Most major languages these days are multi-paradigm languages that can do procedural, functional, or object oriented coding.

C#, Kotlin, JavaScript, TypeScript, Go, Python, Swift, etc all fall into this bucket.

Java has made a lot of efforts to support functional programming, but it’s still not first class.

I would argue that these languages adopting functional coding as a first class citizen has made dedicated functional languages somewhat more obsolete, but they also paved the way and set the standards for the general languages that came after.

On the web side of things, the most popular JavaScript / TypeScript frameworks these days are often fundamentally functional though, from React on the front-end to Express on the back end.

Functional languages are inherently built on non-functional ones, for the same reason that object oriented languages are built on non object oriented ones, because cpus are fundamentally not object oriented or functional.

They are computational machines with specific instructions around moving values in memory and performing certain operations on them.

Assembly / machine code is always, at a fundamental level, imperative programming, and all higher ordered languages have to translate to these imperative instruction sets / languages.

However, there is an OS that tries to be functional as much as possible though, and that’s a Linux distribution called NixOS, based on the functional language Nix.

Lol I know, but they were essentially making the point that beans are just an overall better protein source.

Now, don’t get me wrong, beans are a great and nutritious food, and a good source of protein, but if you’re analyzing them just as a protein source, then they’re just objectively not as good as most meats, or like you pointed out, eggs.

I do agree that you should want to eat a healthy and balanced diet with a large variety, but at the end of the day macros do still matter, especially if you need to gain or maintain muscle mass. That can be because you’re an athlete, or because you’re over /under weight, or because you’re elderly and need to prevent muscle mass loss to maintain the rest of your health, or if it’s because your sick or recovering from an injury. In all those situations, where macros do actually matter, then it’s perfectly possible to gain muscle while eating vegetarian or vegan, but just normal beans are not the protein source to do it. You’re either going to want to eat quite a decent number of eggs on the reg, or supplement with a concentrate like whey or pea protein powder.

My point is just that beans are not an equivalent protein source to meat, and there’s no point pretending like they are. No one is going to fall for it and suddenly convert. You’ll have more success convincing people to go meat free by actually giving them viable alternatives, not gas lighting them.

Lmfao you don’t even understand the analogy.

Cite your source on protein needs or shut the fuck up.

And you’re definitely so simple minded that you need to put people in buckets.

This article is political nonsense.

It’s just labelling things as conservative and thus they must be terrible. It falls short of ever actually reasoning through the logic of any policy as soon as it can slap a label on it.

Lmao, stop projecting bro. You’re so social media pilled that because rfk likes protein, you reactionarily think protein is bad.

Educate yourself on the very basics of nutrition, and then go touch some grass.

The standard Daily Recommended Allowance for protein intake is ~0.83g / kg body weight. I.e. that is the minimum amount of protein you need to eat every day to maintain your basic nutrition, which for a 180lb person is about 70g of protein per day, at minimum.

You need more it you’re an older adult, and you need close to double that if you’re an athlete trying to gain muscle.

Beans are great, but you need to eat 7 cups of beans, ~1.75 Litres of beans to get 100g of protein.

Even if you’re vegetarian there are better sources of protein then that.

No shit sherlock.

I mean, this is literally an argument against using oxen to plough fields instead of doing it by hand.

The answer is always that society should reorient around not needing constant labour and wealth being redistributed.

It is not that act of reflecting off a surface that induces an echo with energy, the echo is a transformation.

The same dissipation of energy occurs no matter what because of air friction

Reflection doesn’t induce energy, it dissipates it because it does not reflect perfectly.

You are precisely wrong here, echoes require open space to proliferate.

Go out to a field and try to produce an echo. They literally require walls to bounce off of.

Isn’t the reason you are invoking a contortion of scale to shift our focus to inside one of these smaller bubbles/cells motivated by a desire to induce a sense of some small degree of open space around us? In a sense, aren’t you arguably still invoking the idea that space is what allows echoes rather than density and enclosure?

You need some space yes, ideally the inside of your chamber needs to be mostly empty and insubstantive.

However, echo chambers can not be filled with too much space, because echoes don’t work at infinite scale. Sound dissipates and loses energy as it travels through air, so for an echo to occur and you to hear it, you need to be a relatively short distance away from a wall. To be truly echoey and hear multiple echoes of the same sound bouncing back and forth on the walls in front of and behind you, you need those walls even closer together, for not just the extra distance travelled, but also how much energy is lost during each reflection.

An echo chamber is inherently a closed space because open spaces don’t echo because there’s nothing to bounce off of.

Echo Chambers’s defining characteristics are walls that cut them off from the outside world, being large voids with little substance inside, and hearing what you say repeated back to you.

Plus, if you shrank down to the size where you could fit inside one of the bubbles of acoustic foam, it may very well be echoey in there.

Free will exists and you feel it every time you’re dieting, lol, or restricting yourself in any way for higher reasons. It escapes the realm of words because it’s fundamental to our existence, you can’t argue against it in good faith, it can simply be denied the same way you could deny the rising of the sun… And, again, I think you’re confused.

Lol, “free will exists because I think it exists” is not an argument.

Okay, could a calculator with all its parts be considered intelligent/more intelligent than us simply because it can make calculations faster and with more accuracy? A computer? It’s the same principle.

Computers have long been limited to not being more intelligent than very complicated calculators, because they had no good way of solving fuzzy pattern matching problems, like ingesting arbitrary data and automatically learning and pulling out patterns from it. This famous xkcd points that out: https://xkcd.com/1425/

The entire recent surge in AI is being driven because AI algorithms that model our neurons do exactly that.

We simply haven’t made anything that 1) understands the world around it in any way 2) has volition.

LLMs contain some understanding of the world, or they wouldn’t be able to do what they do, but yes I would agree. That doesn’t meant we won’t or can’t get there though. Right now many leading edge AI researchers are specifically trying to build world models as opposed to LLMs that do have an understanding of the world around them.

We have made a code eating, code spitting machine that works when we want it to, that’s all.

No, this is a reductive description of how even LLMs work. They are not just copying and pasting. They are truly combining and synthesizing information in new and transformative ways, in a similar way that humans do. Yes, we can regurgitate some of that book we read, but most of what we get from it is an impression / general knowledge that we then combine with other knowledge, just like an LLM.

Language is literally the basis for almost all of our knowledge, it’s wild to flatly deny that a multi billion collection of simulated neurons that are trained on language could not possibly have any intelligence or understanding of the world.

Are they or just simulating a model of a model?

So you’re saying there’s a magical other plane that the material objects on this world are just a model of and the objects in this plane don’t actually determine behaviour, the ones on that plane do?

What evidence do you have to support that? What evidence do you have that consciousness exists on that plane and isn’t just a result of the behaviour of neurons? Why does consciousness change when you get a brain injury and damage those neurons?

And it doesn’t have to be magical for it to be unreachable for us (read Roger Penrose)

Roger Penrose, the guy who wrote books desperately claiming that free will must exist and spent his time searching for any way it could before arriving at a widely discredited theory of quantum gravity being the basis for consciousness?

and what we have today is just inert code ready to work on command, not some e-mind just living in the cloud

So? If we could put human brains in suspended animation, and just boot them up on command to execute tasks for us, does that mean that they’re not intelligent?

Come on, man, this is not debatable.

It obviously and evidently is debatable since we are debating it, and saying “it’s not debatable” isn’t an argument, it’s a thought terminating phrase.

Tehran has more than one suburb, and Tehran also isn’t the only city in Iran. If there are 400 bodies in one suburban morgue, and you extrapolate across the country, you’d hit 12,000 very fast.

Regardless of what structure these things may have, there’s no consciousness, just a machine that works on prompts and rules like everything else we’ve made. It cannot escape it, only we expand its data capacity and give it new commands. And a regurgitation/collage of music is still music, sure, and you could also sing and dance to melodies written and played by a billion monkeys, idk, sure, but never forget there’s no “it”.

Lol what are you basing that on? They’re simulating the neurons in your brain. If they replicate that structure and behaviour they’ll replicate your consciousness, or do you believe that brains operate on magic that doesn’t behave according to the physical laws of nature?

My man, you’re speaking sci fi, not what we currently have.

The biggest of current LLM models contains ~ the same number of parameters as we have neurons. It’s not a 1:1 mapping because parameters are closer to neuronal connections, but from a pure numbers standpoint we are operating at the scale where we can start creating true simulated intelligences, even if not human scale just yet.

This doesn’t mean current LLMs are that intelligent, just that it’s not sci-fi to think we could create a simulated intelligence now.

Furthermore, both philosophically and materially, the notion that consciousness cannot be computed is more than gaining traction.

Is it? Do you have any sources / do they have any explanation for why neurons can’t be simulated?

If humans ever make something with free will and volition, something that isn’t just doing things on command but has its own wants, sure. But we might never get there, and that’s a real possibility. Intelligence isn’t in solving equations but in imagining the math problems.

I mean, we’re talking about whether or not an AI could make music. If it creates a new song, with lyrics and music / a melody that never existed before, and people listen to it and sing it and dance to it and enjoy it, how would it not be music?

AI is not “making anything”, it’s regurgitating combinations of previous stuff on-command.

Even current day LLMs are doing more than just regurgitation, even if they fall far short of human intelligence.

And at a fundamental level, there’s no reason to think that simulated neurons running on computer chips can’t be as intelligent as us, if we can figure out the right way of wiring them so to speak.

There’s no inherent law of the universe that says that only biological humans can be intelligent and can thus create music.