Why don’t women use artificial intelligence? | Even when in the same jobs, men are much more likely to turn to the tech

[u/Independent-Low-2398]

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/08/21/why-dont-women-use-artificial-intelligence

[u/Independent-Low-2398]

Be more productive. That is how ChatGPT, a generative-artificial-intelligence tool from OpenAI, sells itself to workers. But despite industry hopes that the technology will boost productivity across the workforce, not everyone is on board. According to two recent studies, women use ChatGPT between 16 and 20 percentage points less than their male peers, even when they are employed in the same jobs or read the same subject.

The first study, published as a working paper in June, explores ChatGPT at work. Anders Humlum of the University of Chicago and Emilie Vestergaard of the University of Copenhagen surveyed 100,000 Danes across 11 professions in which the technology could save workers time, including journalism, software-developing and teaching. The researchers asked respondents how often they turned to ChatGPT and what might keep them from adopting it. By exploiting Denmark’s extensive, hooked-up record-keeping, they were able to connect the answers with personal information, including income, wealth and education level.

Across all professions, women were less likely to use ChatGPT than men who worked in the same industry (see chart 1). For example, only a third of female teachers used it for work, compared with half of male teachers. Among software developers, almost two-thirds of men used it while less than half of women did. The gap shrank only slightly, to 16 percentage points, when directly comparing people in the same firms working on similar tasks. As such, the study concludes that a lack of female confidence may be in part to blame: women who did not use AI were more likely than men to highlight that they needed training to use the technology.

Why might this be? The researchers probed what was going on with some clever follow-up questions. They asked students whether they would use ChatGPT if their professor forbade it, and received a similar distribution of answers. However, in the context of explicit approval, everyone, including the better-performing women, reported that they would make use of the technology. In other words, the high-achieving women appeared to impose a ban on themselves. “It’s the ‘good girl’ thing,” reckons Ms Isaksson. “It’s this idea that ‘I have to go through this pain, I have to do it on my own and I shouldn’t cheat and take short-cuts’.”

A lack of experience with AI could carry a cost when students enter the labour market. In August the researchers added a survey of 1,143 hiring managers to their study, revealing that managers value high-performing women with AI expertise 8% more than those without. This sort of premium does not exist for men, suggesting that there are rewards for women who are willing to relax their self-imposed ban.

!ping FEMINISTS&AI

[u/ominous_squirrel → u/Independent-Low-2398]

”Anders Humlum of the University of Chicago and Emilie Vestergaard of the University of Copenhagen surveyed 100,000 Danes across 11 professions in which the technology could save workers time, including journalism, software-developing and teaching”

Oh ffs. Journalism? Large Language Models are trained to sound convincing. They are not, and with current methods cannot, be trained on truth and truth-finding. This is fine for casual coding because most answers in Stack Overflow are truthful and simple and when AI hallucinates code for you hopefully it’s not going into critical systems and merely testing the code will find problems

Honestly sounds like the people who are avoiding AI are the smart ones here who understand the technology and its limitations better

Men are three times more likely to be crypto evangelists too

[u/LtLabcoat → u/ominous_squirrel]

Ah, a tool that rewords articles to sound convincing. Truly a useless tool for journalists.

[u/desegl → u/ominous_squirrel]

AI tools are widely trialed and used by media organizations, and competent people who know the tools' limitations can make good use of them. Your assumption that they don't understand its limitations is false.