I don’t like that “knowing about AI” is linked with knowing about AI execs. They don’t know shit. They think smoking is cool again. There’s a senior dev somewhere who hasn’t seen sunlight this week, I want to hear what they have to say.
40% of women feels like not a huge amount less? Happy for y’all to score the point, don’t get me wrong. It just feels like the headline is looking to stoke gender divisions more than point out that a good near-half of everybody is bluffing.
Fixed a statement in the article: “[people] will pretend to know stuff about [anything] even if they have absolutely zero clue…”
Besides pretending they were knowledgeable, men were also more optimistic about AI, the survey showed — while women were more concerned and worried. Ignorance, as they say, is bliss.
Lol, it’s definitely stoking gender divisions I would say.
I hate that shit so much, it’s just bigotry but woke™
Don’t get what is woke about it
The article reminded me of the category of people who are nominally progressive, or woke, but reenact the same bigotries as before from a different direction. You see this with how misandrist a lot of terfs are.
Edit: for clarity, the way the article repeatedly jabs at men reminds me of the inverse way women are treated by mysoginistic writers
You see this with how misandrist a lot of terfs are.
TERFs are usually rather misogynistic and lean into patriarchal norms for their exclusion of trans people.
Adhering to strict gender norms is a product of the patriarchy.
TERFS hate trans women because they view them as men. This is a view directly tied to the patriarchy.
I do think it’s worth distinguishing from the run-of-the-mill transphobe and the TERF. Both exist wherever you go, but the latter is notoriously much more common in TERF Island, while the orange fascist’s state has more regular bigots. And not just because there’s one prominent example from said island.
You’ll find that if the concept of trans people never comes up, most TERFs will genuinely come across as progressive on gender issues. They’ll be, for example, the kind of person who runs a YouTube channel about swords and showing how women are very capable of learning to fight with them. (Sadly not a hypothetical.) They obviously carry somegender essentialism—that’s basically a prerequisite to transphobia—but they often apply it much more narrowly than the average transphobe.
Fair correction, the point I was mostly trying to make was that I call it woke bigotry because terfs pretend to be feminist, the same way those racist black people in the US pretend to be anti-racist.
Yeah, I guess so. Misandry and misogyny aren’t exact inverses of each other, same as internalized racism isn’t quite the same as say a white man being racist would be.
Looking beyond the headline shows more interesting breakdowns along gender lines when it comes to AI:
Researchers found that men use AI more frequently and are, on average, better able to correctly answer factual questions about AI. But men and women answer questions incorrectly at around the same rate. The discrepancy is based on how often women said they weren’t sure of an answer—an average of 3.3 questions out of 12 compared to 2.3 questions for men.
Across a year of media coverage, men were named in headlines about AI more than 14 times as often as women. Because top AI executives skew heavily male, researchers decided to reexamine coverage, looking solely at people who were quoted as subject experts. Three-quarters of these experts were men—a higher proportion than the actual AI talent pool, which is roughly 29 percent women.
Three-quarters of these experts were men—a higher proportion than the actual AI talent pool, which is roughly 29 percent women.
They make the reader do the math here, because 25% vs 29% is not statistically significant.
the actual AI talent pool, which is roughly 29 percent women.
Curious how this was measured.
The Wired article goes into detail about the study where these numbers are pulled from.
It just feels like the headline is looking to stoke gender divisions
You sound like a conservative complaining about racism. They make the same argument; argue the tone, not the point. Which is weird for conservatives and men to take the “this might hurt someone’s feelings” strategy of discourse.
That is the diagonal opposite of my point, sorry no.
Kinda fun how you wanted to call out an overemphasis on tone but the only thing you’re noticing is what I sound like. I’ll try to be clearer next time, I can be slightly cryptic.
You’re assumption about their point is grossly mistaken.
Just feels like a sexist hit piece
Because it is.
The Wired article that is paraphrased/AI slopped to get to the posted Futurism article.
There are enough problems in the world and AI is so much of it that bringing gender into the conversation feels contrived. What is the point of saying “Men bad” here?
Ai AND gender in 2026?! = clicks and ad revenue! 🎇
53% vs 40% is a pretty striking difference, should we ignore that?
Would the survey have been better if the organizers had collected zero demographic information on respondents, instead of “bringing gender into the conversation?”
I must have missed the part where they said “men bad.” Isn’t that a conclusion you’re drawing?
I realized a while back I do this. If someone’s ask me if I know or have heard of someone, even if I don’t, I’ll squint and go “Hmm, ya, I think I heard the name”.
I never have, it’s more to keep the conversation going since I expect them to tell me, but it did strike me as a petty and silly thing to do when I realized I was doing it. Just can’t admit to not being knowledgeable, gotta just stay vague about it and pretend. Bad habit.
Yeah those names are mashups of real people’s names who appear in these contexts, e.g. Yuri Milner. I probably would have said “name rings a bell” to both of the made-up ones. They really do and were maybe engineered to.
Same here. Thankfully it’s a very long time ago. Since then I immediately ask: »Should I?«
Average man is so brainwashed by capitalist media that he thinks “AI” executives are worth knowing.
The actual underlying problem is capitalist media constantly platforming and privileging capitalists. I wouldn’t expect harvard to talk about that.
Same guys will explain machine learning after reading one headline, call themselves thought leaders, and get promoted for being loudly wrong in a blazer. … The hallucinations were human first.
Are those hallucinations or just straight up lies?
Hallucinations need medical intervention if they’re severe
Lies need legal intervention if they’re severe
Part of living in 1984 is getting used to Newspeak and understanding that people will do anything but call a lie “a lie”.
People are confidently incorrect about things all the time.
LLMs generally don’t create anything new; they just amplify and sometimes clarify the inputs.
It’s not a hallucination if the source knows it’s untrue, lol
I have actually met Chad GPT he is a pretty cool guy and a visionary CEO
Same with Claude Mythos. Helluva golfer.
