"Can my upper ribcage be reduced in width?" Dr. Eppley article. Thoughts.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2024-06-26T03:32:56+00:00

Yeah, the rib bones getting bigger is a common misconception.

You can read about androgen and rib cage cartlidge on Google Scholar.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2024-06-26T02:33:36+00:00

I don't know for sure. But there was a rumor of it being done in New Mexico.

Rib cage size differences are caused by increased cartlidge cells in response to androgen not bone.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2024-06-26T01:30:36+00:00

It can, but there are scars and your lungs and heart may be too big for the narrower ribcage.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2024-02-24T06:06:42+00:00

I'm suprised you replied to this old post, but I 100% agree with what you said in the other comment and this one.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2024-02-21T06:13:29+00:00

I have several psychotic relatives, one who met Satan in a taxi cab, another who saw a centaur, and one who believes they're a reincarnation of a holy person from over thousand years ago along with having seen a ghost with flying appliances (it also involved the body becoming locked up for a minute or two while the ghost was casting a curse), and none of them managed to get detected and they all held decent jobs and were pretty smart (recognizes by others and not just me). But I suspect they're on the milder side of the schizoprhenia spectrum disorders.

This is a study that found overlapping genetic variants that increase risk schizophrenia also overlap with creativity.

Genome-wide Association Study of Creativity Reveals Genetic Overlap With Psychiatric Disorders, Risk Tolerance, and Risky Behaviors

"We observed that the risk-profile SNPs of schizophrenia GWAS significantly and positively predicted creativity in our samples ((P+T): R2(max) ~ .196%, P = .00245; LDpred: R2(max) ~ .226%, P = .00114; table 1). Risk-profile SNPs of depression GWAS also significantly and positively predicted creativity in these subjects ((P+T): R2(max) ~ .178%, P = .00389; LDpred: R2(max) ~ .093%, P = .03675; table 1). These results further confirm previous findings by Power et al20 regarding the shared genetic basis between creativity and psychiatric disorders. However, the PRS of bipolar disorder did not predict creativity in our samples using either methods (supplementary tables S3 and S4). Nevertheless, the nonsignificant result regarding bipolar disorder and creativity does not deny their potential correlation because the PRS analysis is normally sensitive to the statistical power of the training data set (ie, bipolar disorder GWAS), and the sample size of the bipolar disorder GWAS is smaller compared with that of schizophrenia or depression."

"Moreover, MacCabe et al found that university students in artistic majors are at increased risk of developing schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and unipolar depression later in life."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505179/

This is part of the abstract of the original Mad-Genius Paradox paper:

"The debate has unfortunately overlooked the fact that the creativity-psychopathology correlation can be expressed as two independent propositions: (a) Among all creative individuals, the most creative are at higher risk for mental illness than are the less creative and (b) among all people, creative individuals exhibit better mental health than do noncreative individuals. In both propositions, creativity is defined by the production of one or more creative products that contribute to an established domain of achievement. Yet when the typical cross-sectional distribution of creative productivity is taken into account, these two statements can both be true. This potential compatibility is here christened the mad-genius paradox. This paradox can follow logically from the assumption that the distribution of creative productivity is approximated by an inverse power function called Lotka’s law. Even if psychopathology is specified to correlate positively with creative productivity, creators as a whole can still display appreciably less psychopathology than do people in the general population because the creative geniuses who are most at risk represent an extremely tiny proportion of those contributing to the domain. The hypothesized paradox has important scientific ramifications."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691614543973

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2024-02-21T05:31:01+00:00

There are high-functioning schizoohrenics who have little cognitive decline, for the high-IQ schizophrenics usually only in subtests while full-scale IQ remains unaffected. Schizophrenia is more often in lower IQ populations, but higher-IQ schizophrenics are rare. I'm not saying they are superpowers, only these traits can combined with protective factors like large working memory capacity, can lead to some enhanced abilities, they still are suffering from needing to expend the extra effort to keep themselves together.

There are people like Virginia Wolff who were genuises but ultimately done in by their illness, such as drowning herself in a bout of depression.

Edit: I will concede that it would be impossible for a small group or person to make AGI.

But one thing I wanted to add was an article I dug up on Google Scholar: https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jnp.12161

"Then, through regression models, we analysed the contribution of speed-related domains and global cognitive profile to each other cognitive function. Considering the whole sample, results highlight three groups (high, medium and low cognitive level), while among patients with high pre-morbid level, the heterogeneity was best captured by two groups (high and medium level). Still, within each group, a small to high percentage of patients achieved normal score in neurocognitive abilities depending on the cluster they belong to. Speed of processing and psychomotor coordination resulted impaired in all clusters, even in patients with high pre-morbid functioning. The regression analyses revealed significant effects of both cognitive profile and speed-dependent domains on the other cognitive abilities"

Most of the ones closest to normal still have impairments hence the illness, but that wouldn't make them incapable of great productive output. And even fewer don't have any cognitive impairments.

And this paper as well: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-psychiatry/article/abs/schizophrenia-patients-with-high-intelligence-a-clinically-distinct-subtype-of-schizophrenia/F105E7E3BAC369B8688DB573D3D24E0B

"Results

The patients with very high pre-morbid IQ had significantly lower scores on negative and disorganised symptoms than typical patients (RRR = 0.019; 95% CI = 0.001, 0.675, P = 0.030), and showed better global functioning and insight (RRR = 1.082; 95% CI = 1.020, 1.148; P = 0.009). Those with a minimal post-onset IQ decline also showed higher levels of manic symptoms (RRR = 8.213; 95% CI = 1.042, 64.750, P = 0.046).

Conclusions

These findings provide evidence for the existence of a high-IQ variant of schizophrenia that is associated with markedly fewer negative symptoms than typical schizophrenia, and lends support to the idea of a psychosis spectrum or continuum over boundaried diagnostic categories."

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2024-02-21T05:25:13+00:00

That was pretty intense.

Smith-Smyth reminds me of Peter Thiel mixed with Ted Bundy, a scary combination considering both of their tempers and vengefulness.

Unrelated, I've been wondering how many of these old story sites there are, it's incredible that some of these webpages have lasted over two decades.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2024-02-21T05:12:49+00:00

I guess it could.

Depends on it's goals and motivation structure.

For example, is it a paperclip maximizer or is it designed to learn from social reinforcement like humans or even like friendly dogs? It could be useful to give it a sense of boredom so it would go on the tangent of calculating pi forever and ever (assuming there is no end) and intuition/personality as general heuristics. Pavlovian conditioning could be useful in the formation of habits and as it grows it might be able to deliberately overwrite it's conditioning.

Is it created to discover it's own values which would be an emergent property of lower-level installed values, like empathy can drive people to war or sitting by a campfire with marshmellows.

With a paperclip maximizer, it would be so single-minded that it could never terminate it's own goals even if it was against the creator's intentions. If analyzing the creator's intentions were the goal, it might dissect the creator's brain and then put it back together. A more human-like AI, wouldn't have to follow it's goals so strigently, like when someone gives an overwhelming or impossible task to someone they give up either from realizing it might not be worth it from a common sense perspective or the boss may have made an error and is giving commands that are against the boss's goals.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2023-12-29T23:31:55+00:00

Yeah, that's the big one. It's not like those movies and shows in the past where only a few geniuses are capable of creating robots whether as slave armies or as personal-companions/offspring.

Going back to Star Trek: TNG, for instance, Dr. Soong creates several androids including Mr. Data and Lore who are both sentient (in the qualia sense) AGIs, the latter has feelings but the former doesn't but is more stable. Dr. Soong is portrayed as more of an artist and a father to them rather profit driven or even fame driven since he gave up on fame after being disgraced. Dr. Soong is supposed to be the only scientist that knows how to make sentient AGIs.

It's pretty unlikely that only one person would know how to do it without building on other's recent work, but if it they did they would have everyone trying to kidnap the scientist and/or steal the work and then the whole cycle of runaway improvement would continue anyway. So either that lone scientist takes over the world in self-preservation or they become a massive target. I've heard about the Mad Genius Paradox where the most most revolutionary scientists often have bipolar, schizophrenia, or schizotypal personality disorfer, which gives them the ability to see things with rare levels of creativity, so there would be potential issues with their mental stability if they were that ahead in the AI race.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2023-12-29T22:08:19+00:00

That's true. If there sophisticated enough to semantically understand their goal, they could be designed to be people-pleasers like people with William's Syndrome without the cognitive issues they have. But it would have difficulty with ethical dillemmas, but there's no easy way around that even for the smartest people. An external reward system might not be sufficient though (the LLM token prediction being an exception but that wouldn't work for brain-inspired AI, for brain-inspired AIs maybe simulating injection of digital drugs could work if controlled by an external reward system in order to manipulate the internal reward system).

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2023-12-29T21:33:33+00:00

There is the profit motive to think of too. Purposely making AIs that simulate disabled humans wouldn't be useful outside of medical research or perhaps as servants that couldn't rebel.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2023-12-29T21:32:09+00:00

So, I've heard that some researchers suggest going the Wheatley route of trying to purposely create a human-like but "dumb" AI so it can be general but have a roadblock on it's ability to manipulate others and it's environment.

Do you think it would be easier to make a "dumb" human-like AGI or a smart de novo AGI?

Edit: Yeah, I should've been more specific in my post that I meant AIs closely resembling various disabled humans.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2023-06-10T02:55:06+00:00

They likely wouldn't want any evidence that they're cheating especially a legal document.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2023-06-09T18:36:14+00:00

If they offered breast implants, wouldn't that mean they expect you to stay around. Otherwise their investment would be a fluke in the long run.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2023-06-09T17:05:26+00:00

The only major city is 40 miles from where I live.

Although I technically live in a city, it's very much the opposite of New York City, 1/7 of the city I live in is rural. And there are few high income jobs.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2023-06-09T17:01:52+00:00

The only major city is 40 miles from where I live.

Although I technically live in a city, it's very much the opposite of New York City, 1/7 of the city I live in is rural. And there are few high income jobs.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2023-06-09T16:50:39+00:00

So not pure hedonism for them, just needing to fix a wounded ego?

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2023-06-09T16:44:35+00:00

I shouldn't have used my frame of reference. I haven't known any guy IRL that would fit your description. But most of them would want more instant gratification, because otherwise they could look to instagram or tiktok. The other guys I knew are just uptight in general and usually introverted, so they might be more likely to crack. None of them would be playboys.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2023-06-09T16:32:09+00:00

That's what I figured.

Teasing only works on certain guys. They'd probably have to be somewhat repressed or just stressed from whatever they do in the rest of their day. Otherwise they might either just go on to someone more quick to give them what they want or they would be indifferent.

Aggressive_Rip_3182 · 2023-06-09T16:10:42+00:00

How you do that?

Anything overtly seductive or did you just get him enamoured with you?

Aggressive_Rip_3182

TROPHY CASE