Warning: As per the official spoiler policy, the following discussion may contain unmarked spoilers for up to the current chapter of the Methods of Rationality. Proceed at your own risk.
Assume HPMOR was written by a super-intelligence implementing the CEV of Eliezer Yudkowsky and assorted literary critics. What would it have written differently?
... is what I want to know, but that's hard to answer. So here's an easier question:
In what ways do you think Eliezer's characterisations/world-building/plot-fu are sub-optimal? <optional> How could they be made less sub-optimal? </optional>
(My own ideas are in the comments.)
To put it another way... Assume a group of intrepid fanfic writers in the late 2020s are planning to write a reboot. What parts of Eliezer's story do you think they should tweak?
And just to make sure we're all on the same page: Eliezer isn't going to go back and change anything he's written to bring it in line with anything suggested here. This is purely an "Ah, just consider the possibilities!" thread.
... which means that we can safely suggest drastic rewrites encompassing 30 chapters or something. Or change fundamental facts about the world.
(Exercise due restraint on this one. Getting rid of the Ministry/the Noble Houses/blood purism would probably turn the story into something completely different; this isn't what we're trying to do here.)
With that, let the nit-picking begin!!
Of course. The hard part about noticing your confusion isn't recognizing it, when it is pointed out. It's, you know, the noticing part. I tell you, I get a few points of karma for it, maybe, and everyone looses the opportunity to do it for themselves. Now, that's negative sum!
I think one thing that keeps people from asking questions is the flinching from the uncertainty that may never get resolved. But that's clearly not the case with MoR (unless Eliezer is evil, and his puzzles will never be resolved in-story). These are well stuctured puzzles leading us along (hell I'm identifying puzzle arcs), and we just have to make some effort.
I guess my sense of justice doesn't like how something deep gets complains about surface stuff, when that surface can in fact be justified by the deeper stuff. Stupid sense of justice.
No, it just looks annoying. If you really wanted to prod thought, you'd offer the proverbial 'hostage to fortune' in the form of a hash precommitment to your NBT theory so you have verifiably expressed a particular theory we... (read more)