For me personally, we must find ways to PtD and also PtP I also see as a huge improvement in today’s world. Even journalists get paid for stories folk read and as they build trust and readership, they get paid with no master or outside influence, at least I hope so.
PtD right now looks like it may be human agreement via the foundation until it can be automated into apps as envisaged, i.e. when the network (not us) can measure app usage etc. In any case, it has to happen as we want any human from any place to have a completely even chance of competing for this value provision to society. It’s part of the overall goal from day 1.
It’s a good question, but so is whether we need to.
Perhaps the question is about how we reward content, judge value? How can we help people assess value to them and allocate appropriate rewards? Then, does it matter if the value is generated by AI?
If we go to the SNT in is distributed to the resource providers (Farmers/elders/etc) then the algorithm by necessity has to change. For one the payouts are now coming from the inputs without the (initially) 80% pool to call upon to smooth out the dips and hills in inputs.
The best then would be a small pool kept by sections, but this has to be small and need a good algorithm to prevent it building too high and be fair to all.
The above is for handing out all SNT to the MAID+investors (15% of 4 billion)
Could there be a NRS style registration with App address and SNT address (in the meta data) stored in the registration initially and long term the sections uses the meta data for the SNT address, and the registration is no longer used. Registration system used by the foundation with sections incrementing a count for each use of the APP
Simple, the amount the data (PtP) or App (PtD) is accessed. This is the largest poll you can have and isn’t value after all just how much it is used.
If we apply our values to the content then its biased from the start. My values put Red Dwarf and rocket launches up real high, but that is not what others value. The bestest recording of Queen’s songs would not come near a recording of music from another planet even if really poor quality.
There is not a way to set values without taking the majority of humanity and that is real simple on safe. How much is the content accessed. Whether the access is for hate, debunking, etc or for pleasure, or for research, or for … It doesn’t matter the content was valuable to people one way or another. Let the network simply use quantity of access.
Of course it can be gamed to some extent, but the more people that use Safe the less of an effect that gaming has. Farming can be gamed using the same systems and is more profitable so I expect that gaming of PtD and PtP will not be an issue and can be solved using similar methods that will be used to reduce gaming on farming.
Imagine on a 30 node network with 10 TB (10,000 chunks) then accessing a chunk 10 times a second from multiple clients would mean a LOT. But if 30 million nodes with 10 million TB then a 10,000 botnet has 1% the reads and a lot lot less effect on the network. And caching would reduce this a lot too
By doing this, by only counting traffic as the only metric for profit, we would be inheriting the distortion in incentives that the ad networks created by fueling this era of misinformation with optimizing traffic through the ‘virality’ of clickbaits and utter nonsense disguised as useful trivia, “urban hacks” and even dangerous fake first aid advices and fake food recipes and lame useless games using all kind of bait-and-switch tactics just to increase traffic, and of course, the endless diarrhea of unchecked fake news all in the name of generating buzz, impactful and yet fake enraging stories disguised as facts.
All in the name of optimizing CTR.
There is something fundamentally wrong when TikTokers making cute faces are making way more money than an investigative journalist painstakingly sourcing everything he is reporting.
If we move ahead with the plan of adding PtD, we have to be smart and think about it seriously. We have an opportunity to fix the incentive system that has already broken societies.
We should compensate quality and innovation over sheer volume of traffic. We don’t need a sophisticated AI, one way I think it could work is through metamoderation by the users. I mentioned this previously in a post a while back, this would make it really hard to game the system while the incentives will be well aligned, as the metamoderators could be selected by random to rate the moderation of another user.
Also the votes could be weighted based on the reliability and experience of the voter.
If a developer or an user is not compensated by quality, but paid only based on traffic, we will end up with a network flooded with junk data, and it may become even more pervasive than what is going on in the clearnet.
If metamoderation isn’t convincing, we should brainstorm to find another system to create an incentive for quality content.
I think that this is a major opportunity to fix a major problem in our current internet. So please, let’s not just simply shrug our shoulders and simply inherit a model that is proven to be broken. We have at our disposal the whole field of motivation psychology to tap into.
Who decides what is quality and what is garbage? what for some is information for others is misinformation, what for you is kids doing stupid things on tiktok for others is art, what you propose is a form of censorship and centralization through moderation, let the network be decentralized
Lol you are conflating so many things that will take a lot of time to untangle.
Btw, as Daniel Moynihan said: “you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts”.
If you think that misinformation is as valid as information, there is nothing I can say that will make any sense to you as you have already fallen victim to this post-fact debacle.
But I doubt that you are that far gone, as I doubt that you will give the same weight to medical advices from a doctor vs. medical advices from a shoemaker.
If you want to get a hold of some sanity out of this cacophony, I would suggest to study epistemology, and learn how the scientific method works.
Btw, there is no centralization whatsoever in what I talked about in my previous post. It would be the people, and hopefully there should be some wisdom of the masses still left to allow self-correction to filter out obvious nonsense such as recommendations to injecting bleach to cure diseases or cauterizing snake bites… (both were real videos uploaded that went viral, btw).
I used to believe this. Now it seems the masses are afraid to voice a different opinion for fear of being vilified. Also some of the nonsense that is accepted as facts by the masses is frightening.
Scaling is the big problem. If not by number of gets, how do you scale any other system to accommodate thousands, soon millions and, soon after that, billions of data that need some kind of qualitative measurement. Any kind of human intervention, I’m afraid, would not be workable. Would some kind of AI involvement be feasible?
Total read-time plus random human-checks to ferret out bots? Even if a discourse is long people will be inclined to limit their attention if they detect nonsense or trivia. Theoretically, more substantive material will garner longer engagements. Can SAFE even do this?
That’s a subjective human perspective. The network is data neutral by design. A byte is a byte. Objectivity is key. Even having a distinction betweep app data and content data is asking for trouble imo. Ideally, each chunk is indistinguishable from random noise unless you have the right key. KISS. What you are proposing is hell.
They are for encouraging usage of the network, to attract people whom other people want to use their data.
What good is trying to curate the data and decide who is worthy of being rewarded when the greatest poll is the actual usage.
Any method of deciding will be biased compared to what the people are viewing.
But the viewers contradict that. Those TikTokers would not get the views if people valued the biased (at some level) investigative journalism.
Look I agree that it is not good that TikTok get way more views than what I consider good content or what you consider good content. But its the TikTok that will get the network effect. Not the poorly viewed quality education. That is an issue for society to work on, not the network The network is agnostic and has to be agnostic towards the content if its to be SAFE (Secure Access For Everyone) whether quality education or foolish fun content.
Actually that is interesting. @dirvine early on saw them as separate, but are they really? As you suggest the implementation would likely end up with the same effect since both rely on data being GET whether the data is App program or public data.
I say Public since private will usually be only one user reading it, maybe a few. Rarely will it be like public. I would expect the implementation to not be concerned if private or public since they are simply chunks in both cases.
Your assumptions are unfortunately wrong, and it has been shown over and over in the last decade how incentive structures can distort behavior in our society.
In any case, PtD is a huge can of worms and if we aren’t even willing to listen and ponder about the psychological and social consequences of such economic incentives, we aren’t ready to implement this.
For those who did study these effects, it is a disaster waiting to happen. This has already been solved a long time ago: you don’t pay per hours, you pay per objectives. You don’t reward effort, you reward results. You don’t reward an activity that you already enjoy as it will cause an overjustification effect. All this has been well studied and it’s been known for decades in the field of social psychology.
Btw, society doesn’t live in a vacuum. We are the society. And if the system encourages certain behaviors, you are influencing society in a very direct way.
People’s free agency has always been an illusion, as such freedom gets shaped with every reward or punishment that we get from the environment. And as economists know very well, artificial incentives can distort signals and have unintended consequences… especially when we apply them without even pondering about them.
I would suggest to simply scrap the whole Pay-the-X schemes and keep it simple: reward farming only. There is no need to bloat the protocol with extra incentives.
The app marketplace and the “free market” competition should be enough.