102
The Average Man Is Such a BSer About AI That He’ll Claim to Know About an AI Executive Who Doesn’t Even Exist: Men caught hallucinating. (futurism.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 122 points 3 weeks ago (29 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
    •
  • [–] 72 points 3 weeks ago (21 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 3 weeks ago (20 children)

    I hate that shit so much, it's just bigotry but woke™

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago (19 children)

    Don't get what is woke about it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 3 weeks ago* (18 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (17 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (15 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (14 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (13 children)

    I disagree with the implication that a minority being bigoted, like misandry, is an internalized version of the "larger bigotry", if that's what you meant to say. Some queer spaces are legitimately just hostile to men for no good reason with the same force misogynistic spaces are to women, and there are racial minorities who are legit just racist against white people.

    Of course, those are less harmful societally, since they have less power, but on an individual level they're still just as bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

    Some queer spaces are legitimately just hostile to men for no good reason with the same force misogynistic spaces are to women,

    It literally can't be with the same force because those minorities are not in positions of power the way that the larger majority is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (9 children)

    Yes it can, in the context of a specific case. In the case of a school club, say, a man (case A) and woman (case B) can be discriminated against with the same force, albiet in different ways within the walls of the club (A or B), because social groups can have different rules than wider society.

    In the same way that being white in some countries makes you a minority that is being discriminated against, whereas in others you're not.

    The fact the woman gets discriminated against more outside the club is important, but it doesn't make the discrimination better or more excusable in the case of the man being discriminated against.

    Do you get what I mean?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    I didn’t say it was excusable, I said it was different and understandable.

    Do you get what I mean?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    Yeah, I just disagree, I agree it's different, obviously, but it's certainly comparable and not understandable.

    When does "members of this group of people have wronged me in the past" become "It's more acceptable to discriminate against people of that group"? Seriously.

    I deeply disagree with the idea that bigotry is somehow different when stripped of power. I can extend a bit more tolerance for that sort of behavior, but it's still just as reprehensible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    You don’t find it understandable why people from an oppressed group might harbor ill feelings toward their oppressors?

    I’m not saying agree with or find it acceptable - you can’t even wrap your head around why?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    I can comprehend it, but calling it understandable and different in the way that you did frames it as somehow less bad. The individual person is not "their oppressors". That's the part I disagree with.

    I think you'd balk at someone saying that someone being racist was "understandable" because there was a black gang active where they grew up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    I think misandry is less bad than misogyny, as in it does less harm because of the way our systems are set up in a patriarchal society, but that doesn't mean my belief is that misandry is good.

    I think you’d balk at someone saying that someone being racist was “understandable” because there was a black gang active where they grew up.

    Understandable is not the same as excusable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (3 children)

    That makes sense, I think things like misandry are as harmful as things like misogyny on a case-by-case basis when removed from context, but of course misogyny is far more harmful overall, unless I'm stupid that seems to be what you're also saying.

    For the understandable thing I was working with this definition:

    Expected or accepted under the circumstances.

    Which I would disagree with, but I think you were working off of this one:

    Capable of being understood; intelligible.

    Which, if you were, I agree with you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    That makes sense, I think things like misandry are as harmful as things like misogyny on a case-by-case basis when removed from context, but of course misogyny is far more harmful overall, unless I’m stupid that seems to be what you’re also saying.

    That's exactly what I'm saying.

    Capable of being understood; intelligible.

    Which, if you were, I agree with you.

    Yep we're on the same page now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    It could be (not taking a side on whether it is) a difference in degree rather than kind. The effect would still be markedly different in many cases (being excluded from a bathroom is annoying, being excluded from nearly every bathroom is a different matter entirely), but that doesn't mean the intent isn't similar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    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.

    The Wired article that is referenced.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] -16 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent