Sounds like classic crowding-out of intrinsic motivation.
There's a story, I can't find the page at the moment, of someone who was getting pranked all the time (his house TPed or egged or something). So he offered the miscreants $1 to do it tomorrow. He kept on doing it like this, and then a few days later, he offered a quarter. By the time he had got down to a dime, they said "there's no way we're going to do it for such a measly sum" and left.
Better sourced examples also exist: fewer citizens supported a decision to build a nuclear waste repository in Switzerland enjoyed more support if they would be offered compensation: https://www.bsfrey.ch/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/crowding-ef... p. 96 (sixth page of the PDF).
Human lockpickers use feedback when picking. I'm wondering if a bot could do the same - e.g. measuring the travel distance to find a binding pin, or the resistance to moving the wire?
It's surprising that series and movies with gazillion-dollar budgets don't seem to have money for decent writers. About the only explanation I can think of is that the way the series or movie is made itself makes story too hard to do.
E.g. an action movie is designed around its stunts and then the plot is stitched together to support them. And series that are made one episode at a time can suffer from serious plot drift when they aren't planned ahead properly, or when executives can't decide whether they're going to have one more season or not.
> And the idea of spammers using bot nets (therefore not paying for computer themselves) would be less relevant to LLM scraping.
It's possible that the services that reward users for running proxies (or are bundled with mobile apps with a notice buried in the license) would also start rewarding/hiding compute services as well. There's currently no money in it because proof-of-work is so rare, but if it changes, their strategy might too.
That then raises the question: what is a unit of communication?
If communication is 20% verbal and 80% nonverbal, and if communication is very nonlinear in understanding (as with your book example), how do we know what 1% of communication is? What does it mean, and how can we tell that the figure is correct, when our main or only way of detecting whether communication succeeded is through understanding or lack thereof?
It's more likely a reference to France currently being the Fifth Republic.[1] The transition from the Fourth to the Fifth happened in 1958 without much violence.
It might be that democratic countries are more resilient to that kind of effect because (and to the degree that) they already decouple productive power from representation.
E.g. a welfare state doesn't make sense from a purely GDP-selfish perspective, beyond as a crime-prevention tool, since people on disability benefits don't work. But they still exist.
Doesn't Norway bring that conclusion in doubt? The state gets massive revenue from oil as well as oil-financed investments, but is still very much a democracy.[0]