The tools are not usually that polished or that pleasant to use, and don't have the same gamified and reward angle. So if you could figure out how to package the work, add some whimsy, and cross validate results you might have something.
0 - https://fold.it/
in the non-gaming world, i think the closest mass market idea has been google's captcha which actually trains an AI in the background. that's very naive and very simple, and definitely not a game, but imagine something similar with puzzles (i.e. Witness, the game, is all about puzzles. why not replace those puzzles with puzzles from real life that actually need solving).
I think the tricky part is - if it's an unsolved problem, how does the game know when a task is complete? Feedback loops are a core element of game design, and part of the reason tedious tasks can be satisfying, but unless it's directly manual labor, I'm unsure how to create a proper feedback loop
Perhaps we could use bored humans as an accelerator to heuristically solve NP-complete problems. Then we'd just need to do the verification step.
All we need to do is prove that this produces a big-O improvement, and I think we could make a compelling business case.
/s
2017: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/05/eve-online-citizen-sc...
2018: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/minigame-integrated-...
https://www.wired.com/story/eve-online-project-discovery-cov...
In the real world, most tasks output as inputs to other tasks by other people. And those downstream people perform validation of incoming work.
Delay reward until downstream validation passes.
I do consider the protein folding game an interesting exploration into the realm, but since there are still more minecraft-carrots harvested than proteins folded, I'd say it is not an example of how to do it, but rather a datapoint in the right direction.