There are a number of grammatical and spelling errors throughout the post. Ones I saw included: “advocation” → “advocating”, “generator. While” → “generator, whereas”, “JOOST” → “JOOTS”. There are a number of passages that are awkwardly explained (like the paragraph preceding the python visualization of the difference between 2d100 and 20d10).
I would replace “do” with “would” in the title.
The conclusion starting with “As Eliezer explained” makes me cringe. Are you an acolyte or are you explaining your own thoughts?
Overall: I felt the post was somewhat jumbled. It looks like you wanted to argue against the idea that deviation from straight-laced rationality could ever be useful, and ended up grudgingly admitting that, okay, maybe randomness helps with some optimization processes.
But, as far as I can tell, you haven’t consulted any creative types while researching or writing this post. Did Hemingway say anything about whether or not his drinking contributed to his creativity? If you don’t know how, when, and why he drank, can you really use him as an example?
As it turns out, Hemingway, the master of brevity, wrote in four words more than you did in this post: “Write drunk; edit sober.”
So, I think this post is useful as “I disagreed with a meme for suspect reasons, and so analyzed my disagreement, and think I have found out why the meme exists, and thus have improved my map.” But I don’t think this post is useful at discussing creativity, or at demonstrating scholarship.
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”.)
Dude, anyone who uses “straight-laced” instead of “straitlaced,” as in a “straitjacket,” shouldn’t be offering stylistic and grammatical corrections. You’re trying way too hard to offer constructive criticism.
Focusing on technical writing aspects:
There are a number of grammatical and spelling errors throughout the post. Ones I saw included: “advocation” → “advocating”, “generator. While” → “generator, whereas”, “JOOST” → “JOOTS”. There are a number of passages that are awkwardly explained (like the paragraph preceding the python visualization of the difference between 2d100 and 20d10).
I would replace “do” with “would” in the title.
The conclusion starting with “As Eliezer explained” makes me cringe. Are you an acolyte or are you explaining your own thoughts?
Overall: I felt the post was somewhat jumbled. It looks like you wanted to argue against the idea that deviation from straight-laced rationality could ever be useful, and ended up grudgingly admitting that, okay, maybe randomness helps with some optimization processes.
But, as far as I can tell, you haven’t consulted any creative types while researching or writing this post. Did Hemingway say anything about whether or not his drinking contributed to his creativity? If you don’t know how, when, and why he drank, can you really use him as an example?
As it turns out, Hemingway, the master of brevity, wrote in four words more than you did in this post: “Write drunk; edit sober.”
So, I think this post is useful as “I disagreed with a meme for suspect reasons, and so analyzed my disagreement, and think I have found out why the meme exists, and thus have improved my map.” But I don’t think this post is useful at discussing creativity, or at demonstrating scholarship.
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.
Dude, anyone who uses “straight-laced” instead of “straitlaced,” as in a “straitjacket,” shouldn’t be offering stylistic and grammatical corrections. You’re trying way too hard to offer constructive criticism.
For more detail: http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/319/straight/
The insertion of the “gh” appears to be a common variant, though from the dictionaries I checked I cannot tell when that variant originated.