you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Dude probably reversed some numbers, math is hard sometimes. Or... they're focusing only on comparing between the affected population which is kinda weird.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Well the math they did was 0.5/0.3 = 1.(6)

    To make the logic for that math easier to follow, imagine it was actually 60% of teenage girls rather than the 50% from the article.
    If you pick a random man, there is a 30% chance they consult AI. If you pick a random girl, that chance is instead 60%. So twice as likely, or expressed a different way, 100% more likely than when picking a random man.

    Switching back to the 30/50 numbers you get that a random teenage girl is (at least) 66% more likely to turn to AI than a random man.
    To me, this seems like a reasonable way to compare these numbers and it makes it clear that the difference is actually pretty significant, contrary to OP comment's claim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments