Thanks @tedthetrumpet and @vin for taking on my polemic. I started out with some wariness about random number generators, then spent the rest of the video having fun using them, so take what I said with a pinch of salt!
For me the emergence of live coding was in part a reaction against "generative art", in particular the idea that by using random numbers, you can create infinite variation, and gasp at the creative system you've made which holds a mirror to the beauty of the universe. The problem is that the more you listen to infinite variation, the more it sounds the same.
I like the idea of creativity as search and discovery. You define a space of possibilities (e.g., all the possible 8 step kick-snare rhythms), and look for things in it. You can use a random number generator for picking rhythms from that space, and listen out for good ones to use.. This is the approach taken by algorithmic composers such as David Cope. But there is a slight of hand here. The value comes not from the random number generator part (which comes up with all kinds of nonsense), but the act of listening out for good ones. I.e., this isn't algorithmic composition, but simply composition lead by the ear. That's be completely fine of course, but all the posturing around chance operations, creative systems, automatic composers etc is missing the point, when the whole process still revolves around human perception.
So that's where the chip on my shoulder comes from.. But really, I do use random number generation a lot, and a point I was trying to make in the video is that using Tidal often feels a bit like hand-making a random number generator.. Really all a random number generator does is make an interference pattern, and by making your own you are finding that sweet spot between noise and mundane predictability, which is where you could say is where all the music lies!