I honestly think it’s hard to know.
I actively dislike AI and so its formulations are cringe to me. But it seems unsurprising that someone that enjoys using AI would pick up some of its mannerisms, whether consciously or not. This is of course ugly and depressing, as they’re essentially borrowing from a piece of software what would normally be imported from culture.

But I think it’s plausible that Hank actually formulated that part himself - the guest did after all “push back” on his claim that all words are made up and immediately after the cliche he presents a more nuanced elaboration of his original claim.
It does feel quite awkward because he cuts in so many qualifications and elaborations in-between that by the time we get to that part we’re like “what pushback?”.

I also don’t recall him having actually explicitly made this excuse, though I’m open to being wrong on that part, I don’t follow him anywhere except yt.

6. Overwerk for more modern tastes

Unfortunately, I think there is a pretty easy way for them to detect comments that were deleted/edited with the intent of making them useless to Reddit: check the age of the comment/post when it was modified.
Whether they would bother to do this is a different question.

I’d be interested in your results a few weeks/months from now.

Exactly. It’s fine to build up flawless versions of people in your mind and to try to emulate those imaginary heroes or draw inspiration from their strengths.
Just be aware of the fact that you’ve created a fiction. Don’t treat real humans like you would their hero image. They say to never meet your heroes, but you can’t anyway: your heroes don’t exist in reality. And that’s ok.

That said, many really really awesome people do exist. They may not be perfect, but they’re arguably better than that: they’re good and they’re real. You would be lucky to know them. I think one issue is that far too often our heroes are famous, and that is not a group that generally selects on the basis of quality of character. Many famous people are good at something and we mistakenly take that as proxy for being a good person. It probably helps that we mostly see them doing the thing they’re good at.

Random uninformed guess: women are on the whole more open to sharing their problems to begin with. So it’s probably less “teenage girls turn to AI with their problems while men go to therapy” and more “men continue to avoid talking about their problems to anyone, including LLMs”.

It is worrying that social interactions and support are getting delegated to algorithms at such high rates but I’m not convinced there is a significant gender gap to be explained on the technology level. Dudes probably ask the word prediction machine plenty about cars, tech, or weird conspiracy theories.

Well the math they did was 0.5/0.3 = 1.(6)

To make the logic for that math easier to follow, imagine it was actually 60% of teenage girls rather than the 50% from the article.
If you pick a random man, there is a 30% chance they consult AI. If you pick a random girl, that chance is instead 60%. So twice as likely, or expressed a different way, 100% more likely than when picking a random man.

Switching back to the 30/50 numbers you get that a random teenage girl is (at least) 66% more likely to turn to AI than a random man.
To me, this seems like a reasonable way to compare these numbers and it makes it clear that the difference is actually pretty significant, contrary to OP comment’s claim.

Ayy great song, great artist