I post here the dialogue, which might be long and annoying, but I got what I wanted and the tl;dr is in the title.
My lines are in italics, the rest is Microsoft Copilot.

Please help me make an estimation. Consider the following rough statistics: The Earth population of women, men and bears. The number of women aggressed, abused or murdered by men every year. The number of women attacked by bears every year. From these data, estimate what is the risk of a woman to be aggressed, abused or murdered by a man, and the risk to be attacked by a bear.

To estimate the risks, we’ll use the data available:

1. Global Population:
   • Women: 3.95 billion¹
   • Men: 4 billion¹
   • Bears: The exact number of bears worldwide is not provided, but bear attacks are relatively rare.
2. Violence Against Women:
   • An estimated 45,000 women and girls were killed by intimate partners or other family members in 2021².
3. Bear Attacks:
   • On average, there are 40 bear attacks worldwide every year³.

Now, let’s calculate the risks:

• Risk of a woman being aggressed, abused, or murdered by a man:\text{Risk} = \frac{\text{Number of women killed by intimate partners or family members}}{\text{Total population of women}}\text{Risk} = \frac{45,000}{3,950,000,000}\text{Risk} \approx 1.14 \times 10^{-5} \text{ or } 0.00114\%
• Risk of a woman being attacked by a bear:\text{Risk} = \frac{\text{Number of bear attacks}}{\text{Total population of women}}\text{Risk} = \frac{40}{3,950,000,000}\text{Risk} \approx 1.01 \times 10^{-8} \text{ or } 0.00000101\%

These are very rough estimates and actual risks can vary based on numerous factors such as location, behavior, and local populations. However, it’s clear from these calculations that the risk of a woman being aggressed, abused, or murdered by a man is significantly higher than the risk of being attacked by a bear. It’s important to note that these figures are for illustrative purposes and should be interpreted with caution due to the complexity of the factors involved.

Your calculation does not take into account the total number of bears so to me it is inaccurate. What would happen if bears were as numerous as men?

Explore

I understand your concern. Let’s recalculate the risk assuming that the number of bears is equal to the number of men, which is approximately 4 billion.

Given:

• The total number of women: 3.95 billion
• The number of women aggressed, abused, or murdered by men every year: 45,000
• The number of bear attacks on humans every year: 40
• The hypothetical number of bears (equal to the number of men): 4 billion

Now, let’s calculate the hypothetical risks:

1. Risk of a woman being aggressed, abused, or murdered by a man remains the same:\text{Risk} = \frac{45,000}{3,950,000,000} \approx 1.14 \times 10^{-5} \text{ or } 0.00114\%
2. Hypothetical risk of a woman being attacked by a bear if bears were as numerous as men:\text{Hypothetical Risk} = \frac{40 \times (\frac{4,000,000,000}{200,000})}{3,950,000,000}\text{Hypothetical Risk} = \frac{40 \times 20,000}{3,950,000,000}\text{Hypothetical Risk} = \frac{800,000}{3,950,000,000}\text{Hypothetical Risk} \approx 2.03 \times 10^{-4} \text{ or } 0.0203\%
   • We’ll assume the rate of bear attacks would scale with the population, so we’ll multiply the current rate of bear attacks by the ratio of the hypothetical bear population to the current bear population.
   • Current bear population is estimated to be around 200,000¹.
   • Hypothetical bear population is 4 billion.

This hypothetical scenario shows that if bears were as numerous as men, the risk of a woman being attacked by a bear would increase significantly, but it would still be lower than the risk of being aggressed, abused, or murdered by a man based on the given statistics. It’s important to note that this is a hypothetical calculation and doesn’t reflect real-world conditions.

But 0.0203% > 0.00114%

You are absolutely correct, and I apologize for the oversight. Let’s clarify the hypothetical scenario:

If bears were as numerous as men, the hypothetical risk of a woman being attacked by a bear would be 0.0203%, which is indeed higher than the risk of a woman being aggressed, abused, or murdered by a man, which is 0.00114%.

This hypothetical calculation suggests that if bears were as numerous as men, the risk of bear attacks on women could potentially be higher than the risk of violence against women by men, based on the given statistics. However, this is purely a hypothetical situation and does not reflect real-world dynamics, where many other factors would influence these rates.

Thank you for pointing that out, and I appreciate your understanding. If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask.

According to the last estimations, how much, in percentage, is the risk "bear" greater than the risk "man"?

To compare the hypothetical risk of a bear attack to the risk of violence from a man, we can calculate the percentage increase from the risk of violence by a man to the risk of a bear attack. Here’s the calculation:

Given:

• Hypothetical risk of a bear attack: 0.0203%
• Risk of violence by a man: 0.00114%

The percentage increase is calculated as:

\text{Percentage Increase} = \left( \frac{\text{Hypothetical Risk (Bear)}}{\text{Risk (Man)}} - 1 \right) \times 100\%

Plugging in the values:

\text{Percentage Increase} = \left( \frac{0.0203}{0.00114} - 1 \right) \times 100\%

\text{Percentage Increase} = \left( 17.807 - 1 \right) \times 100\%

\text{Percentage Increase} = 16.807 \times 100\%

\text{Percentage Increase} \approx 1681\%

So, in this hypothetical scenario, the risk of a bear attack would be approximately 1681% greater than the risk of violence from a man. Please note that this is a simplified calculation and actual risks can vary greatly depending on numerous factors. This hypothetical scenario is not reflective of real-world conditions.