Where do persons get their software from? The environment. Observing how their parents/family/etc interact.
I think it's fair to say that communication matters and that communication & experiences will have an affect on peoples perceptions.
Hypothetical situation.
Take two dogs from the same litter.
Raise one with love and kindness. Play with it. Socialize with it.
Then take the other one and neglect and abuse the hell out of it.
Which dog do you think will show signs of depression?
Still think it's clearly just a hardware issue?
Although... has anyone tried quantizing schizophrenia?
It may be significant with respect to a specific implementation. Do you mean to imply that the current crop of LLMs hallucinate only due to some flaw in the hardware they run on?
ref : The Universe is Hostile to Computers
Regardless schizophrenic individuals probably would do better with being treated with kindness, respect, compassion, and love than with derision and rejection. At least observational that has been my experience.
> McFarlane believes that psychosis can be prevented with a range of surprisingly low-tech interventions, almost all of which are designed to reduce stress in the family of the young person who is starting to show symptoms.
> McFarlane cites research done at UCLA suggesting that certain kinds of family dynamics — families that don't communicate well, or are overly critical — can make things worse for a young person at risk of schizophrenia.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/10/20/3566400...
Seriously, can you not just comprehend that it’s a complex issue and there is no singular source you can blame? If your kid committed suicide should I levy child abuse charges against you? And where does someone “learn” depression or schizophrenia anyway, especially if their parents are not acting the same way?
rolled 0.6 on hardware + 0.4 on software = 1.0
rolled 0.4 on hw + 0.6 on sw = 1.0
rolled 0 on both = 0.0 = maximum depression
rolled 1 on both = 2.0 = golden retriever with good owner
Source? Wikipedia says:
>A central point of debate on GWA studies has been that most of the SNP variations found by GWA studies are associated with only a small increased risk of the disease, and have only a small predictive value. The median odds ratio is 1.33 per risk-SNP, with only a few showing odds ratios above 3.0.[1][46] These magnitudes are considered small because they do not explain much of the heritable variation. This heritable variation is estimated from heritability studies based on monozygotic twins.[47] For example, it is known that 40% of variance in depression can be explained by hereditary differences, but GWA studies only account for a minority of this variance.[47]
which admittedly isn't airtight proof for "depression is 100% genetic!!1", but isn't exactly "just aren't finding anything" either.
There are certain types of schizophrenia that are highly heritable and others that are more sporadic. Highly pathogenic variants tend to be very rare because those regions of the genome are under evolutionary constraint.
GWAS are used is to figure out which genes may be involved in the pathology. So we are essentially looking at rare cases of inherited disease to figure out which genes might play a role in more common non inherited versions.