The fact that they are using a synthetic version likely means they have constructed a molecule that’s patented or otherwise IP protected. I’m always torn about this, because it means that a cheap, globally available compound (psylocibin) which was what inspired this company to begin with when the founders used it on their son will remain medically inaccessible, possibly at Schedule I in the US, while this startup’s compound may end up being covered by insurance and rake in piles of cash.
I get that it takes a lot of money to prove the efficacy of drugs. But there should be a better way to open some of these chemicals up and acknowledge the community that has worked hard, often at great personal and reputational risk, to demonstrate that these well-known drugs offer powerful options to treat a range of psychiatric illnesses.
I'd go for something targeted than something that is pedled by preachy drug dealers personally.
Can't say how many times I heard of anecdotal stories where a user just flipped personality out of the blue, it kinda steals away emotional resolution and wisdom from resolving issues if for example trauma is related to another person.
It's just psilocybin - the formulation is protected, but it's just magic mushrooms. They're studying doses of 1mg, 10mg, and 25mg. 25mg is roughly equivalent to a beginner dose of 2.5g. They should definitely do a followup of 25, 35, and 50mg, because the higher doses are most commonly associated with the most benefits across other studies that have been done.
It's never going to be a major moneymaker - you rarely encounter people who want to continue abusing it. 1 dose is sufficient for 6 or more months of mitigated symptoms, sometimes even allowing people to entirely escape negative thought patterns and depression. Psilocybin induces new synaptic pathways, helps balance out or suppress obsessive loops, so in combination with positive reinforcement in lifestyle patterns, habits, and changing environments, a single high dose psilocybin experience can radically alter someone's mental health and outlook for the better.
The literature is fascinating - one of the safest drugs known to science, yet one of the least exploited for medical or scientific purposes. There's a whole vast wealth of good data that will come from research like this, it's exciting.
> positive reinforcement in lifestyle patterns, habits, and changing environments ... can radically alter someone's mental health and outlook for the better.
Even without the lifestyle changes, you can get a 6+ month mitigation of symptoms, but without the lifestyle changes, the symptoms will return, and often it's an indicator of unhealthy lifestyle as opposed to a mental illness. Unfortunately, mental health and treatment with drugs ignores that all important bit. Maybe you are healthy, and are having a perfectly normal response to stressful, negative conditions, and don't need drugs. In the case of shrooms, it can suppress the obsessive loops and focus on being stuck for a long enough period that people can escape, but often that escape route has to be pointed out by a third party.
Unethical practices would be possible with psychedelics, still - don't provide the escape route, just keep people coming back for super expensive, slightly underdosed psychedelic trips every six months to mitigate symptoms.
Yeah, talking about grams without taking about what kind of mushroom is very out of date IMO. 2.5g could be anything from a light sensation to over the top potent. Just look at the results of the latest Denver Psychedelic Cup to get a sense of range.
It's a myth that you need a novel molecule to get a patent on a medicine.
A company can develop a formulation of generic, off-patent compounds and get FDA approval for that patented formulation.
Even old off-patent drugs are often brought back in new, on-patent formulations that can't be sold generically until the expiration of the patents on the formulation that was approved.
So even if they used psilocybin, they would get a patent on their formulation and get FDA approval for that formulation.
Pharma, sprang up from taking wondrous compounds found in nature and isolated them or refined them into new compounds that they could patent, market, and sell to consumers.
Yet Ibuprofen is so easy to make that only 6 plants make it worldwide and when one goes offline the shortages are felt throughout the world.
Might be a bit more difficult than just crude oil
6 plants are allowed to make it. Everyone else thought the licensing fee was too high.
Unless you are referring to natural botanical plants, in which case, Pine Trees and turpentine is a good alternative found. IANAL but it would still need to find a way around the Ibuprofen compound patent.
> 6 plants are allowed to make it. Everyone else thought the licensing fee was too high
What licensing fee? It's an old, generic medicine. Anyone who wanted to set up an Ibuprofen manufacturing plant could do so relatively easily.
The reason more plants aren't coming online is that Ibuprofen is a couple pennies per pill at retail prices. There isn't money in making more ibuprofen.
In what sense? Ibuprofen is a specific chemical compound, crude oil is anything but that - it's a mixture of a huge number of chemicals.
I don't think the pharma industry is a moral exemplar either. But this seems like a simple error that will just distract from your point. Others in the thread have given better examples.
Devil's advocate suggests that a synthetic can be produced the same way every time where a cultured plant might have varying levels of the active compound in the plant. That makes it difficult to prescribe doses. As an example, suggesting a patient take 1 cap and 2 stems will be problematic for accurate dosing.
Conspirator's advocate says that bigPharma has synthesized and patented every active plant compound so that keeping the actual plants scheduled is to their benefit.
as if that's a guaranteed win. The low hanging fruit was to recreate what is already in nature. Creating something brand new never seen before would be a greenfield project that I'm sure most of bigPharma is not a fan of.
I'm not certain I catch your drift - I'm saying the RnD work they did to synthesize COM360 or whatever it's called is probably more expensive than using known means to synthesize/extract psylocibin (as psylocybin was first synthesized in the 50's)
Sounds to me as if you're now suggesting researching a new way to make a synthetic drug where before I read it as researching a new drug nobody has found yet
> This system, bizarre as it is, is your guarantee against the pharmaceutical companies suppressing a promising new natural medication. Your insurance company pays $300 on fish oil, and in exchange you go to sleep at night secure that no one has discovered that potatoes cure cancer but decided to cover it up to protect their bottom line. Good deal? Given the current health system, it’s better than you had any right to expect.
Potatoes aren't on Schedule 1; that makes this situation suck a little more. But probably the alternative scenario is just the treatment remaining illegal forever.
The cat is out of the bag and there’s no defense against that.
There are several open source models with no built in (or trivial to ecape) safeguards. Of course they can afford that because they are non-commercial.
Anthorpic can’t afford a headline like “Claude helped a terrorist build a bomb”.
And this whataboutism is completely meaningless. See: P. A. Luty’s Expedient Homemade Firearms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Luty), or FGC-9 when 3D printing.
It’s trivial to build guns or bombs, and there’s a strong inverse correlation between people wanting to cause mass harm and those willing to learn how to do so.
I’m certain that _everyone_ looking for AI assistance even with your example would be learning about it for academic reasons, sheer curiosity, or would kill themselves in the process.
“What saveguards should LLMs have” is the wrong question. “When aren’t they going to have any?” is an inevitability. Perhaps not in widespread commercial products, but definitely widely-accessible ones.
> There are several open source models with no built in (or trivial to ecape) safeguards.
You are underestimating this. It's almost trivial to remove the safeguards for any open-weight model currently available. I myself (a random nobody) did it a few weeks ago on a recently released model as a weekend side-project. And the tools/techniques to do this are only getting better and easier to use!
Sounds like you're betting everyone's future on that remaing true, and not flipping.
Perhaps it won't flip. Perhaps LLMs will always be worse at this than humans. Perhaps all that code I just got was secretly outsourced to a secret cabal in India who can type faster than I can read.
I would prefer not to make the bet that universities continue to be better at solving problems than LLMs. And not just LLMs: AI have been busy finding new dangerous chemicals since before most people had heard of LLMs.
chances of them surviving the process is zero, same with explosives. If you have to ask you are most likely to kill yourself in the process or achieve something harmless.
Think of it that way. The hard part for nuclear device is enriching thr uranium. If you have it a chimp could build the bomb.
I’d argue that with explosives it’s significantly above zero.
But with bioweapons, yeah, that should be a solid zero. The ones actually doing it off an AI prompt aren't going to have access to a BSL-3 lab (or more importantly, probably know nothing about cross-contamination), and just about everyone who has access to a BSL-3 lab, should already have all the theoretical knowledge they would need for it.
“Material intelligence” appears to mean that the tapering of the whiskers allows for touch localization that’s more precise than would be expected from the whisker density alone. Not that the whiskers are “thinking” in any way that most of us would expect from the title.
I also found it sloppy. The reference for heart transplant patients getting memories from the donor actually says that there are self reported personality changes in 89% of heart transplant patients, which was statistically the same as other organs. So it doesn’t say what the author wants it to say.
The major reason not to do this is that you often get worse outcomes for patients. Oncology provides a lot of examples where “more knowledge” does not lead to better outcomes. Routine ovarian cancer screening, prostate screens, childhood neuronlastoma screens, and breast cancer screens all have shown that overuse will identify more cancer, but do not lead to better outcomes like reduced mortality.
The reasons are complex, but the short answer is that cancer treatment is extremely hard on your body, and even if you don’t treat, stress can literally make you sick. I recommend reading The Emperor of all Maladies if you want to really get a sense for how delicate the problem of early screening is.
I’m married to someone running various prostate cancer studies in the UK. I hear the arguments against screening a lot and the issue really blew up recently in the news here.
The thing is, when researchers talk about “worse outcomes” they’re often comparing survival (or rather lack of) against terrible side-effects.
What this fails entirely to capture is that doing something to increase your odds of survival, damn the consequences, is an individual choice. It shouldn’t be up to a health economist to make that judgement.
But who will pay for the hundreds of thousands of screening MRIs, along with the large number of incidental results that will require some sort of follow-up? Many patients will seek second opinions if not recommended to "cut it out", with additional costs also for the complications resulting from unnecessary biopsies. US medical care is already tremendously expensive; adding all of these costs will break the bank and for no real benefit.
> What this fails entirely to capture is that doing something to increase your odds of survival, damn the consequences, is an individual choice.
What you're failing to capture is that this is a hard problem because it's both an individual choice and a collective one as well. Those "terrible side effects" might actually end up killing someone. You're choosing between a high-chance lottery on a small population or a low chance lottery on a far larger one. It's not that simple.
I appreciate that, but do wonder, if this is an issue with too much data or how we act on that data. In other words, could there be a future where we do have tons more data, but also use the data in such a way to achieve an overall better outcome for patients?
Maybe, but there's a human element that can make things worse too. Take prostate cancer as an example. Most men die with prostate cancer. Most men don't die _from_ prostate cancer. It isn't usually aggressive enough to matter. Most people aren't zen enough to accept that though, so just knowing that you have cancer can add stress to your life with measurably bad health impacts from the resulting hormonal changes (reduced immune function, impaired sleep, increased clotting tendency, slower wound healing, etc).
Ultimately its a balancing act between what we can know and what we can do about it. If you can’t treat a cancer (or your treatment is not effective, cf the radical mastectomy) then knowing who has it doesn’t help. As technology progresses and more cancers become readily treatable, it will make more sense to do early screening, and potentially full body MRIs.
But right now it is likely to cause a huge waste of time, resources, and yes, human lives to know about every little lump in your body.
Then they should decide not to treat certain things and have better criteria around that than choosing to bury their heads in the sand and letting people die out of their ignorance.
This is different—the cost of plastic goes up if fossil fuel consumption goes down because currently it uses a waste stream. Not sure if it’s true, but it’s different than my prior intuition about fossil fuel and plastic.
Exactly - a common understanding of fossil fuels is that we could just "use them for planes and plastics" but there would be an unexpected cost there - because the plastics are basically "free" waste products of processing for other needs.
It's similar to how car heaters work on waste heat from ICE and have to be accounted for in electric cars.
Right on with special relativity—Lorentz also was developing the theory and was a bit sour that Einstein got so much credit. Einstein basically said “what if special relativity were true for all of physics”, not just electromagnetism, and out dropped e=mc^2. It was a bold step but not unexplainable.
As for general relativity, he spent several years working to learn differential geometry (which was well developed mathematics at the time, but looked like abstract nonsense to most physicists). I’m not sure how he was turned on to this theory being applicable to gravity, but my guess is that it was motivated by some symmetry ideas. (It always come down to symmetry.)
If people want to study this, perhaps it makes more sense to do like we used to: don't include the "labels" of relativity into the training set and see if it comes up with it.
Mass AI job displacement is real. The cost of code per engineer is going to go up, even as engineers write 5-10x the code, because AI tools are expensive. The solution is to reduce engineering, and we are seeing that across the board.
Similar things are going to happen in accounting, HR, sales, and other areas. Everyone who is still employed will be more productive, but they will cost more to employ.
No, it's an old phrase. It came from the question, "Was this filmed on a potato?" when someone posted a video of particularly bad quality, as if their phone was a potato.
It wasn’t too long ago either. I mentioned it before in prior comments but due to how MMS works at one major carrier (verizon) they sent picture quality back to pre-smartphone days for a large % of android users.
The quick explainer is phones send a user agent with the request to fetch a media message, this user agent contains a link to a file that describes what the device can handle. Apple and Blackberry hosted these files themselves, Verizon hosted most of the android ones on its network itself. They decommissioned the server hosting them a few years ago which made it so all affected devices pulled the lowest potato quality image down for compatibility. Huge number of complaints.
It's a phrase that's been around for years to mean "poor quality" (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/recorded-with-a-potato). One theory behind the term is that the recording device was so bad/low-tech, it could be powered by a potato battery.
I get that it takes a lot of money to prove the efficacy of drugs. But there should be a better way to open some of these chemicals up and acknowledge the community that has worked hard, often at great personal and reputational risk, to demonstrate that these well-known drugs offer powerful options to treat a range of psychiatric illnesses.
reply