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.

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.

LLMs generally don’t create anything new; they just amplify and sometimes clarify the inputs.

Are those hallucinations or just straight up lies?

Hallucinations need medical intervention if they're severe

Lies need legal intervention if they're severe

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.

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.

Part of living in 1984 is getting used to Newspeak and understanding that people will do anything but call a lie "a lie".

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?

It’s not a hallucination if the source knows it’s untrue, lol

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.

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.

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.

You're assumption about their point is grossly mistaken.

People are confidently incorrect about things all the time.

Ai AND gender in 2026?! = clicks and ad revenue! 🎇

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

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.

The Wired article goes into detail about the study where these numbers are pulled from.

Don't get what is woke about it

Same here. Thankfully it’s a very long time ago. Since then I immediately ask: »Should I?«

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?

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.

Actual survey— PDF version.

The Wired article that is paraphrased/AI slopped to get to the posted Futurism article.

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.

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.

Just feels like a sexist hit piece

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.

Because it is.

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.

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.

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.

but that doesn’t mean the intent isn’t similar.

I think the intent is different between the two. It makes much more sense for an oppressed group to hate their oppressors.

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?

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

Do you get what I mean?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nice. It feels like you never get a reasonable conversation online, thank you.

Thanks for taking the time to understand my comments and for being open to other points of view.

We both dislike TERFs, we're on the same side :)

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.

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.

I have actually met Chad GPT he is a pretty cool guy and a visionary CEO

Fixed a statement in the article: "[people] will pretend to know stuff about [anything] even if they have absolutely zero clue..."

Same with Claude Mythos. Helluva golfer.

I must have missed the part where they said "men bad." Isn't that a conclusion you're drawing?

I mean, the article ends with the following paragraph

"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."

That's a pretty negatively loaded towards male ending to the whole thing I would say.