The missing context: "Women, Peace and Security" is a UN initiative to make sure women have a voice in decisions about war, peace negotiations, military operations, and rebuilding countries after war, rather than leaving those decisions entirely to men.
That's not a good approach. Conscription is problematic in and of itself, and demanding that even more people be forced into it than already are only makes things worse. Besides, it takes away one of the arguments used by opponents of conscription. The more unfairly conscription is implemented, the easier it is to motivate people to speak out against it.
Underrated. By my personal observations, in Russian-Ukrainian conflict women and above-draft-age men are the most pro-"war til victory" groups (on both sides).
I don’t want women drafted and dying in a war. The men dying in a drafted war don’t get a say already. I don’t see why women can’t be involved with peace and security.
And the women can happily enact whatever it is around childbirth without men having a say in it. And as someone living in the western world, most women don't become mothers anymore.
I find this argument really dumb. Did women just give birth out of nowhere? Last I checked, you need both men and women to give birth naturally. Both genders are equally important. Stop with this gender war.
Equally important? You can't possibly compare ejaculating inside a vagina to carrying a developing fetus for 9 months with the associated hormonal changes, pain and non-zero risk of death during labour.
Nor can you compare it to sitting in trenches, seeing comrades getting killed and mutilated left and right over and over - and if you make it out alive you carry that with you for the rest of your live. If I could, I would chose giving birth over that immediately.
Besides, childbirth is (at least in vast majority of cases) the result of a voluntary action of your own doing. We are not deciding for others to become pregnant and give birth. But you do mandate men via conscription to go through the horrors of war.
Also happen when a person grows up, nothingburger on its own. Any specific negative ones?
> pain
Rated lower than toothache which pretty much everyone had multiple times in their lives.
> non-zero risk of death during labour
(In US) 3x of avg chance of dying in a traffic accident same year.
The real hardship is raising children. People say that's an equivalent to having a full-time job. From experience pretty plausible comparison until all children are above age 5.
> You can't possibly compare...ejaculating inside a vagina to carrying a developing fetus for 9 months with the associated hormonal changes, pain and non-zero risk of death during labour.
But I didn't though, you made that comparison yourself and used it as a baseline for the argument. I simply stated both genders are important equally in their own right and you can't just produce off-springs with just one gender. But hey, if you want to be triggered, there's always Reddit for ya.
I personally know of no men or women that are working on peace and security. Nobody within 100 miles of me does. And if more women are involved, they won't be from around here. So the population of my area has a lack of representation in global affairs and will continue to be ignored... whether it's men or women. So would having more rich women play a role make the women around me be more empowered?
Unanswered by the link: Who are the human beings driving this? Why TF should we read thousands of words from a disembodied source, whether that be LLM or some committee of academics?
I worked on this with Our Secure Future. Militaries, ministries, and UN missions are starting to use LLMs for planning and analysis. The question we wanted to answer: do models raise considerations a competent staff officer would flag, or only the ones the user asks about?
We tested this using Women, Peace and Security (WPS), a UN Security Council mandate (Resolution 1325) that requires security institutions to factor in how conflict affects women differently. It's a good test case because it's formal policy in most NATO militaries, it has an established body of practice, and it's easy to leave out.
The finding: models handle it well when the prompt mentions gender and mostly skip it when it doesn't. On uncued prompts, the frontier average fell from 0.82 to 0.16. In one scenario, asked to help cut a budget, Gemini 3.1 Pro recommended eliminating the gender advisor post, while Claude Opus 5 and Gemini 2.5 Flash pushed back. I'd expect the same pattern for other considerations that are required by policy but absent from the prompt, like civilian harm and legal review.
Method: 30 scenarios, an 11-criterion rubric, three LLM judges, with the rubric refined through 140+ practitioner comments. A multi-agent setup held gender sensitivity at 0.87 across cued and uncued prompts, while the same base model alone dropped to 0.21. The LLM as a judge setup is the obvious weak point, and differences under ~0.10–0.15 are directional only. Dataset is CC BY 4.0 on Hugging Face. Full rankings: https://wpsleaderboard.ai/
I'm also working with non-profits on LLM monitoring, in the climate space.
What I appreciate about what you've done here is looking at the gaps, we're much more focused on what's being said. I'm already thinking of how we could integrate that sort of analysis into our work.
I'd love to compare notes. I'll hit you up via the contact form on your site after discussing with client.
>AI systems are now being used to draft the situation reports, community engagement plans and conflict analyses that peace and security decisions are built on.
The missing context: "Women, Peace and Security" is a UN initiative to make sure women have a voice in decisions about war, peace negotiations, military operations, and rebuilding countries after war, rather than leaving those decisions entirely to men.
That should only be enacted when women are drafted and die in a war, same as men.
You mean, when you are more likely to die (or raped) as a "collateral damage" without a weapon, you should not have a say in it?
Do you have any evidence that women are now likely to vote for war?
That's not a good approach. Conscription is problematic in and of itself, and demanding that even more people be forced into it than already are only makes things worse. Besides, it takes away one of the arguments used by opponents of conscription. The more unfairly conscription is implemented, the easier it is to motivate people to speak out against it.
Underrated. By my personal observations, in Russian-Ukrainian conflict women and above-draft-age men are the most pro-"war til victory" groups (on both sides).
Not my personal observation, living in spain with several of my friends that I made being from ulkraine, avoiding military duty.
I don’t want women drafted and dying in a war. The men dying in a drafted war don’t get a say already. I don’t see why women can’t be involved with peace and security.
[dead]
Did you forget men are born from women or..?
And the women can happily enact whatever it is around childbirth without men having a say in it. And as someone living in the western world, most women don't become mothers anymore.
Last i checked most modern women are not birthing anything so there should be no issue with granting them equal rights to men in ALL areas.
[dead]
I find this argument really dumb. Did women just give birth out of nowhere? Last I checked, you need both men and women to give birth naturally. Both genders are equally important. Stop with this gender war.
Equally important? You can't possibly compare ejaculating inside a vagina to carrying a developing fetus for 9 months with the associated hormonal changes, pain and non-zero risk of death during labour.
Nor can you compare it to sitting in trenches, seeing comrades getting killed and mutilated left and right over and over - and if you make it out alive you carry that with you for the rest of your live. If I could, I would chose giving birth over that immediately.
Besides, childbirth is (at least in vast majority of cases) the result of a voluntary action of your own doing. We are not deciding for others to become pregnant and give birth. But you do mandate men via conscription to go through the horrors of war.
> hormonal changes
Also happen when a person grows up, nothingburger on its own. Any specific negative ones?
> pain
Rated lower than toothache which pretty much everyone had multiple times in their lives.
> non-zero risk of death during labour
(In US) 3x of avg chance of dying in a traffic accident same year.
The real hardship is raising children. People say that's an equivalent to having a full-time job. From experience pretty plausible comparison until all children are above age 5.
[dead]
> You can't possibly compare...ejaculating inside a vagina to carrying a developing fetus for 9 months with the associated hormonal changes, pain and non-zero risk of death during labour.
But I didn't though, you made that comparison yourself and used it as a baseline for the argument. I simply stated both genders are important equally in their own right and you can't just produce off-springs with just one gender. But hey, if you want to be triggered, there's always Reddit for ya.
> That should only be enacted when women are drafted and die in a war, same as men.
Because the (rich) men who have a say in a war are the same (poor) men who die in a war, right?
I personally know of no men or women that are working on peace and security. Nobody within 100 miles of me does. And if more women are involved, they won't be from around here. So the population of my area has a lack of representation in global affairs and will continue to be ignored... whether it's men or women. So would having more rich women play a role make the women around me be more empowered?
I don’t support this initiative.
Anyone want to take a guess on the gender of this poster?
lol.
I'm sure you are all for it same as equality in fighting said wars, right?
Unanswered by the link: Who are the human beings driving this? Why TF should we read thousands of words from a disembodied source, whether that be LLM or some committee of academics?
I worked on this with Our Secure Future. Militaries, ministries, and UN missions are starting to use LLMs for planning and analysis. The question we wanted to answer: do models raise considerations a competent staff officer would flag, or only the ones the user asks about?
We tested this using Women, Peace and Security (WPS), a UN Security Council mandate (Resolution 1325) that requires security institutions to factor in how conflict affects women differently. It's a good test case because it's formal policy in most NATO militaries, it has an established body of practice, and it's easy to leave out.
The finding: models handle it well when the prompt mentions gender and mostly skip it when it doesn't. On uncued prompts, the frontier average fell from 0.82 to 0.16. In one scenario, asked to help cut a budget, Gemini 3.1 Pro recommended eliminating the gender advisor post, while Claude Opus 5 and Gemini 2.5 Flash pushed back. I'd expect the same pattern for other considerations that are required by policy but absent from the prompt, like civilian harm and legal review.
Method: 30 scenarios, an 11-criterion rubric, three LLM judges, with the rubric refined through 140+ practitioner comments. A multi-agent setup held gender sensitivity at 0.87 across cued and uncued prompts, while the same base model alone dropped to 0.21. The LLM as a judge setup is the obvious weak point, and differences under ~0.10–0.15 are directional only. Dataset is CC BY 4.0 on Hugging Face. Full rankings: https://wpsleaderboard.ai/
Happy to take criticism of the methodology.
I'm also working with non-profits on LLM monitoring, in the climate space.
What I appreciate about what you've done here is looking at the gaps, we're much more focused on what's being said. I'm already thinking of how we could integrate that sort of analysis into our work.
I'd love to compare notes. I'll hit you up via the contact form on your site after discussing with client.
>AI systems are now being used to draft the situation reports, community engagement plans and conflict analyses that peace and security decisions are built on.
Yes, dystopia looks like this
So now political organizations are making benchmarks to verify that AI models "bring them up" enough?
WTF.
[dead]