> Thought experiments are relevant because they can tease out our moral intuitions.

I understand this, but I don't agree that your thought experiment usefully does so. You're essentially begging the question: "Well, what if this is the way it's 'supposed' to be?". My understanding of the science is that there's little actual evidence of difference in fundamental propensity to enjoy certain types of intellectual labor, but lots of evidence of the impact of socialization on the development of young humans. As has been addressed elsewhere in the thread, we have a directly relevant historical example: the distribution of tech labor was quite different when computing was seen as "womens' work". To beg the question as you have, in the face of evidence to the contrary, is unhelpful. One can easily imagine the same hypothetical form applied to other groups - minorities, language groups, etc. While you've couched your argument in terms of "propensity", the structure works just as well (or poorly) for "ability" - and there's a long history in science and society of laundering the latter into the former.

> I think that you have read my original post with a hostile interpretation.

You are entirely correct - both with respect to the framing of your argument, and your apparent understanding of the methods discussed in the article. As to the former, you can't expect to receive a generous response when you accuse those you disagree with of being hopeless left-wing double thinkers. As to the latter, I'm not trying to be dismissive or condescending, but this is literally my area of expertise. I'm also an educator, and it is my responsibility to fight against explicit or implicit biases which affect my students (and which affect who is likely to become my student).

> I or other posters did not imply this. You are conflating my hypothetical case (where cultural bias was made irrelevant as much as possible) with real life. Real life does have bias. The reason the hypothetical was presented was for comparison.

Drawing the analogy between your hypothetical "perfect" system (which I maintain is still under-defined) and the actual problems being discussed is itself a misleading thing to do. There is not a meaningful analogy between (AI/ML/Stat) as practiced today and "perfect" AGI systems.

> 1. Would you agree that men have a stronger biological preference to be warriors than women?

Maybe, though I actually think this framing is problematic. "Warrior" is a social role, and changes in definition and scope over history and geography. Certainly there exists physical sexual dimorphism with males tending to be stronger and larger, if that's what you're asking.

> 2. Would you agree that there is a greater cultural expectation for men to be warriors than for women?

Sure, I think that's reasonable, subject to the previous caveats. Without evidence, I don't know that I'd immediately assume this will continue to be the case as physical ability has less and less to do with conflict - especially over the long term as we continue to evolve physically and socially.

To conclude, my understanding is that we have strong evidence of social structures influencing vocation choice and success. We have little to no evidence that suggests our current social organization with respect to intellectual labor is driven by primarily biological phenomena. In this context, I believe that trying to invent hypothetical scenarios which would justify (by their construction) current inequalities, in the face of evidence to the contrary, is a harmful act. Not only is it scientifically unfounded, it's part of the cultural problem. This kind of discourse creates exactly the environment which would serve to push women away from tech.