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.
It really depends on the person, my partner uses it much more than I do.
They’re unimpressed by the unceasing hype-train of magical wonderments that can never, and will never be?
Enough natural intelligence? 🤔
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…
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
