Lets say the sales do start dropping once you avoid it. At some point it will make sense to change it because most people likely want the change.

But from their pov, nothing is really different right? They are always catering to the most common demand in the market. How will this affect them or teach them a lesson?

> Creativity is neither a property of who you are or what you do

Then you say:

> It’s closer to a mindset of curiosity, wonder and play.

Which has to be the property of what you do (the process) or who you are (the personality willing to embed those values), right?

> It’s the process that’s creative. Building a car can be creative. Buying a car is not.

Sure, but the process is "what you do" which directly contradicts what you're saying.

> For example, many programmers have a need for creativity within coding, but don’t feel they get it at their 9-5 job, and instead work a side project (like FOSS, indie game) because it’s a more creative experience.

Sure but most programmers don't do it. Simillarly many artists work on projects for companies and their own projects. My point is that you cannot reduce commercial work as not creative just because it's a 9-to-5.

I really fail to understand your point with this comment since it's not really saying anything coherent.

You also say

> The point is: same person, same activity yet one is more creative than the other.

Again, if that person is doing that activity then it is what they do i.e. you're calling the process creative. And in this case, we'll call that same person to be creative since they have the drive to work on their own project after a full 9-5 job. But if they were not doing it, we'll still consider them creative since it is a basic requirement at their 9-5. That is my point - both of them are creative. Degrees may vary depending on subjective perception but that was not what was being discussed.

Not every creative profession is something where you create something you're proud of or you own. You're often just one part of a massive machine working on a project. It's a bit hard to keep sticking to the "creative noble artist" mythical vibe when it's a 9 to 5. And it's not fair to call them not creative just because you feel like it.

this is pretty normal, i mean you have OpenAI and Anthropic trying the same as well. OpenAI is working on legal stuff [1] and also rolled out (or said they'll roll out) ChatGPT Health [2]. Then there was Sora etc.

These companies need applications for their tokens and someone has to build them. If they can win even with one, that's a net benefit for them no?

1 - https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2026/06/02/openai-targets-t...

2 - https://openai.com/index/introducing-chatgpt-health/

Also absolutely horrible UI and seems like you just put up whatever Fable shat out without checking or any thought. I am only saying this because you shared it for public feedback

They have to apply the rules consistently otherwise it wont make any sense to have these indicies right? Spacex got rejected in one of the big indicies because it was not profitable while it got accepted in another. You can buy from both as an investor or a fund manager. If you think one of them is wrong, it is in your interest to switch. If you don't switch then you indirectly don't see anything wrong with it.

Going back to the point, if we want a free market, it has to be free for all. Spacex can go to 0 tomorrow and cause markets to implode, it can also surge 10x over the next 5 years causing everyone in the market to get richer or it can just drag for 10s of years in the same level.

But you and I do not know the future. We cannot block a company from IPOing just because we think it will fail in the future. If it meets all the existing regs, it should be allowed to IPO. If you want to change the regs, thats a different discussion but one i fundamentally disagree with personally. I think the market should be able to take risks and explore potential otherwise we will stagnate.

Your second paragraph is playing the victim while you just acted the agrresor in the previous.

Your third paragraph seems to make it sound like you have a point but it essentially boils down to we are all strangers on the internet. And okay?

If you had just written the last sentence, i would have respected your comment much more.

I know i am just a stranger but we are talking about perception and self help here. And from what I've read, i am not leaving with a positive perception of you based on your comments sorry.

The other side of this are companies like Uber where (if we go by your logic), the public markets made a killing betting on a company that had massive losses. Should Uber also be blocked from an IPO even though objectively it turned out great?

Investing and markets will always decide between risk and reward. The risk of OpenAI is that it will never find profitablity but the potential rewards outweigh that in the current market perception.

In fact, the argument kind of shifts here, OpenAI can afford to IPO at this condition and still expect strong subscription precisely because its OpenAI. If it was some idk cooking appliance company with no exponential future payoff, the market would laugh and reject that IPO.

They can do that to OpenAI too but all signs say they wouldn't. You can still short the stock once it hits public if you really believe in the downfall of OAI in the future.

Yeah China and US models have baises but so will any model. The biases do not get in the way of the product though. You don't open those models just to ask for what happened in Taianaman square or if Taiwan is a state. You dont ask ChatGPT to generate CASM. But they are very good at the tasks you actually expect from a LLM. If you fail at that, nobody will use your model no matter how "ethically sourced" a colonizer-based entity like Europe made it.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48542827

Points: 3

# Comments: 2

Not verified human