which are the cause of its catastrophic economic and humanitarian situation, as well as its isolation. Yep, that's a classic trick with State Department propaganda. There are never any huge whoppers, instead the lies they tell are through omission and the subtle shifting of blame ("If Venezuela didn't want to be bombed, they should have given us their oil", etc) in order to craft a narrative that's incongruent with reality.
>Blaming DPRK's "economic mismanagement" while making no mention of the Western sanctions on DPRK which are the cause of its catastrophic economic and humanitarian situation
The catastrophic humanitarian situation IS the cause for the sanctions.
> My understanding is that the paper talks about very general principles.
This isn't really true.
In this case it's specific to NVidia's tensor matrix multiply-add (MMA) instructions, which lets it use silicon that would otherwise be unusued at that point.
> Why does publishing papers require the latest and greatest GPUs?
You really do need to test these things on real hardware and across hardware. When you are doing unexpected things there are lots of unexpected interaction effects.
As a reminder, the context is "require the latest and greatest GPUs", responding to the parent comment. "General" doesn't mean "you can do this on an Intel Arc GPU" level of general.
That said, my comment could have used a bit more clarity.
Ralph loops for free...
reply