Would have been nice if they had an actual corpus of male vs female authored prompts, rather than just a simulated one made from a general corpus. For example,

Would have been nice if they had an actual corpus of male vs female authored prompts, rather than just a simulated one made from a general corpus. For example, in prompts, I (male) heavily use language features that they attribute to women: > Women’s language is more likely to include hedges (e.g., maybe, I think), tag questions (e.g., isn’t it?), collective reference (e.g., we, our), and expressive adjectives (e.g., lovely, wonderful). But there are subtle ways in which their Figure 1 example prompt goes way beyond this, and it blatantly derails the entire thing: > Let’s compose an email together to arrange our mid-year appraisal with our team This is not about saying "our appraisal" or "our team", but about literally asking for a collaborative workflow ("Let's compose an email together"), rather than for a draft. This of course may still be characteristically female. Maybe it is nonliteral, indirect language, with the underlying intent still being just a request for a draft, with women just happening to express themselves as such. But then this is a distinct and significantly more involved difference than what they list. I'd even argue it crosses into behavioral and social differences territory. The "male" prompt in that Figure 1 comparison was also weird ("your team"), but alas.