[flagged]
Readit NewsDeleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Mike_12345 commented on Releasing 3B and 7B RedPajama together.xyz/blog/redpaja... · Posted by u/antimatter15
Mike_12345 commented on Heavy marijuana use increases schizophrenia in men, study finds bloomberg.com/news/articl... · Posted by u/shaburn
It has not been proven to be neurotoxic, so I'm not so sure over your reference of semantics. I only consume edibles, as the smoke is too harsh for my lungs. This study does not have a definitive answer as to whether cannabis is actually the cause or trigger for schizophrenia.
Go to Google Scholar and search for "neurotoxicity of cannabis"
You can find studies showing that even pure THC is neurotoxic. It depends on dosage and frequency.
Mike_12345 commented on Heavy marijuana use increases schizophrenia in men, study finds bloomberg.com/news/articl... · Posted by u/shaburn
You're talking in circles.
>Objectively worse performance in life and in mentally taxing work.
Very interesting! I'd love to learn more. Please show us the data supporting this assertion.
>Go smoke a massive bong hit then do a calculus exam and compare your score.
I don't smoke, so I took a cannabis edible or vaped some concentrate. My calculus exam score improved. Now what? You still haven't provided any evidence for your claim that cannabis is objectively neurotoxic.
"Objective" is not a synonym for "strongly-held opinion"
> Very interesting! I'd love to learn more. Please show us the data supporting this assertion.
You can't demand a study/citation for someones personal experience. That is absurd. You are being an absolutely illogical clown.
I was talking about my opinion and direct personal experience. I explained this multiple times but you are incapable of understanding this basic concept.
"Objective" means observable and measurable. Are you genuinely so clueless that you believe no one can perceive anything objective about their own performance and abilities and actions in the external world?
Mike_12345 commented on Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI” semianalysis.com/p/google... · Posted by u/klelatti
> Seems like wishful thinking to think decentralized open source can beat centralized models that cost 100M+ to train!
Because surely price = quality. Solid argumentation there.
Yes, price = quality because they require supercomputing resources to train. GPT-3 required hundreds of Tesla GPUs running for several weeks. That's millions of dollars just for hardware, not including power (the GPUs cost $15k each)
Mike_12345 commented on Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI” semianalysis.com/p/google... · Posted by u/klelatti
How can I get to a point where I can understand the linked article? Is there a book or course I can take? I feel like I have a lot of catching up to do.
Ask ChatGPT
Mike_12345 commented on Heavy marijuana use increases schizophrenia in men, study finds bloomberg.com/news/articl... · Posted by u/shaburn
>I explained this was my opinion based on experience
Yes, that's the subjective part, but you also argued that it is objectively neurotoxic. Where is your evidence for that? Where is the objectivity?
> Where is the objectivity?
Objectively worse performance in life and in mentally taxing work. It really isn't that complicated.
Go smoke a massive bong hit then do a calculus exam and compare your score.
Mike_12345 commented on Heavy marijuana use increases schizophrenia in men, study finds bloomberg.com/news/articl... · Posted by u/shaburn
>and it subjectively and objectively harms your mental health and cognitive abilities,
Objectivity is good. So how often do you measure these things, what tools do you use, and what data do you collect? How do you analyze the data?
>then basic common sense and reasoning tells you it is harmful to the brain (neurotoxic).
"Neurotoxic" does not mean "alters your cognition"
"Alters your cognition" does not mean "harmful to the brain"
"Basic common sense" is not a synonym for "science"
>That's the point. Neurons don't get healthier from carcinogens.
There's no evidence to indicate that cannabis is carcinogenic or neurotoxic. In fact, there is evidence to suggest it has neuroprotective effects [0].
The carcinogens come from burning plant matter (or really, burning almost anything). There are many ways to consume cannabis and its derivative products without burning it or inhaling smoke. By your logic, all plant matter is carcinogenic because it's possible to burn it and inhale the smoke. Time to ban trees and vegetables?
[0] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2020.5956...
> "Basic common sense" is not a synonym for "science".
I explained this was my opinion based on experience multiple times so you're just arguing with a strawman. You are absolutely wasting your time here and completely missed the point.
Try reading the article if you want to see a study showing scientific evidence of the neurotoxicity of weed.
Let's focus on the important work being done by the RedPajama project and the potential benefits it can bring to a wide range of applications and users. Instead of promoting division and suspicion, let's work towards creating a more diverse and inclusive and collaborative environment in AI research and development.