The surprising reason why women are using AI less often than men

Claire Burgi, an actor, stopped eating meat a decade ago due to climate change concerns, witnessing firsthand the devastating wildfires in her California hometown. This environmental consciousness recently led her to reject generative AI, alarmed by its significant electricity consumption and rising carbon emissions. Research indicates AI infrastructure could soon consume more water than Denmark annually, and ChatGPT requests use ten times the electricity of a Google search. Burgi likens AI models to Frankenstein, reflecting a human tendency to act without considering consequences for convenience. A documented gender gap exists in AI adoption, with women being less likely to engage with the technology, though precise reasons vary. Some studies suggest women distrust AI providers with data security or fear losing control. Others point to concerns about job displacement and the ethical implications of AI. However, growing research highlights "environmental angst" as a significant factor in this gap. A study from the University of Oxford found that environmental concerns play a substantial role in why women are less likely to adopt generative AI. While 14.7% of women and 20% of men use AI weekly, this gap widens considerably among those worried about environmental and mental health risks. Women are more prone to "eco-anxiety," a distress caused by climate change. Researchers suggest this aligns with evidence of greater social compassion and moral sensitivity among women. Counterintuitively, greater tech literacy did not always correlate with higher AI use; in some cases, it decreased adoption. Notably, women's environmental and mental health concerns were more likely to translate into action, such as ceasing AI use. This may be linked to women's tendency towards a more collectivist mindset, prioritizing societal well-being. Researchers emphasize that women's concerns about AI's environmental impact are valid and should be heeded, acting as an early warning. They suggest that AI's harms, such as biases and carbon footprints, can be actively reduced, and more sustainable AI models could capture a significant market. Platforms like GreenPT and Viro are already emerging as environmentally conscious alternatives. Claire Burgi remains skeptical, stating she would only consider AI if ethical concerns were addressed and transparency replaced apparent greed-driven capitalism.