Men Can’t Stop Faking How Much They Know About AI
A Harvard survey suggests men are more confident and optimistic about AI than women, sometimes claiming familiarity with fictional AI executives. Researchers say this confidence gap matters because it may shape who is heard in public discussion and media coverage, while obscuring uncertainty about AI’s uses and effects.
The survey included more than 5,400 Americans: 73 per cent of men said they knew who Sam Altman was, and 53 per cent said they knew three other named figures, including the fictional Milner and Dalton. Men used AI more often and answered factual questions correctly more often, but both genders were wrong at similar rates; women were more likely to say they were unsure. In a year of coverage, men appeared in AI headlines more than 14 times as often as women, and three-quarters of quoted subject experts were men, despite women making up about 29 per cent of AI talent.
- Men reported greater confidence and AI use.
- Both genders were wrong at similar rates.
- Men dominated AI headlines and expert quotes.
New here? Start with this
Artificial intelligence, or AI, refers to computer systems that can perform tasks such as generating text, analysing data or recognising images. Its use is growing in workplaces and everyday services, while its effects on jobs, privacy and decision-making remain subjects of debate.
Sam Altman is the head of OpenAI, a company that develops AI tools. Researchers, technology companies, journalists and public officials all help shape discussion about AI, but people’s familiarity with its prominent figures does not necessarily show how much they know about the technology itself.
Who speaks in public coverage can influence which questions and experiences are heard. Women make up a minority of people working in AI, and studies of media coverage have found they are also less often quoted as experts.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The findings suggest that greater confidence can be mistaken for greater expertise, giving men disproportionate influence in AI debate even when their answers are no more reliable. Making uncertainty visible and broadening whose knowledge is represented could improve coverage and help ensure decisions reflect the experience of women working in AI.
The case against
The survey may capture differences in familiarity, interest or willingness to guess, rather than men deliberately pretending to know more; men also used AI more and answered factual questions correctly more often. Confidence and frequent media participation can help make emerging technology understandable to the public, and the findings alone do not establish that confidence caused the imbalance in coverage or that changing who is quoted would improve it.