It could be just as simple as taking time to be confident. Or it could have been somebody wanted to use this as a bargaining chip and failed somehow... Who knows.
Nobody on the outside knows for sure, but two key signals to watch are project sunsets and brain drain.
If the rumors of fundraising difficulties are true, OAI will have to prioritize its most profitable projects, potentially slowing down new training runs and optimizing existing models for efficiency at the expense of user experience.
Insiders are also the first to sense internal trouble, so if top talent starts leaving for competitors preparing to go public, it won't bode well for the company.
No, they sell different products in the same category. You are basically saying Google and Bing as the same product when Bing is superior to Google search in some non-critical metrics.
Because they are? Google and Bing are the same product - search engines. Just like Ford and Ferrari both sell cars, whether you think one is "better" or not.
> No, they sell different products in the same category. You are basically saying Google and Bing as the same product when Bing is superior to Google search in some non-critical metrics.
In this case, it's pretty much the same product.
I mean, if you were to purchase electricity from two different providers (1x Nuclear plant and 1x Coal plant), would you actually care which one is being used to run your dishwasher on any given day?
It does not seem as bad as it sounds like. The numbers are quarter-by-quarter and the market is fluctuating day-by-day basis. To me, growing in this fierce market by 45% qoq seems amazing by itself.
1) Shifting cultural norms. People are now enough and they want to live their lives. Kids are annoying as hell to be honest, and until you're a parent, you don't get the appeal. But nature has a way of really playing your heart when you have a kid and the intensity of emotion is hard to describe. BUt if you were to do a pros/cons list, you probably would not want them.
2) Inflation of expectation on parenting. Parents used to be much more hands off in the previous generations, but the expectation of what you need to provide has gone thorough the roof and not all is useful, to be honest.
3) Delay in child bearing led to fertility drop when people really want to have kids.
4) This, I somewhere and will pawn it as my own, but... kids are no longer useful. Previously, kids were a working hand around the house and insurance for parental care when they got older. Both of these are not something necessarily expected of them nowadays.
5) Since women bear the brunt of the rough jobs of child rearing, even in our more egalitarian societies, their increase in options and freedom means a lot opt to just... not do it. As mentioned at pct1. it's really a tough job. Can't say I blame them.
Allow me to reframe all of your points through a slightly different lens
1) Shifting Culture of Norms == Children are expensive. If you have kids you might have to give up the lucrative career opportunities you have been building towards since your university days, and other personal opportunities
2) Inflation of expectations on parenting == Children are expensive. Parents are expected to spend a lot more of their free time and money putting their kids in programs and sports and such
3) Delay in child bearing led to fertility drop when people really want to have kids == Children are expensive. If you want to have them, you need to have them before you are really financially stable and established in a career.
4) kids are no longer useful == Children are expensive. In the past kids were expected to contribute to the household at a fairly young age. Nowadays not so much. This means families either hire someone to do that work or it falls on the parents.
5) Women in the workforce == Children are expensive! Families have an entire extra income with Moms working and they still can't afford childcare. With an entire extra income!
So you're right that the reasons for falling birth rates don't have to be "children are expensive" but all of the reasons are certainly "children are expensive"-shaped
Sure, you can reframe things that way, if you want to reduce all dimensions of existence to money and want to try to simplify all life as being about money, sure, go nuts. I certainly can't stop you.
You could do the same kind of exercise with whatever other measurement of reality that you consider to be the pivot of existence like free time or amounts of sandwiches available or whatever (or is that also boiling down to money?).
But that really really hobbles your model of reality so much to the point it's not useful anymore.
And, then by your own standards, were they ever NOT expensive?
Is this expense some relative state to other people, as in if other people have more it means I have less by virtue of comparison or is it some concrete measure of need one can not afford nowadays and they could before.
No, my point is that you're conflating "expensive" with money
Yeah a lot of my points are about money. But it's also free time, responsibility, etc
For example my parents used to drop me off for a friends birthday party and then go away. There would be adults there who they trusted to look out for me, and they could use that time for themselves for a bit to do whatever
Nowadays parents literally stay the entire time. That's a pretty large chunk of time that my parents had to themselves and parents nowadays do not. I don't know what other term than "expensive" to describe that, but it doesn't have anything to do with money
“Children are time-consuming” is probably more precisely communicative than “children are expensive” for the aspects where you want to focus specifically on time.
Why does this sound very much like the argument toward full self-driving? If drivers need to be watchful of mostly autonomous ones, they get bored and lose attention or sometimes take nap in front of the steering wheel. Waymo came out of an extension of this argument..
reply