[miracle2k]

> I believe this is a clue to where the GP post is coming from: we can't, therefore the study must be flawed.

How so? They are clearly saying they expected this to be possible already, until this article claimed otherwise (by suggesting AI is contributing something new here).

They are saying that this result will not resolve the disputes, because it doesn't address the core thing in dispute: that there are meaningful differences that people actually care about. For example, maybe it is possible to tell the sex based on the shape of the brain. This doesn't mean that men and woman think differently, which is what people are actually arguing about. And the AI in this study can't proof that, because it doesn't give us any further insights into how cognition works.

This point strikes me as actually pretty mundane and obviously correct. The fact that 5 people immediately seem to have misunderstood it (as in, they are not responding to the argument) seems to tell us something about their priors instead.

[throwaway49849]

>They are saying that this result will not resolve the disputes, because it doesn't address the core thing in dispute: that there are meaningful differences that people actually care about.

That's not their claim. Their claim is that there is some flaw ("confounding thing") in the study. They then go on to say that men and women's brains are "indistinguishable." Well, of course you will automatically assume there is a flaw if that is your belief.