I think this is a little disingenuous to claim "the benefits arent being distributed equally"
You first rightly claim that the difference between open and closed source AI is vanishing, which provides more people worldwide with access to AI, and high quality AI, whether people have money or not,
then you say that since the US has invested 12x times more than china, and since more males have been paid than females in the AI job/skills market, that means benefits arent distributed equally?
You never provided the AMOUNT of males and females that actually work in the field, and I am willing to bet there is roughly a 2.39 : 1.71 male/female ratio..
and again, the two countries that are the heavest involved in AI, the USA and China, would naturally have the most money invested in it.. I fail to see the issue here.
are you suggesting we give some of the money that private investors are giving to the US on their own choice and will, to China instead? to "even the distribution of benefits"?
and if youre suggesting that places hire more women in AI just because they are women, then youre going to see the progress of AI absolutely cripple, not just because they are women but because they werent hired based on their qualifications and competency, they were hired because of their gender,
just as well, you will only see the gender wage gap increase if you hire more women because they are women, because it will be obvious right away that many new hires are not skilled or competent and they will be given lower level tasks and positions, while the truly competent and skillful will be paid higher and higher, to fix the unbalanced mix of skills and competency.
I fail to see the issues that you are trying to point out, and i think as i said at the beginning, you are being a little disingenuous about it.
its just data. it doesnt need to be fixed.
and not everything has to be equal.