I just looked at the paper and you are right. Thanks for looking.

The male and the female one are basically suggesting visually that the man is competent and the woman is not. I mean even only the cloth pattern of the skirt that "she" is wearing is atrocious. It is like they made the "woman" intentionally unattractive while they made the "man" average. ("She" is also blonde, of course, while "he" has dark hair.) I have no idea whether this was actually done intentionally, but if I were to design a study to find this type of bias, that is what I would use. I wonder whether they did something similar in the text interfaces.

I also noticed that their names are Johanna and Johan, i.e. a proper male name for "him" and a feminized male name for "her".

So, after all, my first take of "likely methodical error" was correct.

The study is flawed in another way as well because "everybody knows" that women earn less than men. (Usually that is "proven" with the unadjusted wage gap, which is completely bogus and essentially a lie.) Hence the study participants just conformed to what they thought were the facts of the matter. Makes the results completely meaningless.

And the other thing is that "everybody knows" there is a gender pay gap. This is only true for the unadjusted gap, but most people do not know what that means. Once you adjust for factors like experience and field-of-work the difference is below the margin of error, i.e. small and we do not even know whether it is real. We essentially have same wages for the same work and qualification and had it for a while. That some parts of some gender groups decide to not do the same work or invest less or more time into getting experience is a separate problem and not a problem of payment.

Hence the people in this "experiment" were just conforming to what they thought was expected of them. That makes the whole thing bogus. Obviously wages in the real world are determined by a different procedure and harping on about women and men not behaving exactly the same (as a group) is just one thing: counterproductive.

Well, what can an LLM do? It has no understanding or insight, so it cannot see whether something is a good solution or not. Obviously, a smart human would not even have looked for a "solution" like that, because it is obvious crap.

Are you serious? Because that is the dumbest shit I have read in a long, long time.

Since you do not even seem to know the very basics, here is a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

No. Or rather not to any meaningful degree or depth. They can do very shallow reasoning only and after a few steps into deeper reasoning chains, only noise is left. Statistical AI is completely unsuitable for automated deduction. It is not even remotely comparable to what a smart human or even the very limited automatic theorem proving systems can do.

Yes. While this may be hard to understand for non-mathematicians, the data-theft angle could not be any more obvious. All LLM type AI can to is put puzzle pieces together. Somebody else needs to create those. And if they were unpublished, then they were stolen.

It does not actually make a useful contribution. It does damage. And the allegation of most of this stuff essentially being stolen are very likely true.

I am with Roger Penrose on this: Quantum theory is wrong. Saying it is "incomplete" is just a more polite form of saying it is wrong. Now, you do not abandon theories you know are wrong unless you have better ones. But you always remember they are wrong and you are careful not to make sweeping predictions based on them.

Yes. It takes a certain level of sophistication to overcome this effect. Some people have it. Many do not and for some of those it is completely out of reach.

You cannot force people to be fair or respectful or "good". You can only refuse to associate with those that are not.

There is also another aspect that makes this experiment bogus: Ordinary people do not decide about the pay of others in actual reality. It is a lot more complicated. This stinks of somebody trying very hard to find a specific problem.

At this time, the pay gap is below the error of measurement. Yes, sexism continues to be a problem especially as a specific type of women tries to compensate for lower misogynism by doing as much misandrism as they can. But there will always be plenty of stupid people (of all genders) around that try to elevate themselves that way. But the pay gap, the restrictions in education and political power and the restrictions on what work you can do, dependent on gender, are basically gone. Trying to create a victim narrative on what is left makes the people doing it part of the problem.

Obviously, you cannot have it all. You cannot, for example, be the person to primarily raise your children and have a full career. There is just not enough time in a day to do that. But, and that is perhaps the biggest sign this problem is solved on the level of western society, is that in particular women can decide to not have children and still be full members of society. Obviously, most religious fuckups are deeply unhappy with that and try to fight it, but these people should not be listened to concerning anything anyways.

Because compensating for factors like experience, female experts currently get paid slightly more (!) than male ones with the same qualifications. That does not fit the victim-narrative though.

No, it cannot do real work. It can steal work where the last 5% were still missing. It cannot do the other 95% and the ones that did them just got robbed of their well-deserved success. That is a very bad thing.