It is a runaway peacock’s-tail phenomenon: Someone made something that stood out in some way, and it got attention; and people learned to like things like that, and so others made things that stood out more in the same way, until we ended up with Alban Berg.
As people learn more about an art form, they can more-easily predict it, and need more and more novelty to keep them interested;
I suspect Methods of Rationality may be the end product of a similar phenomenon with respect to a number of trends in speculative fiction, e.g., of putting in more and more elaborate Xanatos Gambits and more and more subtle pop culture references.
Or as Eliezer put it:
it’s hard to beat the Algorithm of Awesome, which works as follows:
First, know the overarching direction in which your fic is going. Then, think of possible events that move in this direction. If they are awesome, add them to the plot. If they are not awesome, leave them out.
Try looking at the above quote while tabooing the word “awesome”, or better yet replace it with a word that has a similar meaning to an art movement you aren’t involved in e.g., “groovy” for psychedelic, “transgresive” for modern art, etc.
it’s hard to beat the Algorithm of [Applause Light], which works as follows:
First, know the overarching direction in which your fic is going. Then, think of possible events that move in this direction. If they are [applause light], add them to the plot. If they are not [applause light], leave them out.
I read that in a kind of stern, commanding voice, which makes it sounds really silly with the word “groovy” in it. Much sillier than with “awesome”, for some reason.
This makes me realize that the voice is nothing like Eliezer’s.
Who knows, maybe is a couple decades describing something as “awesome” will sound as silly and passe as describing something as “groovy” or “funky” does today.
Doesn’t it already? Presumably it depends on the level of exposure to the “awesome” cluster of tropes, but I think comics are the ground zero of the trend and the backlash is well underway. What passes for tastemakers in that medium are pretty down on the cluster—if you describe a Grant Morrison or Tsutomu Nihei piece as awesome they’ll say they see where you are coming from, but it’s a good comic too! And to dismiss a work as “awesome” is to suggest it’s written for the blurb. Relevant
Doesn’t it already? Well presumably it depends on the level of exposure to the “awesome” cluster of tropes. I think comics are the ground zero of the trend, and what passes for tastemakers in that medium are pretty down on that cluster—if you describe a Grant Morrison or Tsutomu Nihei piece as awesome they’ll say they see where you are coming from, but it’s a good comic too! To dismiss a work as “awesome” is to suggest it’s written for the blurb. Relevant
I suspect Methods of Rationality may be the end product of a similar phenomenon with respect to a number of trends in speculative fiction, e.g., of putting in more and more elaborate Xanatos Gambits and more and more subtle pop culture references.
Or as Eliezer put it:
Try looking at the above quote while tabooing the word “awesome”, or better yet replace it with a word that has a similar meaning to an art movement you aren’t involved in e.g., “groovy” for psychedelic, “transgresive” for modern art, etc.
.
I wouldn’t go quite that far. Maybe affective death spirals are attractors in designspace, though.
“minimalist”
I read that in a kind of stern, commanding voice, which makes it sounds really silly with the word “groovy” in it. Much sillier than with “awesome”, for some reason.
This makes me realize that the voice is nothing like Eliezer’s.
It’s hard to beat the Algorithm of Groovy.
Who knows, maybe is a couple decades describing something as “awesome” will sound as silly and passe as describing something as “groovy” or “funky” does today.
Doesn’t it already? Presumably it depends on the level of exposure to the “awesome” cluster of tropes, but I think comics are the ground zero of the trend and the backlash is well underway. What passes for tastemakers in that medium are pretty down on the cluster—if you describe a Grant Morrison or Tsutomu Nihei piece as awesome they’ll say they see where you are coming from, but it’s a good comic too! And to dismiss a work as “awesome” is to suggest it’s written for the blurb. Relevant
If you’ll look at the bottom-right of your previous comment, “Delete” is just to the left of “Retracted”.
Doesn’t it already? Well presumably it depends on the level of exposure to the “awesome” cluster of tropes. I think comics are the ground zero of the trend, and what passes for tastemakers in that medium are pretty down on that cluster—if you describe a Grant Morrison or Tsutomu Nihei piece as awesome they’ll say they see where you are coming from, but it’s a good comic too! To dismiss a work as “awesome” is to suggest it’s written for the blurb. Relevant
Oh, behave.