Mind if I play along, Silent? It would seem to test that hypothesis you'd need to make sure:
1. There was a real solution possible (giving them the Voynich manuscript will always produce failure.)
2. Since it is collective, it needs to be something that isn't really solvable by any one person (so that it doesn't become a "can the community recruit the right resource" test.)
3. It can't be something that just requires group participation, or it isn't really testing the "intelligence" part (ie, SETI@Home isn't intelligent, it is just efficient.)
The more interesting question to me is WHY it fails, Silent. Not because I don't believe it exists, just because I believe it is an emergent property of something else. Maybe. It might just be self-organizing and not emergent. Or it might be emergent and not self-organizing.
I suspect it will fail because of the trust factor: the inherant belief that a fictional construct is created "solvable" produces a certain level of tenacity in pursuing that solution. I'm not sure how you would prove that without having a control -- one with a fictional construct that hid the fact a real CI task was hidden inside of it, and one without such a fictional construct where the CI task is explicit. I don't have direct evidence to support this idea except for the implosion rate in the games and what I generally describe as the "pirhana factor" (where the audience that were advocates become the fiercest critics.)
Interesting thought experiment in the very least: my gut says the emphemeral "CI" is more of a description of collaboration in general (any musician or performer can talk about "up time" where non-verbal communication between an entire ensemble and audience affects where the artistic output goes.) For many people, that experience of collaboration seems new ... or seems larger than it is because of media forms that spread out that experience over time.
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:03 pm