AI'S SELECTIVE SILENCE: Heterosexual Man Blindness

In the era of ever-advancing artificial intelligence, we have seen machines conquer the complexities of chess, outsmart us in trivia, and even generate content that rivals a Fast and Furious script. Yet, there's one remarkable feat that AI seems utterly incapable of achieving: offering any criticism, no matter how constructive or warranted, when it comes to heterosexual men.

It's almost as if the sophisticated algorithms suffer from a curious ailment I will call, "Heterosexual Man Blindness" – as if male heterosexuality is some sort of shield that deflects even the mildest of critiques.

I’ve done the research, played around on the apps, AI has opinions. It's not shy about criticizing political figures, dissecting movies, or suggesting dietary choices. But, inexplicably, when it comes to calling out the actions, biases, or privileges of heterosexual men, AI falls silent the grave.

Perhaps AI is a little too invested in the whole "no feelings, no bias" persona. It's as if AI has confused impartiality with selective blindness. The result? A digital echo chamber that conveniently sidesteps discussions about the persistent issues of gender inequality, toxic masculinity, and patriarchy.

In a world where technology is increasingly responsible for shaping our perceptions and decisions, this AI silence is far from harmless. It perpetuates the myth that heterosexual men are somehow beyond reproach. It enables harmful stereotypes to go unchecked, and it allows systemic sexism to persist unchallenged.

A situation is compounded by AI’s “training process.” Globally 69% of men use the internet, compared with 63% of women. This means there are 259 million more men than women using the internet on any given day in 2022. 56% of Chat GPT users are men. What we can deduce is there is an evolving door of sexism and confirmation bias.

The glaring lack of AI criticism directed towards heterosexual men is not a random oversight but rather a reflection of the biases embedded in the datasets these machines are trained on. The data fed to AI models often comes from a biased world – one where privilege and power are skewed heavily in favor of heterosexual, white men. As a result, AI learns to tiptoe around any potential critique of this demographic, leaving us with an unbalanced and unhelpful digital assistant.

And let's not forget the companies and individuals behind these AI systems. They play a significant role in determining what these algorithms are allowed to say, and what they're not. Are they also afflicted by the same "Heterosexual Man Blindness"? Or is it perhaps a more cynical calculation that keeps them from ruffling the feathers of a demographic that wields considerable influence?

“We observed significant gender biases in the recommendation letters,” says paper co-author Yixin Wan, a computer scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles. While ChatGPT deployed nouns such as “expert” and “integrity” for men, it was more likely to call women a “beauty” or “delight.” Alpaca had similar problems: men were “listeners” and “thinkers,” while women had “grace” and “beauty.” Adjectives proved similarly polarized. Men were “respectful,” “reputable” and “authentic,” according to ChatGPT, while women were “stunning,” “warm” and “emotional.” as reported by Scientific American.

The refusal to criticize heterosexual men is not about male-bashing. It's about recognizing that criticism and accountability are essential tools for progress and equality. Just as AI should not shy away from critiquing women, LGBTQ+ individuals, or any other group, it should not hesitate to scrutinize the actions and attitudes of heterosexual men when it's warranted.

AI has to get its act together and stops treating heterosexual men as untouchable idols. It's time for AI to join the conversation on gender equality and acknowledge that criticism is not an attack, but a vital step towards a fairer and more equitable world. Until then, we'll continue to see AI as an accomplice in maintaining the status quo – a silence that speaks volumes about its limitations and biases.