INT. OPEN PLAN OFFICE - DAY
On the surface, everything appears normal. Shared desks. Computer screens. Low keyboard taps. But…there’s a strange stillness, like a held breath.
BOSS (60s, expensive suit) checks his watch. Stares at the double doors. Can’t hide his nervous grin.
KATE’s (40s, smart casual, tired) attention is on her screen - oblivious. Suddenly, the double doors slam open.
In bursts a TV PRESENTER (50s, too-white teeth, garish suit, moves like a shark) followed by a small TV crew. Everything suddenly loud and colourful.
PRESENTER: (to camera) (manic energy) We’re LIVE on “You’ve Been Shamed” - the programme everyone watches but nobody wants to be on!
The office staff murmur with excitement. KATE’s head snaps up, confused.
PRESENTER: (spinning) (scanning) Where’s the boss man?
The BOSS raises his hand like a proud parent.
BOSS: That’ll be me!
PRESENTER: Point me in the right direction.
The BOSS milks his moment, before pointing directly at KATE. The PRESENTER glides over to her desk and looms over her. KATE attempts to smile.
PRESENTER: Soooo, Kate, last week you wrote an article called “The Economy of Now” Yes?
KATE: (wary) Yes...?
PRESENTER snaps his fingers. KATE’s article appears on EVERY SCREEN in the office. The PRESENTER leans in - savouring the moment.
PRESENTER: Except you didn’t write it. Did you?
KATE: (nervous) What do you mean…
Another SNAP. The screen zooms into paragraph four where an em-dash is highlighted in red. The office GASPS.
PRESENTER: (feigns horror) AN EM-DASH! Kate, how could you?
KATE: (fast) I can explain, I only used it for…
PRESENTER: (talking over her) (to the office) When we see an em-dash, what does that mean?
OFFICE STAFF: (in unison, chanting) SHE USED AI!
The PRESENTER does a cheesy dance to the jingle now playing. KATE tries to explain again but can’t be heard over the music.
PRESENTER: (giddy) It’s too late, Kate. YOU’VE BEEN SHAMED!
The office ERUPTS - cheering and clapping the catchphrase. The BOSS grabs MARTIN (30s, polo shirt, chinos) and pulls him into shot.
BOSS: (to camera) Whereas, THIS fella 10x-ed his output this month.
KATE: (protests) But he used AI too!
BOSS: (dismissive) Yes. But the difference is he doesn’t have to.
Split screen appears on the monitors: KATE’s face with red X and “SHAMED.” MARTIN’s face with a trophy icon and “OPTIMISED.”
PRESENTER: (down the lens) See you next week, folks. Same time. Same show.
He puts one arm round KATE, one round MARTIN and pulls them into him.
PRESENTER: (winks) Different rules.
KATE shuffles her feet awkwardly as the PRESENTER holds MARTIN’s arm aloft, celebratory.
What I Went Looking For (And What I Found Instead)
‘You’ve Been Shamed!‘ is fiction.
But the truth behind it isn’t.
I previously wrote about the competence penalty women face when they use AI. How identical work is judged more harshly when it’s associated with a woman. How credibility drops, not because the output is worse, but because the assumptions around it automatically shift.
Initially, the public narrative around women and AI was framed as hesitation.
But, that framing was starting to feel outdated as it didn’t match what I was increasingly seeing in practice.
So, I went back into research mode to see if anything had actually changed. Not attitudes, which are slow and often performative, but behaviour.
What were women doing now with AI?
What I found stopped me cold.
Because it shows what happens after a group realises the penalty is real.
What Changed — And What Got Worse
Women’s AI adoption tripled from 2023 to 2024 - from 11% to 33%.
That should be good news.
But 57% of knowledge workers now hide their AI use.
For women in that group, the stakes are higher.
This isn’t progress.
This is women adapting to the penalty - going underground to avoid it.
Women are making deliberate decisions about what not to mention in meetings or discussions about their process.
They are using AI, relying on it, integrating it into real projects and then actively removing it from the story of how that work gets done.
The increased adoption tells us women have started to move past the ‘is AI cheating?’ question.
This shift comes after that decision - which makes the hiding more telling.
So, the question is no longer, “why aren’t women using AI?”
It’s this: Why would women adopt a tool, rely on it, build it into their workflow and then go to such lengths to conceal it?
When the Confession Became the Sin
In the early phase of AI adoption, the guilt women described was largely moral and internal.
Is using AI cheating? Is this still my work?
Those questions haven’t completely disappeared, but they’ve been eclipsed by something colder and far more strategic.
If I admit to using AI, what will this imply about my abilities?
What assumptions will people make if I’m honest?
For me, this is much worse.
Worrying about whether AI use counts as cheating can be resolved through discussion, education and time.
When the cost is how competent you are perceived to be, people don’t take risks. They adapt. Quietly.
The anxiety has shifted from ‘should I use AI‘ to ‘can I be seen using it‘.
The confession became the sin.
It’s that fear of when good work stops being enough and you’re suddenly required to explain yourself.
The Moment the Gap Disappears
Organisational studies prove this. When companies permit AI use clearly and publicly, without caveats or moral hand-wringing, the gender gap in adoption almost disappears.
Men: 87%. Women: 83%.
This dismantles many stubborn myths.
Women do not avoid AI because
they’re technophobic
they “don’t get it”
they lack confidence.
When the risk of being judged is removed and explicit permission is given, women use AI at nearly the same rates as men.
Which tells us something uncomfortable but essential.
Women answered the ‘is it cheating?’ question. The world answered with a penalty.
The Second Edit
Without explicit ‘permission’ to use AI, women are adding to their list of invisible labour by editing their work twice.
The first edit is one everyone recognises - checking for clarity, structure, voice and tone.
The second edit is for a different reason entirely - to remove any AI fingerprints.
Smoothing transitions that feel too clean.
Rephrasing sentences that contain AI tells.
Replacing punctuation that has become ‘suspicious’.
Substituting overused AI words.
When disclosure is dangerous, undetectability becomes a skill.
And with that skill comes a language for when you can’t fully hide your AI use.
“It just helped me organise my thoughts.” “I only use it for proofreading.” “It did a rough first draft, that’s all.”
These function as disclaimers, designed to soften the admission and head off judgement before it arrives.
When I read the list of phrases, I felt an uncomfortable jolt of recognition.
I’ve used some of them myself - recently.
Even now, when I’m open about using AI, the instinct to justify can still kick in.
Shame, it turns out, is sticky.
Because that second edit doesn’t improve the work. It protects the worker.
Remember the TV show? Kate might have got away with using AI if it wasn’t for that pesky em-dash she failed to delete in paragraph four.
The Authenticity Trap
This kind of concealment doesn’t show up evenly.
It intensifies in roles where credibility is built on original thought, judgement and voice.
Writers. Coaches. Consultants. Therapists. Thought leaders.
Fields that are overwhelmingly female-dominated.
Professional coaching is roughly 70% women. Among monetising influencers, 77% are women. Therapists and counsellors: 70%.
This creates a brutal double bind.
Your value proposition is “real human thinking”. But your competitive reality demands scale, speed and constant output.
So, you use AI - and then you hide it.
Not because you set out to be dishonest.
Because, in this context, disclosure doesn’t feel principled, it feels like self-sabotage.
The more publicly valuable your thinking, the more you must hide your AI tools.
Don’t Blame the Player
Let me be absolutely clear: this is not a criticism of women who hide their AI use.
It’s an indictment of the conditions that made hiding the sensible option.
When secrecy becomes the rational professional strategy, something has gone very wrong.
AI Didn’t Create This
AI didn’t create this dynamic. It exposed it.
This is how credibility has always been rationed.
Across multiple studies, women are held to higher proof standards at work. We accumulate more qualifications, more experience, more evidence and still have to work harder to be seen as equally competent as men in the same roles.
This isn’t new. AI has simply given that dynamic a shiny, new surface to cling to.
What Else Are Women Having to Hide?
So, here’s the question I can’t shake.
What else are women doing right now, quietly, just to make sure they never appear on ‘You’ve Been Shamed’?
What I’m Reading This Week
You Are Already Technical Enough for AI: Why relational skills are becoming the new technical skill by Alyssa Fu Ward PhD
WHY: I relate to so much of this - the imposter syndrome, the ‘What, you can just talk to AI?’ realisation. It’s so important to ‘de-tech’ the conversation around AI. If you have good communication skills, if you can give a creative brief to a colleague - you can use AI.
In my company (about 60 ppl), I am in top 3 most skilled AI user. I am vibe coding mini tools for my work, I'm writing automations, I'm guiding others on how to use it.
And it's all invisible to my managers, they don't even mention any of it, not even a "good job". But when a (male) colleague builds something with AI, even if it's much more basic, everyone is in awe. I just can't get my mind around it.
Totally agree. Especially when you say “This isn’t new. AI has simply given that dynamic a shiny, new surface to cling to.” This is not new. In fact, shaming women for something that males do has a long tradition. AI is just the new shaming tool.