Thanks for this awesome post! I like the babble/​prune distinction, but the analogy to randomized algorithms was probably the more helpful idea in here for me. It made perfect sense, since a lot of probabilistic algorithms are really simple combinations of random babble and efficient pruning.
This analogy makes me wonder: given that many in complexity theory assume that BPP = P, what is the consequence of derandomization on Babble and Prune? Will we eventually be able to babble deterministically, such that we have a high guaranteed probability of finding what we looked for while pruning?
A slight issue with the post: I disagree that poetry is pure babble/​phonetic babble. Some parts of poetry are only about the sounds and images, but many poems try to compress and share a feeling, an idea, an intuition. That is to say, meaning matters in poetry.
Thanks for this awesome post! I like the babble/​prune distinction, but the analogy to randomized algorithms was probably the more helpful idea in here for me. It made perfect sense, since a lot of probabilistic algorithms are really simple combinations of random babble and efficient pruning.
This analogy makes me wonder: given that many in complexity theory assume that BPP = P, what is the consequence of derandomization on Babble and Prune? Will we eventually be able to babble deterministically, such that we have a high guaranteed probability of finding what we looked for while pruning?
A slight issue with the post: I disagree that poetry is pure babble/​phonetic babble. Some parts of poetry are only about the sounds and images, but many poems try to compress and share a feeling, an idea, an intuition. That is to say, meaning matters in poetry.