https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/08/21/why-dont-women-use-artificial-intelligence
Even when in the same jobs, men are much more likely to turn to the tech
The funniest line from social media:
"Maybe it's because we don't need a computer to automate mansplaining when there's already an excess supply produced by men," answers one woman.
I am guessing a major factor is that a lot of industries, women often have to prove themselves to be as skilled as or more skilled than their male counterparts due to entrenched patriarchal structures. If you regularly have to prove you know how to code, you're probably a lot less likely to rely on ChatGPT to do it for you.
I am having difficulty following this line of reasoning, can you please help clarify? Why would being forced to prove your worth dissuade you from using a productivity tool? Are you implying women likely don't have access to use it at all, or they don't trust the output because the stakes are too high?
The issue here is that you consider it a productivity tool whereas misogynistic managers consider it a way for women to cheat.
I guess given your response, you are asserting their managers are gatekeeping access? Do you have personal experience in that regard?
I ask because we have made a massive, and frankly dumb, push to get everyone and their mother to use ChatGPT at work, from C level down to the call centers. Our metrics show around %60 of queries come from male employees, despite only %30 of our global staff being male. Given that communications and access were given to all employees via the same global communications channels, we attributed that to more men being willing to try gimmicky new software than women, but I wonder if something else is at play...
Honestly I can see it. Working in male dominated workplaces for so long (I am trans but they didn't know that) taking any kind of physical or procedural shortcut, or ask for help even if it was common practice would cause my coworkers to assume that I couldn't do it things the regular way or make them treat me as less competent even if I had done it alone or the more physically demanding way where they could see at some point in the past.
The general assumption of guys is that women are less capable and they don't change their minds easily. There's a big difference between regular competence and the sort of self protective over performance of competence which is nessisary to get a lot of cis guys to actually realize their assumptions are bullshit and to stop treating women like they are precocious children.
Usually doing one big thing that shatters their preconceptions does the trick. I once, in frustration at being treated like a china doll demonstrated I could lift a 200 lbs coworker and walk the length of the warehouse with him on my back. But doing that only creates me as an "exception to the rule" and they will resume that behaviour with all of my female coworkers.
If you aren't given a chance to prove yourself capable in one big flashy way that gets the guys to shut up it can cause all manner of disordered overwork practice as you have to constantly perform for an audience of the disbelieving in small ways and hope they figure it out that they are being assholes.
No, not explicitly gate keeping access. But as a woman, you have experience that tells you, if you take any shortcut or easy way out, even if all the guys do it, you will be "confirmed" as less competent. It tends to be that women start from a perceived position of "not competent" whereas men start from a preceived position of "competent." A guy has to have some obvious mess ups to fall from that assessment whereas women have to do a lot to rebut the assumption that they're incompetent. So, as a woman, you are constantly trying to prove yourself, and you have to avoid anything that might undercut that. Using AI could easily be one of those things that undercut it.
They’re unimpressed by the unceasing hype-train of magical wonderments that can never, and will never be?
True, but mindful: one data (well, one datum, to compare with one anecdote) does not statistics make.
In some ways I bet it's also just the whole "made for and by men" thing. That might be because of the AI companies being male-dominated (the tech industry is like that right now at least) but it's also maybe just the training data. Probably most of the training material used for these AIs come from men, simply because there is more material online made by men (again, probably because the tech industry is male-dominated and lots of other cultural reasons).
It's the same with video games. Most video games today are made by men and for men and it's kind of a positive feedback loop since the people playing those games will be men, and those people will be more likely to get into game development. And when making a game, you go for the largest market so you go for the existing male market instead of trying to cater to women.
Shout-out to software engineers having the lowest use outside of work. I have a coding chatbot that work wants me to use. Even when I have it set up right with only the correct tabs open in my IDE it just hallucinates stuff that looks ok but doesn't actually work.
I mostly just ask it if it poops. One time I got it to admit that its garbage collection routine could be roughly compared to the act of pooping and it was the best day ever.
Statistics is such a weird area of math that idk if anything social can be deduced based on them.
What does it tell you exactly about the world that in a sample 550 men used ChatGPT vs 450 women?
There’s a reason for replication crisis in psychology.
Big ifs and unbiased in what way? There are detectable and undetectable biases. Physical and mental. It’s god damn pseudoscience outright because there’s no way think of every possible way it can be fricked due to human complexity undetectable by simple questionnaires
The only proper way to approach psychology and psychiatry is to analyse the brain neurons one by one and map it all for each one person. It’s just not possible yet. But it is deterministic, sane than blindly shooting substances and seeing what sticks. Those are primitive early methods akin to bloodletting due to absolute lack of deeper understanding of the brain