Most alarming is that AI is built in our image, with our data, and with great ethical challenges and issues that we have no clear answer for and that demand a diversity of thought. It’s no longer the ‘right thing’ or a nice-to-have to be balanced and diverse it’s a fast track to disaster if just one group innovates in isolation.
Sarah—well put. There are a number of people (men) who would gladly support females in STEM entrepreneurial efforts (and some of us already do). You won’t hear much or see much of this because we know we are putting ourselves at great risk by our actions.
How? Well you point out that women should take and be encouraged/supported in taking on more risky behaviors just like men do. Over ten years ago in a large company meeting where leaders were discussing diversity and inclusion, the discussion turned that gender equality was not one of the issues the executives needed to address. The company had many female executives and directors and used a merit only based system for advancement. I interrupted—‘hold on! The merit system equates ‘accomplishments’ to being male-like and does not value female accomplishments equally but requires women to be more male-like to have their merits counted.’ The room exploded with a groundswell of support for this idea—and it’s my understanding that the women of this company have now been key to overhauling the system. (Bravo to them.) My arrogance in speaking up a decade ago eventually cost me my position in the company—as I suspected it would when I chose to speak up in the meeting.
Be careful here—if female founders don’t take on risk the same as males, how can the risk structure (in STEM entrepreneurial ventures) be changed so females are more attracted to them and more successful? This is the strategic change needed—we should not be forcing valuable female resources into uncomfortable situations and expect them to perform their best as leaders. It is an unfair and biased expectation.
So how should a female run AI organization be structured?
I think part of the reason this happening is a pattern recognition function from A) women engineers seeing men having an easier time raising money B) not having direct relationships with investors. This leads to a situation where some potential women founders defer fundraising (and VC relationship building) to a man they believe can complete a quick fundraising process.
I think part of the solution comes from creating more opportunities for women engineers/potential founders to build relationships with investors before they assume the identity of a "founder." If any investors in the generative AI are open to quick chats / intros to this potential women AI founders segment - ping me at kenneth@intj.fund - I'm spending some time each week providing a pro-bono/no-strings attached intro service. Time commitment is an occasional 30 min call with women engineers considering starting something.
Most alarming is that AI is built in our image, with our data, and with great ethical challenges and issues that we have no clear answer for and that demand a diversity of thought. It’s no longer the ‘right thing’ or a nice-to-have to be balanced and diverse it’s a fast track to disaster if just one group innovates in isolation.
Sarah—well put. There are a number of people (men) who would gladly support females in STEM entrepreneurial efforts (and some of us already do). You won’t hear much or see much of this because we know we are putting ourselves at great risk by our actions.
How? Well you point out that women should take and be encouraged/supported in taking on more risky behaviors just like men do. Over ten years ago in a large company meeting where leaders were discussing diversity and inclusion, the discussion turned that gender equality was not one of the issues the executives needed to address. The company had many female executives and directors and used a merit only based system for advancement. I interrupted—‘hold on! The merit system equates ‘accomplishments’ to being male-like and does not value female accomplishments equally but requires women to be more male-like to have their merits counted.’ The room exploded with a groundswell of support for this idea—and it’s my understanding that the women of this company have now been key to overhauling the system. (Bravo to them.) My arrogance in speaking up a decade ago eventually cost me my position in the company—as I suspected it would when I chose to speak up in the meeting.
Be careful here—if female founders don’t take on risk the same as males, how can the risk structure (in STEM entrepreneurial ventures) be changed so females are more attracted to them and more successful? This is the strategic change needed—we should not be forcing valuable female resources into uncomfortable situations and expect them to perform their best as leaders. It is an unfair and biased expectation.
So how should a female run AI organization be structured?
As a father of two daughters, I'm really concerned about this trend.
This really made me think.
I think part of the reason this happening is a pattern recognition function from A) women engineers seeing men having an easier time raising money B) not having direct relationships with investors. This leads to a situation where some potential women founders defer fundraising (and VC relationship building) to a man they believe can complete a quick fundraising process.
I think part of the solution comes from creating more opportunities for women engineers/potential founders to build relationships with investors before they assume the identity of a "founder." If any investors in the generative AI are open to quick chats / intros to this potential women AI founders segment - ping me at kenneth@intj.fund - I'm spending some time each week providing a pro-bono/no-strings attached intro service. Time commitment is an occasional 30 min call with women engineers considering starting something.