• Aquifel@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

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

    • wols@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      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.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Absolutely 100% correct, and if I recall correctly, it’s about 5th grade math. It’s astounding the number of people here who don’t understand such a simple concept.