AI generated identical résumés for a man and a woman: Hers was more likely to be labeled ‘weak,’ while his got a 97% approval rating

If you’re using AI for professional work purposes and are wondering if you’re being judged for it, it might depend on who you are. A new study sought to determine whether women—particularly young women—would be treated more harshly than their male counterparts for using artificial intelligence in job applications. Zehra Chatoo, a former Meta strategist and the founder of thinktank Code For Good Now, used AI to generate identical résumés with just one difference: One was for a candidate called Emily Clarke, another for James Clarke. The résumés were distributed to two groups, who had been told the documents had been created with the help of artificial intelligence. Reviewers of Emily’s résumé were 22% more likely to question whether the individual could be trusted compared to James. The female candidate’s CV was also twice as likely to raise doubts about her competence and ability to do her job. “She can’t even write a CV herself—not sure she has the skills to carry out the job,” read some of the feedback on Emily’s CV. James’s résumé had a different response, with his use of AI justified: “He just needed a bit of help putting it together,” was one response. “When men use AI, we question their effort. When women use AI, we question their integrity. That difference changes the perceived risk of using AI,” Chatoo said. The latest data point feeds into broader concerns about an AI gender gap. In a working paper published last year, Harvard Business School Associate Professor Rembrand Koning put the adoption rate between men and women at about 25%. Koning identified the concern Chatoo’s study exhibits, saying women are concerned about the perception of their work if they use or rely on AI. Koning, a Professor of Business Administration, explained: “Women face greater penalties in being judged as not having expertise in different fields. They might be worried that someone would think even though