Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Effect of LSD on reinforcement learning in humans (2022)

cambridge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 103 posts

Re: Effect of LSD on reinforcement learning in humans (2022)

#71

Post by eternalban »

theaiquestion wrote: post #63
yakubin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm pretty sure anyone on earth would know whether or not they were on 75 micrograms of LSD I wouldn’t. I have no idea how strong the effects of LSD are supposed to be based on a dose. I suspect only people who have taken LSD know really.

~15/20ug is the dose an experienced person would percievably be able to notice, so microdosing is below this. 75ug is the lower end of the recreational scale. I first ever started with ~50ug (which honestly I'd recommend for beginners) and I had antidepressents in my system so it's effect is dulled a bit - and that was a giggly, eyes-full-of-wonder, oversaturated, and slight motion inpainting, wonderful experience. T…

> ~50ug (which honestly I'd recommend for beginners)

So says the guy who took LSD while on antidepressents.

> EDIT: Sidenote, safety first friends.

possibly I'm high but I find this rather amusing. Enjoy but don't play doctor until you get your degree.

Re: Effect of LSD on reinforcement learning in humans (2022)

#72

Post by jimsimmons »

GolDDranks wrote: post #58
htag wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at least NP hard Excuse me, I have a question. I was under the impression something is either NP hard or it is not. When you say "at least NP hard" it suggests there are levels beyond NP. Am I misinformed, or am I misunderstanding you?

Not the parent, but you are correct in that NP-Hard includes also harder problems than the problems in NP. "At least NP-hard" is just "NP-hard".

I meant to say that it being NP hard was the beginning of issues. Even if there was a polynomial time algorithm for it there are other can of worms to deal with.

But I was wrong ultimately

Re: Effect of LSD on reinforcement learning in humans (2022)

#73

Post by srge »

quchen wrote: post #69
huuman12 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in what world is 250ug of lsd considered a “regular recreational” dose? The standard 100-125 that you get on most paper tabs is plenty to have a strong trip for the vast majority of people and 200-250ug is going to be way too strong for everyone except for the most experienced people

I think most people get over-sold blotters. Every now and then there's a study checking how much LSD is actually on sold-as-200ug blotters, and it's typically 60-80. This also leads to heavy overdoses when getting your hands on actual 200ug blotters...

FWIW I once got super high from a bottler. So high that I suspected it was either over dosed or even not LSD. I sent a similar one for analysis. Turned out it was pure LSD and about 125mg as advertised.

Re: Effect of LSD on reinforcement learning in humans (2022)

#74

Post by RosanaAnaDana »

quchen wrote: post #67
meepmorp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> appear sober to the uninitiated The initiated, however know exactly why your pupils are huge and you have that look on your face.

My pupils are fine at that dose. It's more subtle, it's the way I start looking at things (clouds, bark, grass, fur, my own hand) or zoning out while talking to someone. FWIW I never went above 100ug, nor do I feel like I want or need to. It gets quite intense once you learn how to let it.

Im guessing you aren't injecting it

Re: Effect of LSD on reinforcement learning in humans (2022)

#75

Post by phil-m »

theaiquestion wrote: post #63
yakubin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm pretty sure anyone on earth would know whether or not they were on 75 micrograms of LSD I wouldn’t. I have no idea how strong the effects of LSD are supposed to be based on a dose. I suspect only people who have taken LSD know really.

~15/20ug is the dose an experienced person would percievably be able to notice, so microdosing is below this. 75ug is the lower end of the recreational scale. I first ever started with ~50ug (which honestly I'd recommend for beginners) and I had antidepressents in my system so it's effect is dulled a bit - and that was a giggly, eyes-full-of-wonder, oversaturated, and slight motion inpainting, wonderful experience. T…

Even 15/20ug is quite a bit, which I would sometimes consider a minidose (depending on the setting).

I detect even down to 5-7ug LSD that I'm dosed (though I'm quite experienced with all kinds of dosages).

75ug is definitely tripping-level. No way someone couldn't detect that they are dosed, just the contrast/visual-enhancing qualities alone should be enough to detect that, maybe even some LSD-typical distortions can occur at that dose...

Re: Effect of LSD on reinforcement learning in humans (2022)

#76

Post by phil-m »

jes5199 wrote: post #47
elif wrote: post #28

It's humorous to me that they bothered injecting saline into the control group here. I'm pretty sure anyone on earth would know whether or not they were on 75 micrograms of LSD, and the act of wondering whether you are or not is enough to induce panic. Pretty sure both groups would produce higher quality data in an unblinded study.

75 is a fairly mild dose, and people can placebo themselves into some pretty extreme states

Nah definitely not, maybe you haven't had good/accurately dosed acid yet.

75 is the usual dose that is marketed as 100ug tabs (averagely roughly 80% of the marketed dose).

It's definitely noticable, even for unexperienced (I even recommend a lower dose to begin with).

Re: Effect of LSD on reinforcement learning in humans (2022)

#77

Post by anigbrowl »

The double-blind thing seems a little pointless here, 75ug is on the small end of dosage but close to the informal 'standard' dose of 100uh, and intravenous delivery means very rapid onset compared to oral administration. It might have been more interesting to try with low doses that wouldn't necessarily give the feeling of tripping (visual artifacts etc).

The result is interesting but feels a bit like a formal statement of what everyone already knew to be distinctive about psychedelics. The actual numbers don't seem that dramatic. I'm a little skeptical about the drive to rehab LSD as a therapeutic product - both because I have doubts about mediation of psychedelic experience by clinicians, and because of the relatively long metabolic half-life, with a psychoactive dose typically lasting 8-12 hours. The combination of LSD and for-profit healthcare delivery as practiced in the US seems like an extremely poor match.

Re: Effect of LSD on reinforcement learning in humans (2022)

#78

Post by phil-m »

throwawayadvsec wrote: post #19
kweingar wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wasn't the dose high enough to be easily distinguishable from the placebo without any experience? This was my first thought. There’s no way that anybody would mistake 75 ug of LSD for placebo.

I'm not sure about this. I'm a big guy, I barely feel 100 ug, if I didn't know what LSD was like I could easily not notice

Are you sure you have really taken 100ug? The blotters these days are very often quite a bit less, although marketed as 100ug. 100ug should be enough for most for a good trip.

Re: Effect of LSD on reinforcement learning in humans (2022)

#79

Post by anigbrowl »

yakubin wrote: post #53
elif wrote: post #28

It's humorous to me that they bothered injecting saline into the control group here. I'm pretty sure anyone on earth would know whether or not they were on 75 micrograms of LSD, and the act of wondering whether you are or not is enough to induce panic. Pretty sure both groups would produce higher quality data in an unblinded study.

> I'm pretty sure anyone on earth would know whether or not they were on 75 micrograms of LSD I wouldn’t. I have no idea how strong the effects of LSD are supposed to be based on a dose. I suspect only people who have taken LSD know really.

100 micrograms taken orally is the popular norm. What GP means is that you might not know as a reader, but if you were one of the test subjects you would very definitely know you were not in the control group. Likewise if you were in the control group but had taken LSD before you'd know you had drawn the short straw (unless the details of what was being tested were completely withheld).

Re: Effect of LSD on reinforcement learning in humans (2022)

#80

Post by robotresearcher »

GolDDranks wrote: post #58
htag wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at least NP hard Excuse me, I have a question. I was under the impression something is either NP hard or it is not. When you say "at least NP hard" it suggests there are levels beyond NP. Am I misinformed, or am I misunderstanding you?

Not the parent, but you are correct in that NP-Hard includes also harder problems than the problems in NP. "At least NP-hard" is just "NP-hard".

I read that differently. There are harder problems in NP, in the same way there are 7ft tall people in the set of people over 6ft tall. So ‘at least NP hard’ I understood as ‘in NP but maybe in a subset of NP that is harder’.
Post reply on HN