MagicShel@programming.dev
on 11 Aug 2024 13:38
nextcollapse
Is kind of hard to explain to anyone, “this thing cannot be trusted, but it’s useful anyway.”
My wife: So it’s like a gaslighting machine?
Me: … well… no, but it… fuck.
ModerateImprovement@sh.itjust.works
on 11 Aug 2024 14:12
collapse
The article is advocating for empowering more women to use AI, so when AI become good in the future they would be skillful in using this technology.
To quote from the article:
Women are less likely to adopt this new technology. This is a worrying finding since, according to a study by Oxford Economics and Cognizant, 90 per cent of jobs will be affected by generative AI by 2032. More specifically, between 2023 and 2032, the percentage of jobs with high exposure points to AI could increase sixfold, from eight per cent to 52 per cent.
A Goldman Sachs report provides a more precise idea of this impact according to job type and gender. The Kenan Institute has established that nearly 80 per cent of today’s female workers are in jobs exposed to automation via generative AI, compared with 58 per cent of men.
These jobs held by women that involve automation will not be replaced by artificial intelligence, per se, but by people who have mastered AI. At the moment, that means men. To reverse this trend, women are being urged to make efforts to redefine or increase their knowledge and skills in this area.
MagicShel@programming.dev
on 11 Aug 2024 14:14
nextcollapse
I’m all for it. I’m positive about AI in general. Just relating my experience trying to explain it to my wife.
This seems pointless. So what if “women are less likely to adopt this new technology”? What’s the point? And how does one “master” AI even?
HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
on 11 Aug 2024 14:45
nextcollapse
Not at my work. Plenty of women in our generative ai cop
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 11 Aug 2024 15:07
nextcollapse
Women don’t care about [nonexistent thing] when it will help women more than anybody!!!
The intersection of grifting and misogyny.
ModerateImprovement@sh.itjust.works
on 11 Aug 2024 15:15
nextcollapse
So you just saw the headline and called it grifting and misogynistic without actually reading the article to understand what it’s calling for?
bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
on 11 Aug 2024 15:47
collapse
These jobs held by women that involve automation will not be replaced by artificial intelligence, per se, but by people who have mastered AI.
This is garbage, positing this prediction as a conclusion.
The rest of the article is also garbage, conflating things like the lack of women in executive positions with a skills gap. Women don’t have a meaningful skill gap in white collar work. They do get discriminated against.
It’s all, “women use AI less therefore women should use AI more!”
Fucking garbage.
chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
on 11 Aug 2024 17:25
collapse
Linguistic question: is it misogyny if it originates from women? Reason for asking is because I genuinely don’t know if it is like racism against own race kind of situation, and the article appears to have been written by two women.
Edit: lol Lemmy showing their true colors. Would rather dodge and avoid the hard questions, downvote and continue to circle jerk themselves about anti-AI. Love it. Keep it up Lemmy!
wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
on 13 Aug 2024 05:25
collapse
threaded - newest
Is kind of hard to explain to anyone, “this thing cannot be trusted, but it’s useful anyway.”
My wife: So it’s like a gaslighting machine?
Me: … well… no, but it… fuck.
The article is advocating for empowering more women to use AI, so when AI become good in the future they would be skillful in using this technology.
To quote from the article:
I’m all for it. I’m positive about AI in general. Just relating my experience trying to explain it to my wife.
This seems pointless. So what if “women are less likely to adopt this new technology”? What’s the point? And how does one “master” AI even?
Not at my work. Plenty of women in our generative ai cop
The intersection of grifting and misogyny.
So you just saw the headline and called it grifting and misogynistic without actually reading the article to understand what it’s calling for?
This is garbage, positing this prediction as a conclusion.
The rest of the article is also garbage, conflating things like the lack of women in executive positions with a skills gap. Women don’t have a meaningful skill gap in white collar work. They do get discriminated against.
It’s all, “women use AI less therefore women should use AI more!”
Fucking garbage.
Linguistic question: is it misogyny if it originates from women? Reason for asking is because I genuinely don’t know if it is like racism against own race kind of situation, and the article appears to have been written by two women.
Edit: lol Lemmy showing their true colors. Would rather dodge and avoid the hard questions, downvote and continue to circle jerk themselves about anti-AI. Love it. Keep it up Lemmy!
Join the boy’s club to advance your career