develop nuclear weapons.
As another commenter said already, Canada went through nuclear disarmament in 1984. (The US wasn't pleased.) "Develop" is definitely the wrong word.
Just for your convenience, then, here are all the statistics from the paper:
And just because it's so important to the science, the rest of the results:
When correlating PHs (square root) with GM segmentations, we found a significant negative association in the right striatum, namely caudate nucleus (based on the automated anatomical labeling atlas34; peak voxel: x=11, y=5, z=3; P<.001; corrected for multiple comparisons) (Figure 1A). When we used a lower threshold of P<.005, an additional cluster in the left caudate reached significance (x=6, y=0, z=6), showing that the effect is not clearly lateralized. We refer to the cluster as the striatum; however, for the subsequent discussion, it is noteworthy that the cluster overlaps with a reward processing literature-based probabilistic region of interest of the ventral striatum, created by means of in-house software35 (predominantly monetary-incentive delay task, see eAppendix in Supplement for details).
As for alternative hypotheses, the only one they present is "Individuals with lower striatum volume may need more external stimulation to experience pleasure and might therefore experience pornography consumption as more rewarding, which may in turn lead to higher PHs."
Now that I've had a chance to sit down and read through both the study and a few other things... you're correct, but it's not completely clear-cut, at least in my opinion, that the changes under consideration actually relate to reward-seeking, addict-like behaviour and aren't simply, say, a lack of sexual development due to being single.
They found a variety of different features in their test subjects (actual anatomical differences, differences in activity level within the caudate, differences in interconnectedness between pudamen and caudate...) and saw these were strongly correlated with level of pornography use, on the basis of addiction. However, there were some people in the study who used alcohol in a mildly problematic way. They showed only a r = ~0.25 (weak positive correlation) with porn usage. That strikes me as pretty inconsistent—if these are pathways strongly implicated in addictive behaviour, why didn't the drunks line up more neatly with their data? They don't mention alcoholism again in the discussion, except to draw parallels between porn usage and various forms of drug usage, and to suggest psychiatrists should ask about porn usage.
I guess you missed this article from two days ago, then? (The classic "mystery" in neural nets is how they distribute weights during learning, the answer to which is "rarely better than a human would, and according to the algorithm they train by.") I know you saw this one; you commented on it. Or perhaps you were talking about computer-automated proofs? Those aren't sophisticated, merely long-winded; the result of applying simple propositional logic over and over again.
If we had algorithms that were actually capable of exceeding human comprehension in a meaningful way—and not just outpacing or outlasting us at regression and tree search—the world would be a much different and more exciting place. It is very unlikely we will have AGI until the human brain is almost fully understood, simply because we don't know what direction we really need to be pushing in. Given that there's now evidence that the brain's neurons could be DNA computers, that definitely has a long way to go.
Happiness is twin floppies.