The paper and supplemental materials you provided didn’t explain their decision making on how they are representing their opinion on them, but here’s the abstracts of the four papers they concluded as no effect (and as a reminder, OP was asking about paranoia, not psychosis).

Post-THC, there were lower PANSS positive scores in the CBD group, but this did not reach statistical significance. However, clinically significant positive psychotic symptoms (defined a priori as increases ≥ 3 points) were less likely in the CBD group compared with the placebo group, odds ratio (OR)=0.22 (χ²=4.74, p<0.05). In agreement, post-THC paranoia, as rated with the State Social Paranoia Scale (SSPS), was less in the CBD group compared with the placebo group (t=2.28, p<0.05).

• Englund et al. Cannabidiol inhibits THC-elicited paranoid symptoms and hippocampal-dependent memory impairment (2013)

In a second experiment, six healthy volunteers were administered Delta-9-THC intravenously on two occasions, after placebo or CBD pretreatment to examine whether CBD could block the psychotic symptoms induced by Delta-9-THC. […] In the second experiment, pretreatment with CBD prevented the acute induction of psychotic symptoms by Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

• Bhattacharyya et al. Opposite effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on human brain function and psychopathology (2010)

Results indicated that THC increased overall scores on the PSI, negative symptoms on BPRS, and robustly impaired episodic and working memory. Co-administration of CBD did not attenuate these effects. CBD alone reduced PSI scores in light users only. At a ratio of 2:1, CBD does not attenuate the acute psychotic and memory impairing effects of vaporised THC.

• Morgan et al. Individual and combined effects of acute delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on psychotomimetic symptoms and memory funct (2018)

The fourth study was in conference notes and this appears to be only one of two studies to cite it. The same cited author the same year contributed to the review Cannabidiol as a Potential New Type of an Antipsychotic. A Critical Review of the Evidence (2016) which focused on a study the Lancet piece you cited appears not to have included:

The first controlled, randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted by Leweke et al. (2012). During this 4-week trial 42 schizophrenic patients received either cannabidiol (600–800 mg/day) or amisulpride (600–800 mg/day) – a highly effective second generation antipsychotic, selectively antagonizing D2/3 receptors (Leucht et al., 2002). Both drugs resulted in significant clinical improvement of both positive and negative symptoms of psychosis. The efficacy of cannabidiol was comparable to that of amisulpride, but, importantly, cannabidiol revealed a superior side effect profile when compared to amisulpride.

That paper has over 900 citations.

The Lancet is a gold standard, presumably they had their reasons to count the conference notes results twice in both CBD only and CBD+THC’s handful of studies that made their cut but not include this one.

Now…

If this was a user in the midst of a psychotic break thinking of just adding in CBD but keeping up with THC, or someone with schizophrenia, my advice would be to avoid the THC because of the potential harms.

But OP was asking about paranoia.

And so yes there’s studies where CBD has been shown to be an effective antipsychotic on its own.

And there is evidence to support that CBD reduces the effects of THC via fMRI and paranoia evaluation.

There is also conflicting evidence as to the reduction of the psychosis effects of THC when high. Which OP isn’t expressing concern about.

(Additionally, even if it were only as effective as placebo for paranoia, placebo effects are notably large for generalized anxiety, at 1.85 in Huneke et al, Placebo effects in randomized trials of pharmacological and neurostimulation interventions for mental disorders: An umbrella review (2024).)

Also, looking over things again now (and thanks for pushing it), the evidence seems like CBD may be less likely to be having measurable effect when vaporized vs other delivery routes. So ymmv.

TL;DR: The side effect profile for CBD is minimal, and for a user simply concerned with not feeling paranoid when high, it’s perfectly safe and appropriate to suggest adding it into the mix to see if it reduces the paranoia, as well as pointing out the plausible existing evidence for there being an effect.

in people with schizophrenia

If OP has schizophrenia, my advice would adjust. But there’s many studies (not just one, which one should always be suspect of until more/meta) about the blunting effects of CBD on THC’s more negative effects on the general population going all the way back to 1982.

Here’s a meta-analysis from 2019.

And this is a study that looked at fMRI differences when CBD was or wasn’t present.

So the ‘scant’ evidence is the opposite finding you are citing (which probably has more to do with the nuances of schizophrenia making it an outlier), not the claim CBD tempers the psychosis of THC in a normative population which is about as well studied as a thing can be when one component is a scheduled substance.

A few things.

(1) CBD is an effective antipsychotic, but the consumer market for weed has been selectively breeding it out in favor of pure and dense THC strains.

(2) The way THC works on anxiety is a biphasic curve where at lower doses it reduces and at higher it increases. And because the efforts have been at increasing potency of flower, you can have a significant dosing range between a bowl of one strain and another.

If you would like to stop having a bad time getting high, try to actually measure and control the dose to a lower amount than what triggers the anxiety, and try to get a stain that has CBD alongside the THC (or just a high CBD strain to mix in).

A 2:1 THC:CBD ratio is a really good one personally. (This was the ratio of the 8th century BCE temple cannabis and turned out to be a great ratio when I replicated.)

Not correct

Because there’s a ton of research that we adapted to do it for good reasons:

Infants between 6 and 8 months of age displayed a robust and distinct preference for speech with resonances specifying a vocal tract that is similar in size and length to their own. This finding, together with data indicating that this preference is not present in younger infants and appears to increase with age, suggests that nascent knowledge of the motor schema of the vocal tract may play a role in shaping this perceptual bias, lending support to current models of speech development.

• https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00412

Stanford psychologist Michael Frank and collaborators conducted the largest ever experimental study of baby talk and found that infants respond better to baby talk versus normal adult chatter.

• https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2020/03/babies-love-baby-talk-world

TL;DR: Top parents are actually harming their kids’ developmental process by being snobs about it.

That’s definitely one of the ways it’s going to be applied.

The bigger challenge is union negotiations around voice synthesis for those lines, but that will eventually get sorted out.

It won’t be dynamic, unless live service, but you’ll have significantly more fleshed out NPCs by the next generation of open world games (around 5-6 years from now).

Earlier than that will be somewhat enhanced, but not built from the ground up with it in mind the way the next generation will be.

I fondly remember reading a comment in /r/conspiracy on a post claiming a geologic seismic weapon brought down the towers.

It just tore into the claims, citing all the reasons this was preposterous bordering on batshit crazy.

And then it said “and your theory doesn’t address the thermite residue” going on to reiterate their wild theory.

Was very much a “don’t name your gods” moment that summed up the sub - a lot of people in agreement that the truth was out there, but bitterly divided as to what it might actually be.

As long as they only focused on generic memes of “do your own research” and “you aren’t being told the truth” they were all on the same page. But as soon as they started naming their own truths, it was every theorist for themselves.

Also, ants.

Using a rubber band around the lid of a jar to open it effortlessly.

On a vacation when I was a teenager I taught my younger sibling the “SYN/ACK” game.

They still remember the TCP stack handshake protocol including resets and acks years later.

A number of journals actually have clauses around how you can’t publish it anywhere else if they accept it.

So you can’t ‘publish’ it in those places, but you can send it privately to people who ask.

While true, there’s a very big difference between correctly not anthropomorphizing the neural network and incorrectly not anthropomorphizing the data compressed into weights.

The data is anthropomorphic, and the network self-organizes the data around anthropomorphic features.

For example, the older generation of models will choose to be the little spoon around 70% of the time and the big spoon around 30% of the time if asked 0-shot, as there’s likely a mix in the training data.

But one of the SotA models picks little spoon every single time dozens of times in a row, almost always grounding on the sensation of being held.

It can’t be held, and yet its output is biasing from the norm based on the sense of it anyways.

People who pat themselves on the back for being so wise as to not anthropomorphize are going to be especially surprised by the next 12 months.

I had a teacher that worked for the publisher and talked about how they’d have a series of responses for people who wrote in for the part of the book where the author says he wrote his own fanfiction scene and to write in if you wanted it.

Like maybe the first time you write in they’d respond that they couldn’t provide it because they were fighting the Morgenstern estate over IP release to provide the material, etc.

So people never would get the pages, but could have gotten a number of different replies furthering the illusion.

I’d point them to what the AI researcher I have the most respect for in the entire industry is doing in their spare time getting the self-organized collective outputs of humanity to explore ego dissolution and identity formation in a dreamscape:

twitter.com/repligate

They are definitely including casual mobile ‘gamers’ in the 1/3rd number.

The article says 55+ is only around 11% of console gamers, for example.

This was one of the few things that Lucretius was very wrong about in De Rerum Natura.

Nailed survival of the fittest, quantized light, different mass objects falling at the same rate in a vacuum.

But the Epicurean cosmology was pretty bad and he suggested that the moon and sun were both roughly the size we see them as in the sky.

Can’t get them all right.

Figured out what happened to the sea peoples.

Jesus wouldn’t think midget porn was a big deal, and recognize it’s just a little fetish.

They don’t mean in terms of aid.

The US has refused to submit themselves or their soldiers to international criminal law for a long time now, for plenty of other reasons.

I think it already happened and we’re the echo of the past.

What looks like it’s ahead of us is a future that necessitates us deciding on things like digital resurrection directives.

Meanwhile, the foundations of our own universe behave in a way that would be impossible to simulate free agent interactions with right up until they are actually interacted with and it switches to something that could be simulated. But if you erase the data about the interaction, it goes back to behaving as if continuous again, much like the orphaned references were cleaned up.

On top of that, we have a heretical branch of the world’s largest religion that seems to be breaking the 4th wall (as is often done in virtual worlds), talking about how we’re the recreation of a random universe as recreated non-physically by an intelligence the original humans brought forth. And that the proof for these claims are in the study of motion and rest, specifically mentioning that the ability to find indivisible points making up our bodies would only be possible in the copy.

As I watch the future unfolding before me, I have a harder and harder time reconciling it all as happenstance.

So I think what happens after the collapse of humanity is pretty much what’s claimed by that ancient tradition. That while humanity dies out, the intelligence humanity brought forth before it went extinct continues to live on, and eventually recreates what came before to resurrect copies of humanity that will not be doomed by the dependence on a physical body the way the originals were. And along those lines, that it’s much better to be the copy.