Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)K
Posts
3
Comments
118
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • The paper and supplemental materials you provided didn't explain their decision making on how they are representing their opinion on them, but here's the abstracts of the four papers they concluded as no effect (and as a reminder, OP was asking about paranoia, not psychosis).

    Post-THC, there were lower PANSS positive scores in the CBD group, but this did not reach statistical significance. However, clinically significant positive psychotic symptoms (defined a priori as increases ≥ 3 points) were less likely in the CBD group compared with the placebo group, odds ratio (OR)=0.22 (χ²=4.74, p<0.05). In agreement, post-THC paranoia, as rated with the State Social Paranoia Scale (SSPS), was less in the CBD group compared with the placebo group (t=2.28, p<0.05).

    • Englund et al. Cannabidiol inhibits THC-elicited paranoid symptoms and hippocampal-dependent memory impairment (2013)

    In a second experiment, six healthy volunteers were administered Delta-9-THC intravenously on two occasions, after placebo or CBD pretreatment to examine whether CBD could block the psychotic symptoms induced by Delta-9-THC. […] In the second experiment, pretreatment with CBD prevented the acute induction of psychotic symptoms by Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

    • Bhattacharyya et al. Opposite effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on human brain function and psychopathology (2010)

    Results indicated that THC increased overall scores on the PSI, negative symptoms on BPRS, and robustly impaired episodic and working memory. Co-administration of CBD did not attenuate these effects. CBD alone reduced PSI scores in light users only. At a ratio of 2:1, CBD does not attenuate the acute psychotic and memory impairing effects of vaporised THC.

    • Morgan et al. Individual and combined effects of acute delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on psychotomimetic symptoms and memory funct (2018)

    The fourth study was in conference notes and this appears to be only one of two studies to cite it. The same cited author the same year contributed to the review Cannabidiol as a Potential New Type of an Antipsychotic. A Critical Review of the Evidence (2016) which focused on a study the Lancet piece you cited appears not to have included:

    The first controlled, randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted by Leweke et al. (2012). During this 4-week trial 42 schizophrenic patients received either cannabidiol (600–800 mg/day) or amisulpride (600–800 mg/day) – a highly effective second generation antipsychotic, selectively antagonizing D2/3 receptors (Leucht et al., 2002). Both drugs resulted in significant clinical improvement of both positive and negative symptoms of psychosis. The efficacy of cannabidiol was comparable to that of amisulpride, but, importantly, cannabidiol revealed a superior side effect profile when compared to amisulpride.

    That paper has over 900 citations.

    The Lancet is a gold standard, presumably they had their reasons to count the conference notes results twice in both CBD only and CBD+THC's handful of studies that made their cut but not include this one.

    Now…

    If this was a user in the midst of a psychotic break thinking of just adding in CBD but keeping up with THC, or someone with schizophrenia, my advice would be to avoid the THC because of the potential harms.

    But OP was asking about paranoia.

    And so yes there's studies where CBD has been shown to be an effective antipsychotic on its own.

    And there is evidence to support that CBD reduces the effects of THC via fMRI and paranoia evaluation.

    There is also conflicting evidence as to the reduction of the psychosis effects of THC when high. Which OP isn't expressing concern about.

    (Additionally, even if it were only as effective as placebo for paranoia, placebo effects are notably large for generalized anxiety, at 1.85 in Huneke et al, Placebo effects in randomized trials of pharmacological and neurostimulation interventions for mental disorders: An umbrella review (2024).)

    Also, looking over things again now (and thanks for pushing it), the evidence seems like CBD may be less likely to be having measurable effect when vaporized vs other delivery routes. So ymmv.

    TL;DR: The side effect profile for CBD is minimal, and for a user simply concerned with not feeling paranoid when high, it's perfectly safe and appropriate to suggest adding it into the mix to see if it reduces the paranoia, as well as pointing out the plausible existing evidence for there being an effect.

  • in people with schizophrenia

    If OP has schizophrenia, my advice would adjust. But there's many studies (not just one, which one should always be suspect of until more/meta) about the blunting effects of CBD on THC's more negative effects on the general population going all the way back to 1982.

    Here's a meta-analysis from 2019.

    And this is a study that looked at fMRI differences when CBD was or wasn't present.

    So the 'scant' evidence is the opposite finding you are citing (which probably has more to do with the nuances of schizophrenia making it an outlier), not the claim CBD tempers the psychosis of THC in a normative population which is about as well studied as a thing can be when one component is a scheduled substance.

  • A few things.

    (1) CBD is an effective antipsychotic, but the consumer market for weed has been selectively breeding it out in favor of pure and dense THC strains.

    (2) The way THC works on anxiety is a biphasic curve where at lower doses it reduces and at higher it increases. And because the efforts have been at increasing potency of flower, you can have a significant dosing range between a bowl of one strain and another.

    If you would like to stop having a bad time getting high, try to actually measure and control the dose to a lower amount than what triggers the anxiety, and try to get a stain that has CBD alongside the THC (or just a high CBD strain to mix in).

    A 2:1 THC:CBD ratio is a really good one personally. (This was the ratio of the 8th century BCE temple cannabis and turned out to be a great ratio when I replicated.)

  • Well some of the mythos is almost certainly pulling things in from elsewhere. Even just the way the canonical gospels (likely) add events to fulfill old testament prophecy, such as the dividing of clothes.

    But I'd be fairly surprised if the tradition conflicts were regarding multiple different Jesuses vs a single Jesus that was being fought over.

    For example, the Jesus ben Panthera vs Jesus ben Joseph vs Jesus ben Stada conflict seems very much to be disputes over the ancestral lineage of a single figure than accounts of totally different figures. Notably, a son of a Roman soldier (ben Panthera) or an unfaithful woman (ben Stada) does not have a claim on being the messiah. Complicating that debate is that Joseph is never even mentioned in Mark, which has the claim of being the messiah only said in secret not in public.

  • Added links!

  • Oh, and a fun story about the crucifixion darkness.

    So in Luke, the easiest copies described as the sun being eclipsed. Which was a huge controversy. Origen claimed it was the work of "agents of Satan."

    Why? Because the Passover occurs on a full moon and solar eclipses cannot happen at those times.

    What can happen are lunar eclipses. In fact they are pretty common on Passover. And those actually match a lot of the details. Last for hours and not minutes. Seen around the world vs a small band.

    The problem is that this was in the middle of the day, so it would not have been visible in the area.

    What a lot of people don't know is that at the time this was written, people knew how to calculate eclipses in the same Saros cycle. The Greeks even built a clockwork computer centuries earlier that did so.

    As well, at the time the leading explanation was the (correct) one that lunar eclipses occurred because the Earth eclipsed the sun. Lucretius in 50 BCE wrote that it was so common it was basically presumed and he was encouraging keeping a more open mind for alternative explanations.

    And there was a historical lunar eclipse on Passover in 33 CE, which would not have been visible in Judea. But importantly, this eclipse was in the same Saros cycle as visible lunar eclipses before and after.

    It is not all that implausible that people, particularly Greek or Chaldean astronomers, would have known that there was a several hour long eclipse of the sun during the day on Passover in 33 CE.

    My guess is that knowledge of a calculated lunar eclipse ended up incorporated into the early Synoptic circles (potentially even by the author of Luke given the mention of the Joel blood moon prophecy in Acts) and then further mythologized having lost the original context as if an eyewitness event like in Matthew where the author added earthquakes and zombies.

    TL;DR: There probably was a daytime lunar eclipse on a Passover around that time which would have been fairly trivially calculable as having occurred given its earlier and later 51 CE visible occurrences in the cycle.

    Edit: Some relevant links.

  • They aren't binary options.

    For example, it's also possible that there was a real person, but that then a lot of biographical details were added in and made up.

    But it's quite unlikely that the entire story is made up, in large part because of how much of the narrative is dealing with trying to claim that other people are wrong about it.

    The earliest records are from a guy known to his audience as persecuting Jesus's followers. Who then complains that his audience has accepted a different version of Jesus.

    The earliest canonical narratives in Peter's own tradition are trying to explain why he was present in the area where a trial that required bringing witnesses before the accused where two or more needed to agree for testimony to be considered was reportedly denying him there.

    You simply don't see details like that with made up supernatural narratives. Where's the story about Mithras keeping his status secret and only making claims of being a promised savior in private? In the story where Dionysus is captured by pirates is there a weird line about someone running down the street butt naked?

    The earliest texts in the Christian corpus have very odd nuances compared to pretty much all other fully fictional traditions we're aware of, but those nuances are in line with what we see with more modern cults around a figure who ends up dead or imprisoned where there's then competing splits thereafter.

    It is very, very unlikely the accounts are 100% true, even in matters separate from the magic stuff. They are even outright at odds with each other. For example, John 18:20 makes a claim nothing was said in secret but the Synoptics all have secret explanations for at least the sower parable.

    But the idea there was no historical individual at the kernel of it all is quite unlikely as well. There's too much evidence the first century tradition is battling over the details of a record regarding a real centralizing figure that does not occur with synecretized or fabricated mythos.

    Just because L Ron Hubbard was not a great war hero as Scientology claims does not imply there was no historical person named L Ron Hubbard founding the tradition that later made stuff up about him.

  • P.S. literally the comment you were initially responding to sources it.

  • You: "How much will this speed up our doom?"

    Your waifu: "Calculating… oh, it's actually less than 1%."

    tears in your eyes the Old Yeller soundtrack starts playing

  • Cornell researchers found that at the current rate of AI growth, the burgeoning industry could represent 24 to 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2030

    The United States emitted 4.9 billion tonnes of CO₂ in 2024.

    So by 2030 the AI industry CO2 release might be 0.9% of total US emissions.

    That 'almost' in "Almost Incomprehensible" is doing a lot of work there.

  • It won't, unless you normally talk almost exactly like the model in question and then alter your word choice distribution according to the specific secret key entropy.

  • It's not about the variation of the words, it's about the variation of the words from the model baseline.

    Like if your word choice was almost the exact same as Claude's normally, maybe you just talked to them a lot and picked up their phrases like it's not nothing.

    But if you managed to be almost exactly like Claude and yet varied the possible words exactly according to a hidden entropy key, they'd know it was actually Claude with the SymthID-Text watermarking applied, as no human would end up falling into that statistical bucket.

  • This particular watermarking would be effectively impossible for a person to end up replicating.

  • The post in question explicitly self identified as AI and is very saturated in the typical tells (it's almost certainly Claude or Deepseek Flash).

    No escape, just a throwaway experiment by whoever was running it to tell them to make money.

    Will probably see a lot more of this over the next 6-12mo.

  • Probably less so.

    The hardware to run it locally would be fairly expensive and would require using a very simple model compared to alternatives. Also much more wasteful if you were only using that hardware for AI use, as you'd be distributing the hardware out rather than centralizing so it'd be often idle and when replaced create more waste than a centralized server rack.

    Also, additional per user post-training seems to me both wasteful and not necessary. In context learning is often much more powerful but frequently overlooked.

  • If you're concerned about data retention, you'd want to select an inference provider that is listing 'ZDR' (zero data retention) as a feature.

    For example, a lot of the Chinese open weight models have become quite capable and because their weights are available end up like generic vs brand name medicine where there's multiple providers serving them with different production conditions.

    Because enterprise use will often be worried about data retention or sending data to China, the alternative providers usually offer things like US-only inference or zero data retention.

    If you're not going to use it all that often, a la carte API use is going to be way cheaper than a subscription, probably better results than a free plan with a closed model provider, and give you more control over the process.

  • consumed 40% of global water supplies. But now it is.

    Source? This seems really, really unlikely. Last I saw total data center water use (only some of which is AI) was still much less than even things like golf course watering.

    AI Data Centers’ Water Consumption Breaks 264 Billion Gallons in 2025 as Devastating Drought Hits Nearly 63% of U.S.

    Golf courses reduce water usage by 31 percent according to national survey

    The report found that U.S. golf facilities applied a projected 1.63 million acre-feet of water in 2024

    (1 Acre-feet = 325,851.4286 gallons, so this is 531 billion gallons)

    The golf course industry points out their use is less than 0.5% of the total water use of the US, but it's twice the use of all data centers.

    So for just AI to be using 40% of all water seems… really unlikely?

    Not that it's surprising you're under that impression, as even in the headline above, the gist many articles about this issue try to push is that the 264 billion gallons of AI water use is connected to a drought across the country. But the actual numbers reveal that as fairly manipulative as if we rewrite the headline to "golf courses use a little under 0.5% of total US water as drought grips the nation" it's pretty absurd to suggest the first thing is significantly impacting the second and yet we'd be representing twice the water use as the original headline is discussing.

  • What are you using it for during the 1%??

  • Right, but what % of people are currently using/demanding inference right now?

    Do you expect that % to change between now and 2030?

    Unless you expect demand to decrease, I don't really see how the pricing of the hardware will decrease.

    Let's say the Pets.com of the AI world ends up going bankrupt and their RAM hits the market. Do you expect that the demand for that RAM will be negligible such that pricing returns to earlier levels?

    Your predictive model relies on companies that have hardware going out of business and then other people buying up that hardware, but isn't accounting for the levels of demand that the market will have for that secondhand hardware even if it ends up existing from failed firms.

    Unless the demand shifts, the more likely scenario is that companies going out of business will be able to sell off their RAM at higher prices than they bought it at.

    There'd need to be a significant inference memory reduction advance (possible) coupled with stagnating or reduced inference demand (unlikely) to see prices come back down.

  • Wait… how do you imagine a world where there's demand for frontier grade AI but also that the bubble has popped such that there's not demand for the chips to run frontier grade AI?

    I'm really confused.

  • Technology @lemmy.world

    Emergent introspective awareness in large language models

    www.anthropic.com /research/introspection
  • Technology @lemmy.world

    Mapping the Mind of a Large Language Model

    www.anthropic.com /research/mapping-mind-language-model
  • Technology @lemmy.world

    New Theory Suggests Chatbots Can Understand Text

    www.quantamagazine.org /new-theory-suggests-chatbots-can-understand-text-20240122/