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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That’s not a redefinition, lol, music is a human construct. Nature has lovely noises and birds chirp, and by itself, even if it constitutes notes and waves, it isn’t music.

A gorilla or ape can’t sing or make music? Could a neanderthal? Homo florientis? Homo erectus? What is it specifically about homo sapiens that give us the unique ability to make music and sing, that no other animal has?

Again, if you predefine music as being made by humans then you’re not engaging in a discussion or logical debate, you’re just arbitrarily setting goal posts to guarantee that you’re right.

People need to get over the idea that algorithms can’t be intelligent because they’re algorithms. Algorithms can model the behaviour of the neurons in your brain, meaning that they can model your brain and intelligence. We are obviously not there yet with LLMs, but just saying ‘numbers and math = not intelligent’ is quite frankly dumb and just shows that you don’t understand math, physics, biology, neuroscience, etc.

There is no human intentionality in AI-created music.

The entirety of your argument boils down to you arbitrarily deciding that music needs to derive from human intentionality.

That’s not an actual argument about whether or not AI is capable of creating music, that’s you redefining music to make sure the answer is no.

“Drawing the line” is a Thought Terminating Phrase, which is a concept worth reading and thinking about.

In the abstract / in your example, if you’re just “drawing the line” then no, that’s not a legitimate argument. It is literally just you saying “nope, I arbitrarily say this is different then this”.

However, if you can back up why one thing is different from the other, then it is valid to distinguish between them. Sometimes it can be worth dividing a system into chunks and drawing arbitrary lines rather not drawing any, but you should still be able to logically back up why it’s better to chunk things than not.

But in your example, it sounds like you don’t actually have a logical argument, just one based on you arbitrarily deciding that music can only be made by a human.

It can work for some people long term if they truly accept the person as they are and don’t get frustrated by them.

But often there will come a point, after the honeymoon has worn off, and after you’ve had sex too many times to count, where you suddenly realize that you’re not actually ever having conversations, you’re explaining stuff you found interesting to them, and getting nothing back. It can also get more frustrating depending on personality. If they’re always flying off the handle about stuff on social media and you have to explain why it’s not true, it will wear on you. If you always have to be the one to do everything, either because she doesn’t know how, or because you don’t trust her to do it right, then it will wear on you.

Personally that’s why I stress the idea of a partnership so much now. I want an equal partner who does everything I can do (or at least, most of it).

That being said, dating a 10/10 for a while and having a lot of incredible sex is also not an opportunity to necessarily turn down, especially depending on your age. If you’re young, go for it, have some fun, learn some lessons, have a lot of amazing sex, but get out early. If you’re older, then consider whether or not you can really be around that person, day in, day out, forever. If not bail now.

This post should be removed for not being humor.

Adobe didn’t really lose millions, but that’s not really funny, just incorrect.

I typically do too, or userIndex or something for nested loops, but I will accept i and j for the first two levels of nesting when reviewing a PR because they’re such a convention. I wouldn’t accept variable names like that anywhere else though and try and avoid them myself.

Outside of the for loop counters i and j, short variable names are awful. Coming back to old code written with abr var nams is like talking to someone in the military who just constantly throws out jargon and acronyms that they know you don’t know.

But so are Java style ObserverFactoryManagerTemplateMachinistTemplater names.

There’s a sweet middle ground of short, but actually descriptive name. Sometimes it’s not possible but that’s usually a code organization / language / framework smell.

Too short variable names is usually a sign that you need to use a proper ide, with auto complete, or that you need to use a proper build process that will minify your code after the fact.

Too long names are usually a sign that your module of code (function, class, namespace, etc) is too large, or that your language/framework naming conventions are too strict, or the language doesn’t encapsulate scope properly.

deleted by creator

Goodbye Ukraine, Taiwan, and Palestine. The US has unfortunately, ensured their ultimate destruction.

Maybe Ukraine can hold on with help from Europe. Maybe. But the rest of the world will no longer listen to the West about anything rule of law related.