I think this was posted to a wrong community.

Truth isn’t different between serious and casual discussion and this is a serious topic.

If you want to cite a scientific paper then do it yourself and don’t ask others to fish them out of blogs you link to because too many times I’ve seen none included and nobody got time for that on a casual forum.

As to actual sources, I assumed I wouldn’t have to make as much of a strong point when talking about something that’s pretty much a scientific consensus. Where I live doctors won’t prescribe you medicinal weed if you’re under 25 usually too.

Going by casual wisdom, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so I would expect the burden to be on the ones claiming that what I’m saying is bs but I guess it’s on me to bring back some reason here.

• Effects of Cannabis Use on Human Behavior, Including Cognition, Motivation, and Psychosis: A Review (closed access, SciDB mirror)
• Age-related differences in the impact of cannabis use on the brain and cognition: a systematic review
• Longitudinal study of risk factors predicting cannabis use disorder in UK young adults and adolescents
• The Effect of Age of Initiation of Cannabis Use on Psychosis, Depression, and Anxiety among Youth under 25 Years

I’d rather add meta-comment in an effort to preserve quality of discussion. I’m seeing this everywhere - making a point by linking to a blog pretending to be a scientific paper. It has about as much value as a comment by anyone here. If I understand correctly it’s an attempt to add some kind of authority to your opinion but it’s just harmful to the way establishing truth works.

Please stop using blog posts pretending to be scientific research.

Where are you getting your numbers on % of population at risk of psychosis and schizophrenia to call them unknown small sliver? Cannabis being harmful to people under 25 is well studied. Most neurodivergent folk are at risk and both things compound enough so that having this kind of legal age just make sense.

I consume plenty of weed myself but I’m for responsible and controlled use. I’m glad to piss off liberals and conservatives alike since I’m a leftie.

Some of us are more prone to mental health issues. Cannabis is a strong trigger. It is possible to go through life without triggers. THC is not something you need in your life unless prescribed for specific conditions.

I’m all for full legalisation but legal age for most substances should be simply higher because it’s way too risky and damaging before your brain fully develops, as evidenced by the this paper.

That’s what I figured but was open to hearing how data centers won’t go bankrupt when current VC / investor money stops propping up AI arms race. I’m not even sure lots existing hardware won’t go to waste because there’s seemingly not enough power infrastructure to feed it and big tech corpos are building nuclear reactors (on top of restarting coal power plants…). Those reactors might be another silver lining however similar to cheap compute becoming available for scientific applications.

What’s the commercial use for current capacity of hyper scale compute?

LLMs are being sold as a service already. I have utmost faith that someone will come up with some kind of snake oil (call it QPU tentatively) and say your phone is obsolete if it doesn’t have one.

Given that Germany has pretty strong laws on what goes on social media, isn’t that a recipe for countless fines? Or is that in preparation of the next AfD government who’ll likely try to get rid of them?

It won’t break all known encryption, it’ll pretend to.

And so, pivot to the next buzzword begins. Will it capture imagination of investors and general public alike similar to LLMs? Objectively that’s doubtful but then again I was saying the same about couple of previous buzzwords only to be disappointed time and time again lol. Those Homo sapiens are a bunch of suckers.

That’s fine. I draw the line at acquiring DNA samples via butt probe /s

You won’t get an argument from me about that. The way Verge frames it though makes it sound that if only conservatives had access to a more diverse information diet they’d see the reason but it’s not really why they cling to many of their crackpot theories. Actually addressing underlying issues that drive people into that political spectrum are not something that neoliberal politics can fix though and so this pointless political tribe fight continues.

My main issue is that The Verge started out as a tech news website and writing in English (internet lingua franca) means they enjoy ad/subscription revenue from an international audience. I hope they realise that their choice to branch out from tech straight into US domestic politics will drive their international readers away. I’m there to see gadget news, not whether Trump wiped his ass today.

Do Perplexity AI end business users get no choice as to what underlying data they get access to and buy it like you buy cable TV? Honest question.

A cold take but soliciting donations by random anonymous social media accounts is very easily abused. I can believe there’s lots of spammers / scammers among them and they’ll cry foul same as any genuine charity.

The Perplexity-powered ‘Truth Search AI’ tool appears to selectively source from conservative media.

Alternative take: it’s not as much selective as it is driven by licensing costs. Publishers want money for their data and conservatives found little value added compared to what they’d need to pay. Also, Truth Social user doesn’t want to see other sources and it’s a business (or business / grift) after all. It’s effectively the same but has a way different sound to it, doesn’t it?

The Verge is insufferable with how it became a Democratic Party newsletter lately. I still keep them in my RSS reader but have to apply increasing amount of filtering of political content because bias doesn’t even begin to describe it.

Yes, that’s what this blog post is about :)