Sorry for the grammatical/spelling errors, I’m not a native english speaker, I’m doing my best but writing in a foreign language isn’t that easy (at least for me). I fixed the error you pointed at, thanks.
For the conclusion, your comment seems unfair. The first sentence starts with “As Eliezer explained”, yes, but the second starts with “But as I showed”. So I’m retaking some parts of Eliezer’s thesis, while criticizing some points of it, that’s not what can be called “being an acolyte”. This article was partly motivated as an answer (and a plead for a deeper analysis) to the “lawful creativity” theme of Eliezer, so referring to him in the conclusion is quite natural.
As for Hemingway, I didn’t want to take too deeply any given example since I wanted more to think generally, but your quote is indeed very relevant, and completely to my “lawfully controlled chaotic optimization” hypothesis. I added the Hemingway quote in it, thanks.
That was immediately apparent from your first sentence:
There is a common knowledge that many artists were using drugs
While not strictly ungrammatical, this sounds extremely awkward and “foreign-accented”. Replace with:
It is common knowledge that many artists have used drugs
(Note the absence of the indefinite article; it is very rare to speak of “a knowledge”. “Knowledge” is an unquantifiable noun, like “stuff”.)
or
It is commonly known that many artists have used drugs
(Also note that in replacing the inappropriate verb tense “were using” with “have used”, I have also changed the meaning slightly to reflect the fact that there are still artists in existence today. If you had been speaking of a group of people that is no longer extant, you would have needed to say, for example,
It is commonly known that many ancient Romans used drugs. (Not “have used”.)
Sorry for the grammatical/spelling errors, I’m not a native english speaker, I’m doing my best but writing in a foreign language isn’t that easy (at least for me). I fixed the error you pointed at, thanks.
For the conclusion, your comment seems unfair. The first sentence starts with “As Eliezer explained”, yes, but the second starts with “But as I showed”. So I’m retaking some parts of Eliezer’s thesis, while criticizing some points of it, that’s not what can be called “being an acolyte”. This article was partly motivated as an answer (and a plead for a deeper analysis) to the “lawful creativity” theme of Eliezer, so referring to him in the conclusion is quite natural.
As for Hemingway, I didn’t want to take too deeply any given example since I wanted more to think generally, but your quote is indeed very relevant, and completely to my “lawfully controlled chaotic optimization” hypothesis. I added the Hemingway quote in it, thanks.
That was immediately apparent from your first sentence:
While not strictly ungrammatical, this sounds extremely awkward and “foreign-accented”. Replace with:
(Note the absence of the indefinite article; it is very rare to speak of “a knowledge”. “Knowledge” is an unquantifiable noun, like “stuff”.)
or
(Also note that in replacing the inappropriate verb tense “were using” with “have used”, I have also changed the meaning slightly to reflect the fact that there are still artists in existence today. If you had been speaking of a group of people that is no longer extant, you would have needed to say, for example,
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I changed the sentence.