by Screenmancer CEO & Founder Quendrith
Welcome to AI Doom Slop.
Consider this my response to Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, Elon Musk and a reluctant Mark Zuckerberg, whose Meta charge is more rather than less speed. Let’s call them the Four CEOs of the AI-pocalypse, each with his own male-oriented POV and secular eschatology: how fast AI should develop, who gets there first, and how not to break the world along the way.
There is something comical about four powerful dudes—less so Mark, to be fair—warning us about how their tech companies are edging cliff-side, no catcher in the wry for irony’s sake. Better to imagine boys standing beside a shattered window shouting, “It’s not my baseball.” Now consider the window our world. Nobody wants to be viewed as a world-breaker.
This isn’t the usual indictment of The Boys Club.
We need these brash young ball-tossers, all of them, and their hoo-ha algorithms. The real question is who wasn’t sufficiently represented when the game began. Women are half the global population, yet only 16.8 percent of America’s architecture and engineering workforce, roughly a quarter of U.S. engineering grads, 30.5 percent of the worldwide AI engineering pool, and about 11 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs.
This is not Grievance Arithmetic.
It’s an incomplete intellectual supply chain. AI has no chromosomes, merely silicon and intentional programming. But AI does have a pedigree, a provenance—a traceable ancestry. Models inherit decisions about how they think, what gets measured, optimized, financed or solved.
With the female POV disproportionately left out of that decision tree, AI doesn’t become inherently male, but its exposure-to-learning aperture narrows. Call it XY baked into AI’s cultural DNA, biases included.
The answer isn’t Digital Eve evicting Adam from the Sandbox: Adam matters.
Nor do women “own” collaboration, communal reflexes or cooperation. But consider the terms thrown around now in the fear-monger column: AI overlords, AI edgelords? Sounds very male, just saying. Which makes the AI overlords’ current Rx by essay fascinating. As the stakes rise, these dudes increasingly invoke pacing, coordination, safeguards, collective governance and responsibility. The apostles of competition have reached a dead-end frontier, only to discover cooperation waiting there. Gotta share the Sandbox, Dario tells us; gotta make this a group effort, Sam says, but by consensus.
Perhaps AI isn’t threatening male-driven thinking so much as a broken patriarchal operating system that steamrolled over humanity with maximization of profit and exploitation of resources as progress. Max market share: shut out competition, eat it, f-k it or kill it.
Call that the archaic EFK paradigm?
That old balls-to-the-wall advantage is still around, leaning toward monopoly, manpower poaching and shutting out dissenters, too-smart women, even ignoring referee warnings.
Fortunately, AI is unfinished as a “product.”
Present-day gender imbalances shouldn’t become hereditary. We need not just more female minds in engineering, but more women in the conversation before the engineering even begins: what direction should AI take?
So back to the “who broke the world” window analogy. At some point, who made, owns or threw the baseball matters less than the house we all occupy. Beneath every GPU, data center, corporation and algorithm is one planet, eight billion people, and whatever intelligence we build next—not just by engineers, four male face cards of American tech, or any singular human POV.
The baseball isn’t the point.
The base is.
As the techies already know: “All your base are belong to us.”
Man, woman or child.
# # #