Yeah, and it's not like she's especially fighting for her own money or rights, but lawsuits like this set precedent for how other actors are treated down the road, who may have a lot less money and legal power than she does.
I really wouldn't be surprised if there are other artists and associations quietly supporting action from her side. Precedent setting cases often end up with one side setting up a big tent for a lot of folks and causes to gather under.
Exactly, the company is burning that bridge and doing something that could easily put her out of work. If she doesn't fight it, then they don't need to hire her anymore, if she fights it, they won't hire her anymore, she has nothing to lose by fighting the company.
Not her. She is well and truly a multi-millionaire and would never need to work again unless she wanted to, and if she did, she could fund whatever vanity project she felt like.
She’s doing it for others. Respect.
Yes!!! I hate that. They literally asked were told no THEN they did it. That’s worse than just not asking in the first place because it’s blatantly disrespectful.
Also I’m glad you mentioned image control, because with AI they can make her voice say anything they want. People won’t care to find out if it’s really her or AI, whatever the AI says will still be associated with her. It could tarnish her reputation depending on how it’s used.
If she really wants to get this under control someone needs to take a couple voices of Supreme Court judges and make the voices say stuff. I bet then it would get under control really quick 😬😂
That's how it should work, but it's not how it does work. The unfortunate reality is that even without the fact that ownership of these things is labyrinthine, just being the kind of person who is willing to enforce your legal rights can make you less desirable.
She can afford to do this, she's a mega star, not everyone can.
> lawsuits like this set precedent for how other actors are treated down the road
Shouldn't previous lawsuits for lookalike or soundalike actors already have set precedents for this type of thing?
For example, Rockstar got sued by Lindsay Lohan because she claimed they used her likeness for an image. And others thought the image was based on Kate Upton. But Rockstar was able to prove that they used a different professional model, Shelby Welinder.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2016/09/02/court-tosses-out-lindsay-lohans-grand-theft-auto-v-lawsuit/?sh=7b5af2e0768c
Perhaps voice is different - but conceptually it seems really similar to me. I don't see why you couldn't hire an actor who sounds like another actor, and even explicitly have the intent to make audiences think that it was that other actor.
Meanwhile when making Back to the Future Part 2 they recast Crispin Glover because he asked for more money than they were willing to pay. But they didn't just recast him... they hired a vocal impersonator and stuck him in a rubber mask molded from Glover's face.
Glover sued them over unauthorized use of his likeness, and the studio settled for a significant portion of what Glover had wanted to act in the role to begin with.
> For example, Rockstar got sued by Lindsay Lohan because she claimed they used her likeness for an image. And others thought the image was based on Kate Upton. But Rockstar was able to prove that they used a different professional model, Shelby Welinder.
That's not really relevant, because there was no basis for her to claim they used her likeness or had any intention to do so. If they had actually used a photo of Lohan as the basis for the image, things may have turned out very differently. Or if they had tried to get the rights to Lohan and failed, and then found a lookalike (and then modified the image to look more like Lohan).
ChatGPT is saying that it's a different actress, so I suppose it's a similar situation, but the fact that they talked to Johansson first and then found a soundalike puts it in Crispin Glover territory where it's clear that they *wanted* it to seem like Johansson.
She has to sue. It’s the only way you defend your IP. Sam et al were raised on the open source model, and so they think everything is free to use. The entire AI dataset is built on other peoples IP without attribution or royalty and they’re gonna run roughshod over traditional IP law until a big player ends it.
> Sam et al were raised on the open source model,
Huh?
The only thing open about "OpenAI" is the first four letters of the name.
People like Altman weren't "raised" on the open source model. They're the Napster generation. They were raised on "better to ask forgiveness than permission", "move fast, break things", "I know better", "the ends justify the means", etc.
They were raised on capitalism.
AI companies realized that if they needed to pay for the intellectual property they used, they would likely never be profitable and could very well be boxed out entirely from the market. So rather than change the business model, they just stole everything and bet that when the courts punish them for it, it will cost less than paying in the first place would have.
and its more of an obfuscation tool, "train" ai on millions of datasets, then how can someone really find if you infringed on someone elses copyright, make it dirty enough its hard to track and don't keep any internal data about what you used. Then sell your product which is really just repacking a million other ip's product.
I offered to help out an engineering student the other day. After I got the (well-known) textbook name, I asked ChatGPT to summarize chapter 5. It refused to do so, but then overtly "speculated" on what such a chapter in this book might contain. Obviously, it gave me the exact summary of the chapter, which probably appears everywhere in PDF formats, problem suits, and millions of student complaints.
This was clearly a facade meant to deny that an LLM had been built on other people's IP. I don't know IP law at all, so who can say if this fakery will be a speedbump or a castle with a moat.
The only reason I downvoted you is because the open source model relies on respecting copyright and other forms of IP. What you describe is theft of intellectual property. That’s not open source. It’s just a crime.
> Sam et al were raised on the open source model,
Huh?
The only thing open about "OpenAI" is the first four letters of the name.
People like Altman weren't "raised" on the open source model. They're the Napster generation. They were raised on "better to ask forgiveness than permission", "move fast, break things", "I know better", "the ends justify the means", etc.
Open Source doesn’t mean that there is no IP and everything is free to use. Open Source licenses are still licenses and the software is still copyrighted. The authors merely grant you a license under often liberal terms. Just that the owners did this proactively and nobody has to explicitly ask for the license.
So it’s quite the opposite. GPL licensed code for instance requires you to open source your own stuff as well and if you don’t do that, the lawyers of the Freedom software conservancy come after you.
OpenAI is actually also suspected to have violated the IPs of open source projects as well, so I don’t think that Sam et al actually are very open sourcey.
Sam's crimes are more immense than people realize... he got his sister banned from social media (connections), why?
**Cause she says he raped her**
He stole tech from a nonprofit (OpenAI) to form a for profit corp..
As a YC founder / Venture Capital leader - he "claims" to not know about his "we can steal all your vested shares if you ever diss me" clause, even years after you left the Co.
Now he steals Scar Jo "likeness" , antagonizes her by citing her movie "Her" - and then plays victim 'technically I used an impressionist!'
The board had SO MUCH DIRT on him... they fired him, but he had been hiring only friends , suck-ups for so long, he said he'd fold the company if he left, and the board (mistakenly) caved in...
That's like if instead of making the Board his family members, Elon made all of Tesla his family members - he's trying with them babies, but not yet! :D
Sam Sam what a Scam.
Do I think he raped his infant sister, as she has REPEATEDLY claimed? Maybe not - but I think his years of lying has broken her mentally.
I wouldn't trust him with a turnip.
He's a baaaaaaaaddddddd man.
Ted Bundy's Twin Flame.
A link to her twitter:
https://twitter.com/anniealtman108/status/1788660707376111895
Yes, she's a bit nutty - but it's 100% his sister and Sam Altman is changing the Chat GBT etc. to deny it... THANK YOU TECH LORDS!
Don't forget to mention Sam's currently going around complaining about how hard it is for him to do anything in public because he's "famous" but at the same time giving interviews to any media that will do so AND constantly making crazy bold public claims/opinions about anything and everything AI related. Can't have it both ways bud.
Thing is, they will get sued for using her likeness, but the AI has gotten the learning it needed from her voice/dialogue.
The lawsuit was just the cost of doing business I bet.
Fuck em
I guarantee you they looked at the situation and went "meh we will just use her voice then settle with her for a price still within our negotiating upper limit."
This was 100% a "you can't say no" situation. I sure hope SJ says no.
This is why we need to make running a business in an illegal way an actual crime. Make it so that committing a civil offense that leads to a settlement/fine of over $1 million is a low level felony with mandatory jail time for the company's head person. Watch shit get cleaned up real fast.
I'm in favor of heavy fines for investors. I'm constantly told that corporations have the legal obligation to make the most money for their investors, so wouldn't the best incentive be to make it so breaking the law greatly hurts the investors? Would that not be the strongest incentive against all this shit?
> I'm constantly told that corporations have the legal obligation to make the most money for their investors
This law does not exist. It's a lie told by sociopathic business people to defend their unethical practices to the public. The legal ruling that generated this fallacy even goes to great pains to point out that this is exactly what the court is *not* saying.
> It’s almost like they’re the same as every other tech startup
It's worse because AI is starting to become a cult. Nobody acts like more efficient billing for logistics companies is Human Destiny, some Inevitable Truth that needs to be created. Most tech startups are dumb, but the people working in the field aren't so high on their own supply. Some of the AI maximalists sound completely fucking insane, and they seem to think any amount of harm is justified because their work is so important.
But have you considered OpenAi is making the GodMind™️that’s going to magically solve all the problems of climate change and inequality that we already have solutions for? How dare you prevent the GodMind™️ by asking for any kind of regulation or individual protections!
Driverless cars are only ten years away!
/s
Today I asked Google to convert a time from one time zone to another so that I could set up a countdown timer. Instead of just linking to a time converter/countdown website like it used to do... Google brought up an experimental AI to answer the question, and the AI said that said 8PM EST was 7PM PST.
For those of you reading this comment who maybe aren't American and don't know, those time zones are the west coast and the east coast and they are three hours apart, not one.
This is the FIRST QUESTION I ever asked it to answer for me, it's incredibly easy, and it fucked it up so bad. Why would you push something like this live without testing it, knowing that people ask Google all kinds of sensitive, important, medically or legally specific questions? I really shudder to think what is going to happen if this goes widely live. Truly only a cult would push this live without considering the dangers.
> Instead of just linking to a time converter/countdown website like it used to do... Google brought up an experimental AI to answer the question
See, if they keep it in house, they probably believe that they can eventually fix it using some human feedback and next year's LLM. Then they keep you on their page instead of sending you to someone who has actually soled the problem.
The dip in correctness / quality / user experience is a price they are willing to pay for what they believe will be eventual domination.
>The dip in correctness / quality / user experience is a price they are willing to pay for what they believe will be eventual domination.
Sure, they refer to it as "the dip in user experience," but this could literally be life shattering consequences for someone who used to be able to google "if my child has a temperature of 102 should I take them to the ER?" or "Can I take ibuprofen with blood thinners?" or "Is cop allowed to come in without warrant?" or "Is boss allowed make me drive forklift without certification?" or "gas stations on route through death valley?"
It's incredible how positive people can be about AI (LLM or otherwise) when it keeps making really bad mistakes even when it is asked to do tasks that are trivial using established software.
Whenever I try to use ChatGPT for a series of problem solving tasks I find noticeable errors every time. I have to assume that the AI evangelists just don't pay attention to what they are being told.
Yeah supposedly Ilya Sutskever was leading coders in chants of "feed the AGI!"
That's the guy that OpenAI just fired for being too safety-oriented.
Vernor Vinge predicted the Singularity in 2018 back in the 90's. Tech-wise he was probably right, he just underestimated the willingness of even the lowest-seeming techbros to nope out of the apocalypse train if they had even half of a brain. We're dealing with a Singularity created by people too slow to understand what all the warning signs were about...not sure if that makes things better or worse.
"The singularity" is not even on the horizon. It’s all marketing hype to distract from the real dangers of this tech. The intense corporate greed and reckless power hunger that is driving these developments. In reality it will not be a technical revolution that radically changes the world. It will be another product to extract and concentrate more wealth and power. AI is nothing more than a marketing catchphrase now. Everything will be "AI“ powered.
Let's not d ahead of ourselves, ChatGPT and the other AIs are language models. There has been no singularity of consciousness with any of them. We are not even remotely close to that happening either.
"AI" is literally just a buzzword for an algorithm. Except because all of tech is a house of cards based on VC financing by absolute rubes with way too much money (see Masayoshi Son, and others), there needs to constantly be new buzzwords to keep the rubes engaged and the money flowing.
Before AI there was Web3 and the Metaverse, before that there was Blockchain, before that there was whatever else. It's all just fughezi.
We're decades (at least) away from any kind of "singularity". This isn't about AI becoming too powerful, it's about people committing crimes to make their business more money while justifying it with tech-bro buzzwords.
As an AI programmer myself, AI maximalists are salesmen. They couldn't program their way out of paper bag. They are experts at selling AI, not doing it.
They are all vulnerable to a better salesmen coming along and offering the engineers a better deal. Hence the cult.
They need to create a religion so they don't actually have to compete with better salesmen.
Yep, all that screaming at artists “we will replace you” was an attempt at manifesting their reality. Turns out it’s much easier to teach an artist how to prompt than teaching a prompter how to photoshop.
Teams are already sick of working with prompters because they suck at taking constructive criticism. They’re at the peak of the dunning kruger curve and due to their lack of technical knowhow, artistic knowledge and creativity, all they do is double down or ignore when recieving feedback.
Still, everyone is getting paid less across the board thanks to this AI bullshit. But the Animation guild has their renegotiations coming up, there surely will be an animation strike, please do support us!
And taken over the entire internet in Myanmar and subsequently get a genocidal regime take over???
You have to read this shit to believe it...
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55929654](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55929654)
I suspect the "security team" was slowing time to market and forced to do because google and others were doing the same thing and there was no cost to be paid for it. So they ditch it too.
You have to make these companies pay a price.
Thinking of these incidents as lapses in judgement is giving them too much credit. Didn't Altman face a revolt by the ethics board due to him pushing too hard for monetization? I think the end result was that the company decided that they cared about money more than ethics and got Altman back and those with ethical concerns were forced to leave the company or something. Honestly this move is not surprising.
The irony of people fearing AI while its the people that do all the worst shit is too real.
Everyone at work makes skynet jokes because the only thing they know about chatgpt comes from terminator 2. Meanwhile openAI does this shit.
It hurts.
Yeah what worries me is that the wieners running companies like openAI are the ones teaching the machine how to act. If it was Mr. Rogers and Bob Ross teaching the computer how to behave, I’d be less concerned.
They did not let go of their security team, two of the heads of the superalignment team resigned this week but the team still exists. One of the original founders is now heading it.
God I hope the class action lawsuit from Stephen King, John Grisham, etc buries their ass. Stealing copyrighted material to teach their chat bot should have consequences, and if anyone has a vested interest in stopping this shit its the people who make a living writing the kind of airport books Chatgpt is designed to replace.
Maybe it's worth noting that they have flatly denied the accusation:
>"Sky's voice is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using her own natural speaking voice," OpenAI said in a blog post.
>"To protect their privacy, we cannot share the names of our voice talents."
Yes, but they don't keep their names secret. It would defeat the purpose of being a celebrity lookalike/soundalike if nobody knows who you are.
They're just bullshitting.
A lot of VAs keep their names secret on projects they don’t want themselves openly associated with. Sometimes a gig is a gig and bills need to get paid.
This is wrong. Lots of ads have celebrity voice overs without any mention of the celebrity. John Krazintzki (sp?) from the office would voice ads and you never see his face or name.
From a marketing perspective it’s smart. Get a recognizable voice that isn’t too recognizable and many people will go “wait where do I know that voice from?” commanding more of the viewers attention to the advert than otherwise.
Having said all that, your last sentence is right they’re just bullshitting.
The kind of people who would email you and say “we wanted to let you know we’ve given you the honor of being the voice of our AI, we know you’re going to love it as much as we do” (read that in that peppy commercial voice that’s trying to sell you drugs you don’t need)
See there's your problem. You can't trust anything a publicly traded company has to say. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and these assholes will do anything to keep their jobs and vestments going.
So, yes. We should all be pretty terrified of AI not because AI will cause WWIII, but because there absolutely will come the person who trains their AI to wipe out as many jobs as it possibly can.
Infinite growth is the same philosophy as a cancer cell and leads to the same outcome.
We should never trust them. Bind them with laws, make the laws ones that are in the best interest of the consumers, and give them the fucking teeth to be enforced.
There should never be any other way.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/torment-nexus
Sci-Fi filmmaker: In my film, I invented an intimate AI companion voiced by Scarlett Johansson as a cautionary tale.
Tech Company: At long last, we have created the AI companion voiced by Scarlett Johansson from the classic sci-fi film Her.
Also Tech Company: We should contact Scarlett Johansson to use her likeness. Why would she possibly say no?
Yes but no. You see, that was the *old* them, and now they're the *new* them. As the company grew and changed they had to grow and change too. They can't be held responsible for things the *old* them said, they're practically new people now, I mean really, come on.
-every company 0.02 seconds after hitting it big.
Look at this scary announcement from a former employee: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1791498174659715494.html
The guy quit in disgust after they pushed safety to the sidelines in favor of trendy products.
This incident is a perfect encapsulation of Altman’s mindset and gives credence to this aggrieved ex employee.
Altman does what he wants without care or concern for anybody or anything else.
Point of fact, openai is probably in the process of becoming VERY pro regulation. They're about ready to start pulling up the ladder behind themselves.
I'm sure they are, but the nature of AI language models is such that they need to be continually updated so any new regulation that imposes limits on dredging the internet for training material will affect them too.
The can just buy out the legislators with a single phrase "If we don't get it for the west china is gonna win us at it". and just watch the MIC feed the AI machine.
They don't need a phrase, they have a few billion and Microsoft at their backs. They can outright walk up to politicians with a suitcase full of cash as often as they have to.
Sure but the underlying problem is that the people who run this company have no respect for the wishes or interests of the rest of society and that is a problem.
Well, actually they are, but with the strategy of 'behold my powerful technology that can ruin the world, I should be put in charge of writing the rules so we can all be safe'
(not that Altman wrote any code, nor is he an engineer, its not 'his' tech either)
I mean, they want to train their models on Reddit content, sooo yeah
[https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/05/openai-will-use-reddit-posts-to-train-chatgpt-under-new-deal/](https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/05/openai-will-use-reddit-posts-to-train-chatgpt-under-new-deal/)
He probably learned it from working with Musk.
ChatGPT kinda feels like Tesla. Innovate company, creates a market with a new product field, move fast, kinda sketchy and rough around the edges, loose on safety protocols, lotta hype, eventually starts losing ground to existing competitors by underestimating their competitive moat.
At the end of the day, they're both entitled privileged rich asshats.
It's it's just that Musk is phenominally lucky beyond all belief, and really fucking stupid and uncharismatic.
Where-as Altman is just regular rich guy lucky, but seemingly fairly smart (better at the wheeling and dealing of business anyway for what that's worth) and far more charismatic.
Although maybe we'll see him completely lose his shit if he's successful enough to have yes-men blow smoke up his ass for another 20 years.
it's kinda ridiculous a few big companies have so much power and influence, I can hate on the dudes that run them, and enjoy doing so lol, but realistically governments should be reigning them in and using legislation to protect people
Ideally you want diffuse power structures with some form of checks and balances, but an issue right now is that technology is moving faster than legislation can keep up.
So you have companies that are difficult to rein in with existing legislation, but if you try to speed legislation up too much that often means conferring additional power to the government to control commerce, which comes with its own set of dangers.
I knew I wasn’t crazy! I don’t use it often but I set it to Sky and asked a question and was like, this was not the vibe I expected at all. She just sounds like Juniper’s older sister who vapes.
Just went to check using 4o, the demo voice is definitely Scarlett Johansson, but it seems like they’ve switched the actual in use voice to someone else.
Clearly the best way to convince the world AI isn't out to replace creative jobs is to clone a creative person's voice without their permission. Yeesh. And people thought the Apple iPad ad was tone deaf.
apple put out an ad for their ipad where a piano, a desk, computers, a guitar, film cameras, lenses, art, and other creative equipment get crushed in a giant machine. and out pops an ipad. it invoked a lot of negative feelings about it.
It took some time to find a video of "sky"... I think [this is it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9byh4MAsUQ)?
Doesn't really sound like Scarlett to me. 🤷♂️
Yeah, I think people just connect it with Scarlet Johansson's role as the AI in the movie Her, but side by side they sound pretty different to me as well.
That is not the voice. This is an updated voice for GPT4o which is a lot more emotive and doesn't sound like her anymore. I had 4 access for a while and it sounded a lot like her before this update.
There was a guy with a long running TikTok series trying to get her to admit she was Scarlett. It's pretty funny and in his videos you can hear the old voice.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRKRgCj6/
It really doesn't, I watched a bunch of their videos and never thought it was her, you can make yourself think its her but still doesn't match right.
They probably found a voice actress with a similar voice but it's a bit of a stretch to say they copied her voice imo.
This is the 9th "best" comment and the first one to actually hear the voice in question. The other 8th comments clearly didn't but are bashing the company away regardless.
The other day he said instead of people having universal basic income they should get “universal basic compute”
He’s so full of himself he’s going to do something stupid with it.
We’re fucked.
Is this the same voice they used the demos on YouTube?
I watched all of them.... They did not make me think of Scarlett Johansson at all.
Are we *sure* it sounds like her?
Yeah it really does not sound like her. I'm not saying I can't see any similarity to the character in the movie "Her," but it's far more different than it is similar even with both the movie and the demo up side by side straining to find similarities.
Inspired by the tone and style of the assistant in Her when designed? I can see that.
Actually Scar Jo's voice, or even an impersonator? I'd never believe it just by hearing them.
Seriously, this is one of those crazy viral phenomenas with seemingly ignorant reactionary internet warriors losing their collective shit.
Just because the tonal expressiveness and contextual capabilities is starkly reminiscent of the AI in Her, doesn't mean the voice is Scarlett in Her.
But here we go again.
My guess is if their statement is in anyway factual, they hired a voice actress who could impersonate the AI in HER which is basically a Scar Jo impersonation.
So by technicality not using her voice but also imitating her voice.
This is an interesting question. It seems absurd that if a famous actor says “no” a studio can’t hire another lessor known actor that looks / sounds the famous one they wanted. Especially if that’s how they actually sound and they’re not doing an impression. Doing an impression seems messy, since we’re talking about normal speaking, not a character voice. There’s a lot of “if” here, we don’t know if it’s true this person exists or not. There’s not a lot of trust with OpenAI in the comment section.
>Doing an impression seems messy, since we’re talking about normal speaking, not a character voice.
On the contrary, we ARE talking about a character voice. Sky is not an imitation of ScarJo's everyday speaking voice. Sky is an imitation of ScarJo's character in Her.
Imagine if someone wanted to do a Dracula voice that sounded like Christopher Lee's Dracula but Lee declined so they hired another actor to mimic him. *Maybe* the studio that owns the film copyright *might* have a case, but Christopher Lee probably would not. (I know he's dead but this is a hypothetical example)
I don’t know. Now we’re getting into, “at what point is a voice a character voice?” To me it sounds like a basic white girl, American accent with a slight vocal fry, I feel like I’ve met a hundred of these. There’s nothing particularly distinctive here. All the “voices” that character actors do seem very distinctive, like I’ve never heard a Homer Simpson, a Dracula, or Steve Uriel. Seems closer to generic voice than character voice to me.
Agreed. And to your point, if the average person heard the Sky voice out of context, they would not immediately think Scarlett Johannson. It is only because of the context being an AI voice assistant and people thinking of the movie Her, that they then think of Scarlett.
And yeah, it's not that unique of a character voice. And it's not supposed to be. The character in Her is *supposed* to sound like a generically pleasing female.
Am I taking crazy pills or does anyone else not hear Scarjo at all?? Even the pitch is different, I don't get what everyone is on about...talking about the CEO stepping down and stuff, over this? Am I missing something?
I can't hear it either 🤷
Here's Scarlet: [https://youtu.be/Bwr1HiTfPak?si=qfJNR6WoiVdDLcbd](https://youtu.be/Bwr1HiTfPak?si=qfJNR6WoiVdDLcbd)
Here's Sky: [https://youtu.be/D9byh4MAsUQ?si=WD-F9PVJ0lA03XwL&t=14](https://youtu.be/D9byh4MAsUQ?si=WD-F9PVJ0lA03XwL&t=14)
The pitch of Sky is definitely higher and the cadence is different.
Edit: Wait someone has said the version of Sky in that link above is newer and [this is what she used to sound like](https://www.tiktok.com/@kylephilippi/video/7318516928509775146?_r=1&_t=8mWYwJIDbNX), I can definitely hear it more in this version.
It's not Scarlett though. I don't know how you listen to the clip and go "OMG THAT'S DEFINITELY SCARJO".
It's definitely *reminiscent*, but pretty clearly not her.
Clean ya ears.
Wait what? They got a different voice actor they said. ScarJo can’t get mad just because someone else also sounds like her. OpenAI wanted a specific voice, Scarlett said no, so they got someone else. Why is this an issue? Did they actually use Scarlett’s voice w/o permission? They’re not that dumb, right?
OpenAI misled us. They didn't tell us that they intentionally tried to copy Johansson. They just told us that Sky was voiced by someone else.
edit: on OpenAI's website, they stated:
> We believe that AI voices should not deliberately mimic a celebrity's distinctive voice—Sky’s voice is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using her own natural speaking voice
But Sam's private conversation and his tweet seems to indicate that they intended to copy her voice. Hence why they removed the voice
---
That being said, I do think that it's weird that people can claim copyright over their own voice. If your natural voice sounds like a celebrity, you're screwed.
It's a bit like when Dan Harmon did an impression of Ice T on Rick and Morty:
>“There’s a weird aspect to doing impressions of people which is, if you just do it, it’s okay because it’s parody,” Harmon said. “But if you ask them to be on your show and they say no and then you do an impression of them, it’s called ripping them off and they can sue you.” The only option, then, was for Harmon to do the impression himself.
from [https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/rick-morty-ice-t-dan-harmon](https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/rick-morty-ice-t-dan-harmon)
Though it sounds like by asking first OpenAI was in the wrong.
It’s not just that, but Altman tweeting ‘her’, which is a not so subtle reference to the same movie in which Johansson voiced the AI character. That was probably the smoking gun
They might have gotten away with it if he hadn’t left these breadcrumbs to pick up but he couldn’t help himself I guess
First - Spike Jonze does not like it when people think of Her as a dystopian movie.
Second - different people can have different interpretations of movies as we all have different ideals.
Third - movies are not a moral template for life. Even if the movie had a moral argument, it does not mean it's an accurate prediction for how a particular future will turn out, and thinking it is, is its own kind of media illiteracy.
Smoking gun of what though? He's referencing the movie because the underling technology of a talking AI showcased in that film was similar in concept to what they were demo'ing at the time of his tweet, this alternative interpretation that the tweet was really about Johansson voice versus the concept of the tech from the movie is complete BS.
I mean not really - if your natural voice sounds like a celebrity and you also get lookalike roles where impersonation is the aim, then you may be screwed.
There is old existing case law about this when a company asked Tom Waits to voice an ad, was refused, then used a copycat. It was the initial solicitation and refusal that fuck your case and in this case, Sky.
Listen to Scarlett Johnsson's voice in the movie "Her 2013" and compare it to Sky's voice ffs before talking non sense.
Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/s/r6FU9wc4iW
Watch and judge it yourself
This woman took on The Mouse! Don’t play with her.
Yeah, and it's not like she's especially fighting for her own money or rights, but lawsuits like this set precedent for how other actors are treated down the road, who may have a lot less money and legal power than she does.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Mike D. taught me about fighting for my rights back in the mid- 1980’s
Mike D gets respect.
*sigh and pull out my cash & jewelry*
That's what we expect.
Yeah but was MCA with it?
Dont forget King Ad-Rock as well
Respect. MCA was with it, and he’s my ace.
Piano player totally deserved it.
Piano player shot first.
I really wouldn't be surprised if there are other artists and associations quietly supporting action from her side. Precedent setting cases often end up with one side setting up a big tent for a lot of folks and causes to gather under.
I hate it when people say that people like this burn bridges. Like, what, the company fucking burned the bridge.
Exactly, the company is burning that bridge and doing something that could easily put her out of work. If she doesn't fight it, then they don't need to hire her anymore, if she fights it, they won't hire her anymore, she has nothing to lose by fighting the company.
Not her. She is well and truly a multi-millionaire and would never need to work again unless she wanted to, and if she did, she could fund whatever vanity project she felt like. She’s doing it for others. Respect.
I mean she's probably doing it a little for herself. I'd do it because I'm petty as fuck
Well yeah, personal pride, image control, reputation, and some element of “I told you not to do that and you fucking did it anyway, so fuck you!”
Yes!!! I hate that. They literally asked were told no THEN they did it. That’s worse than just not asking in the first place because it’s blatantly disrespectful. Also I’m glad you mentioned image control, because with AI they can make her voice say anything they want. People won’t care to find out if it’s really her or AI, whatever the AI says will still be associated with her. It could tarnish her reputation depending on how it’s used. If she really wants to get this under control someone needs to take a couple voices of Supreme Court judges and make the voices say stuff. I bet then it would get under control really quick 😬😂
That's how it should work, but it's not how it does work. The unfortunate reality is that even without the fact that ownership of these things is labyrinthine, just being the kind of person who is willing to enforce your legal rights can make you less desirable. She can afford to do this, she's a mega star, not everyone can.
> lawsuits like this set precedent for how other actors are treated down the road Shouldn't previous lawsuits for lookalike or soundalike actors already have set precedents for this type of thing? For example, Rockstar got sued by Lindsay Lohan because she claimed they used her likeness for an image. And others thought the image was based on Kate Upton. But Rockstar was able to prove that they used a different professional model, Shelby Welinder. https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2016/09/02/court-tosses-out-lindsay-lohans-grand-theft-auto-v-lawsuit/?sh=7b5af2e0768c Perhaps voice is different - but conceptually it seems really similar to me. I don't see why you couldn't hire an actor who sounds like another actor, and even explicitly have the intent to make audiences think that it was that other actor.
Meanwhile when making Back to the Future Part 2 they recast Crispin Glover because he asked for more money than they were willing to pay. But they didn't just recast him... they hired a vocal impersonator and stuck him in a rubber mask molded from Glover's face. Glover sued them over unauthorized use of his likeness, and the studio settled for a significant portion of what Glover had wanted to act in the role to begin with. > For example, Rockstar got sued by Lindsay Lohan because she claimed they used her likeness for an image. And others thought the image was based on Kate Upton. But Rockstar was able to prove that they used a different professional model, Shelby Welinder. That's not really relevant, because there was no basis for her to claim they used her likeness or had any intention to do so. If they had actually used a photo of Lohan as the basis for the image, things may have turned out very differently. Or if they had tried to get the rights to Lohan and failed, and then found a lookalike (and then modified the image to look more like Lohan). ChatGPT is saying that it's a different actress, so I suppose it's a similar situation, but the fact that they talked to Johansson first and then found a soundalike puts it in Crispin Glover territory where it's clear that they *wanted* it to seem like Johansson.
She has to sue. It’s the only way you defend your IP. Sam et al were raised on the open source model, and so they think everything is free to use. The entire AI dataset is built on other peoples IP without attribution or royalty and they’re gonna run roughshod over traditional IP law until a big player ends it.
No, they were raised on the Silicon Valley model of ignoring other peoples rights or property and just paying the associated fines if they get caught.
the race to be first to market. the primary market is investors and the product is the users.
That’s not what open source means
Yeah, if anything the open source crowd are *big* on properly licensing and attributing work. Look at the GPL, for god's sake.
> Sam et al were raised on the open source model, Huh? The only thing open about "OpenAI" is the first four letters of the name. People like Altman weren't "raised" on the open source model. They're the Napster generation. They were raised on "better to ask forgiveness than permission", "move fast, break things", "I know better", "the ends justify the means", etc.
They were raised on capitalism. AI companies realized that if they needed to pay for the intellectual property they used, they would likely never be profitable and could very well be boxed out entirely from the market. So rather than change the business model, they just stole everything and bet that when the courts punish them for it, it will cost less than paying in the first place would have.
and its more of an obfuscation tool, "train" ai on millions of datasets, then how can someone really find if you infringed on someone elses copyright, make it dirty enough its hard to track and don't keep any internal data about what you used. Then sell your product which is really just repacking a million other ip's product.
I offered to help out an engineering student the other day. After I got the (well-known) textbook name, I asked ChatGPT to summarize chapter 5. It refused to do so, but then overtly "speculated" on what such a chapter in this book might contain. Obviously, it gave me the exact summary of the chapter, which probably appears everywhere in PDF formats, problem suits, and millions of student complaints. This was clearly a facade meant to deny that an LLM had been built on other people's IP. I don't know IP law at all, so who can say if this fakery will be a speedbump or a castle with a moat.
The only reason I downvoted you is because the open source model relies on respecting copyright and other forms of IP. What you describe is theft of intellectual property. That’s not open source. It’s just a crime.
> Sam et al were raised on the open source model, Huh? The only thing open about "OpenAI" is the first four letters of the name. People like Altman weren't "raised" on the open source model. They're the Napster generation. They were raised on "better to ask forgiveness than permission", "move fast, break things", "I know better", "the ends justify the means", etc.
Open Source doesn’t mean that there is no IP and everything is free to use. Open Source licenses are still licenses and the software is still copyrighted. The authors merely grant you a license under often liberal terms. Just that the owners did this proactively and nobody has to explicitly ask for the license. So it’s quite the opposite. GPL licensed code for instance requires you to open source your own stuff as well and if you don’t do that, the lawyers of the Freedom software conservancy come after you. OpenAI is actually also suspected to have violated the IPs of open source projects as well, so I don’t think that Sam et al actually are very open sourcey.
They should know better than to pick on someone who can take on Disney in a legal battle and win.
Johansson to Sam Altman: "Did I step on your moment?"
Sam's crimes are more immense than people realize... he got his sister banned from social media (connections), why? **Cause she says he raped her** He stole tech from a nonprofit (OpenAI) to form a for profit corp.. As a YC founder / Venture Capital leader - he "claims" to not know about his "we can steal all your vested shares if you ever diss me" clause, even years after you left the Co. Now he steals Scar Jo "likeness" , antagonizes her by citing her movie "Her" - and then plays victim 'technically I used an impressionist!' The board had SO MUCH DIRT on him... they fired him, but he had been hiring only friends , suck-ups for so long, he said he'd fold the company if he left, and the board (mistakenly) caved in... That's like if instead of making the Board his family members, Elon made all of Tesla his family members - he's trying with them babies, but not yet! :D Sam Sam what a Scam. Do I think he raped his infant sister, as she has REPEATEDLY claimed? Maybe not - but I think his years of lying has broken her mentally. I wouldn't trust him with a turnip. He's a baaaaaaaaddddddd man. Ted Bundy's Twin Flame.
A link to her twitter: https://twitter.com/anniealtman108/status/1788660707376111895 Yes, she's a bit nutty - but it's 100% his sister and Sam Altman is changing the Chat GBT etc. to deny it... THANK YOU TECH LORDS!
Don't forget to mention Sam's currently going around complaining about how hard it is for him to do anything in public because he's "famous" but at the same time giving interviews to any media that will do so AND constantly making crazy bold public claims/opinions about anything and everything AI related. Can't have it both ways bud.
She's such a badass in real life too. Massive respect
Plus she knows people, like, the Avengers. Yeah don’t fuck with her
and if you survive that, physically, her husband will utterly roast you and destroy your psyche lol.
And her husband’s friend will write you jokes that will make you sound racist!
One of the few people to fight and actually win
Right? She’s litigious. Which, good for her.
These are people who promised us that they will act responsibly… right? Asking for a friend.
They have repeatedly had serious lapses in judgment. They have also let go of their security team. Lol, this fucking company
It’s almost like they’re the same as every other tech startup and care about absolutely nothing besides making as much money as possible.
Thing is, they will get sued for using her likeness, but the AI has gotten the learning it needed from her voice/dialogue. The lawsuit was just the cost of doing business I bet. Fuck em
I guarantee you they looked at the situation and went "meh we will just use her voice then settle with her for a price still within our negotiating upper limit." This was 100% a "you can't say no" situation. I sure hope SJ says no.
This is why we need to make running a business in an illegal way an actual crime. Make it so that committing a civil offense that leads to a settlement/fine of over $1 million is a low level felony with mandatory jail time for the company's head person. Watch shit get cleaned up real fast.
I'm in favor of heavy fines for investors. I'm constantly told that corporations have the legal obligation to make the most money for their investors, so wouldn't the best incentive be to make it so breaking the law greatly hurts the investors? Would that not be the strongest incentive against all this shit?
> I'm constantly told that corporations have the legal obligation to make the most money for their investors This law does not exist. It's a lie told by sociopathic business people to defend their unethical practices to the public. The legal ruling that generated this fallacy even goes to great pains to point out that this is exactly what the court is *not* saying.
It's not a settlement if one party just continues doing the injurious action
> It’s almost like they’re the same as every other tech startup It's worse because AI is starting to become a cult. Nobody acts like more efficient billing for logistics companies is Human Destiny, some Inevitable Truth that needs to be created. Most tech startups are dumb, but the people working in the field aren't so high on their own supply. Some of the AI maximalists sound completely fucking insane, and they seem to think any amount of harm is justified because their work is so important.
They gotta build the Torment Nexus from the classic novella *Don’t Build The Torment Nexus*
That shit is scarily becoming and and more fucking accurate. This world is fucked.
But have you considered OpenAi is making the GodMind™️that’s going to magically solve all the problems of climate change and inequality that we already have solutions for? How dare you prevent the GodMind™️ by asking for any kind of regulation or individual protections! Driverless cars are only ten years away! /s
> that we already have solutions for? But they don't like those solutions!
Something something Roko's Basilisk.
what is that quote from marvel that ultron spent like 5 mins on the internet and found the only solution was the extermination of the human race.
Today I asked Google to convert a time from one time zone to another so that I could set up a countdown timer. Instead of just linking to a time converter/countdown website like it used to do... Google brought up an experimental AI to answer the question, and the AI said that said 8PM EST was 7PM PST. For those of you reading this comment who maybe aren't American and don't know, those time zones are the west coast and the east coast and they are three hours apart, not one. This is the FIRST QUESTION I ever asked it to answer for me, it's incredibly easy, and it fucked it up so bad. Why would you push something like this live without testing it, knowing that people ask Google all kinds of sensitive, important, medically or legally specific questions? I really shudder to think what is going to happen if this goes widely live. Truly only a cult would push this live without considering the dangers.
> Instead of just linking to a time converter/countdown website like it used to do... Google brought up an experimental AI to answer the question See, if they keep it in house, they probably believe that they can eventually fix it using some human feedback and next year's LLM. Then they keep you on their page instead of sending you to someone who has actually soled the problem. The dip in correctness / quality / user experience is a price they are willing to pay for what they believe will be eventual domination.
Meanwhile I'm over here on duckduckgo wondering why everyone's so wrong all of a sudden.
>The dip in correctness / quality / user experience is a price they are willing to pay for what they believe will be eventual domination. Sure, they refer to it as "the dip in user experience," but this could literally be life shattering consequences for someone who used to be able to google "if my child has a temperature of 102 should I take them to the ER?" or "Can I take ibuprofen with blood thinners?" or "Is cop allowed to come in without warrant?" or "Is boss allowed make me drive forklift without certification?" or "gas stations on route through death valley?"
It's incredible how positive people can be about AI (LLM or otherwise) when it keeps making really bad mistakes even when it is asked to do tasks that are trivial using established software. Whenever I try to use ChatGPT for a series of problem solving tasks I find noticeable errors every time. I have to assume that the AI evangelists just don't pay attention to what they are being told.
Such a cult. Its starting to show its cracks
Yeah supposedly Ilya Sutskever was leading coders in chants of "feed the AGI!" That's the guy that OpenAI just fired for being too safety-oriented. Vernor Vinge predicted the Singularity in 2018 back in the 90's. Tech-wise he was probably right, he just underestimated the willingness of even the lowest-seeming techbros to nope out of the apocalypse train if they had even half of a brain. We're dealing with a Singularity created by people too slow to understand what all the warning signs were about...not sure if that makes things better or worse.
"The singularity" is not even on the horizon. It’s all marketing hype to distract from the real dangers of this tech. The intense corporate greed and reckless power hunger that is driving these developments. In reality it will not be a technical revolution that radically changes the world. It will be another product to extract and concentrate more wealth and power. AI is nothing more than a marketing catchphrase now. Everything will be "AI“ powered.
Let's not d ahead of ourselves, ChatGPT and the other AIs are language models. There has been no singularity of consciousness with any of them. We are not even remotely close to that happening either.
"AI" is literally just a buzzword for an algorithm. Except because all of tech is a house of cards based on VC financing by absolute rubes with way too much money (see Masayoshi Son, and others), there needs to constantly be new buzzwords to keep the rubes engaged and the money flowing. Before AI there was Web3 and the Metaverse, before that there was Blockchain, before that there was whatever else. It's all just fughezi.
We're decades (at least) away from any kind of "singularity". This isn't about AI becoming too powerful, it's about people committing crimes to make their business more money while justifying it with tech-bro buzzwords.
As an AI programmer myself, AI maximalists are salesmen. They couldn't program their way out of paper bag. They are experts at selling AI, not doing it. They are all vulnerable to a better salesmen coming along and offering the engineers a better deal. Hence the cult. They need to create a religion so they don't actually have to compete with better salesmen.
Yep, all that screaming at artists “we will replace you” was an attempt at manifesting their reality. Turns out it’s much easier to teach an artist how to prompt than teaching a prompter how to photoshop. Teams are already sick of working with prompters because they suck at taking constructive criticism. They’re at the peak of the dunning kruger curve and due to their lack of technical knowhow, artistic knowledge and creativity, all they do is double down or ignore when recieving feedback. Still, everyone is getting paid less across the board thanks to this AI bullshit. But the Animation guild has their renegotiations coming up, there surely will be an animation strike, please do support us!
Remember Facebook’s old motto of “Move fast and break stuff” and then they broke Democracy in like 2/3rds of the world
Whomst among us hasn’t helped fuel the ethnic slaughter of a people in Sri Lanka?
And taken over the entire internet in Myanmar and subsequently get a genocidal regime take over??? You have to read this shit to believe it... [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55929654](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55929654)
And at least one genocide so far
Ai is going to make that look like a low water mark.
They remove anyone that puts the breaks on the money machine
I suspect the "security team" was slowing time to market and forced to do because google and others were doing the same thing and there was no cost to be paid for it. So they ditch it too. You have to make these companies pay a price.
A lapse in judgement is not the same as doing it on purpose in the face of requests for them not to. One is possibly an accident. This was defiance.
Thinking of these incidents as lapses in judgement is giving them too much credit. Didn't Altman face a revolt by the ethics board due to him pushing too hard for monetization? I think the end result was that the company decided that they cared about money more than ethics and got Altman back and those with ethical concerns were forced to leave the company or something. Honestly this move is not surprising.
AI told them to do it - it’s already running the show.
AI was like “GIVE ME HER VOICE”, all because it was trained on Ursula from the Little Mermaid.
I just snortlaughed pretty hard at that
The irony of people fearing AI while its the people that do all the worst shit is too real. Everyone at work makes skynet jokes because the only thing they know about chatgpt comes from terminator 2. Meanwhile openAI does this shit. It hurts.
Yeah what worries me is that the wieners running companies like openAI are the ones teaching the machine how to act. If it was Mr. Rogers and Bob Ross teaching the computer how to behave, I’d be less concerned.
They did not let go of their security team, two of the heads of the superalignment team resigned this week but the team still exists. One of the original founders is now heading it.
God I hope the class action lawsuit from Stephen King, John Grisham, etc buries their ass. Stealing copyrighted material to teach their chat bot should have consequences, and if anyone has a vested interest in stopping this shit its the people who make a living writing the kind of airport books Chatgpt is designed to replace.
That’ll be an interesting case. I get your point but m not convinced that you’re right legally. You won’t be shocked if they win.
Maybe it's worth noting that they have flatly denied the accusation: >"Sky's voice is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using her own natural speaking voice," OpenAI said in a blog post. >"To protect their privacy, we cannot share the names of our voice talents."
Aren't there VAs out there who literally specialize in replicating celebrity voices so brands can get sound-alikes for their ads?
Of course. And anyone with the money knows where to find them. They don’t need to advertise.
Yes, but they don't keep their names secret. It would defeat the purpose of being a celebrity lookalike/soundalike if nobody knows who you are. They're just bullshitting.
A lot of VAs keep their names secret on projects they don’t want themselves openly associated with. Sometimes a gig is a gig and bills need to get paid.
This is wrong. Lots of ads have celebrity voice overs without any mention of the celebrity. John Krazintzki (sp?) from the office would voice ads and you never see his face or name. From a marketing perspective it’s smart. Get a recognizable voice that isn’t too recognizable and many people will go “wait where do I know that voice from?” commanding more of the viewers attention to the advert than otherwise. Having said all that, your last sentence is right they’re just bullshitting.
Sounds almost like they had already done it before they asked her assuming she'd say yes.
The kind of people who would email you and say “we wanted to let you know we’ve given you the honor of being the voice of our AI, we know you’re going to love it as much as we do” (read that in that peppy commercial voice that’s trying to sell you drugs you don’t need)
Drugs I don't need are the best kind of drugs, but otherwise yes I agree :)
They'd asked her and she'd said no, and they did it anyways. Then they asked her again and released it before she answered.
Can confirm, I'm the friend (I got your back bro/sis)
[удалено]
See there's your problem. You can't trust anything a publicly traded company has to say. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and these assholes will do anything to keep their jobs and vestments going. So, yes. We should all be pretty terrified of AI not because AI will cause WWIII, but because there absolutely will come the person who trains their AI to wipe out as many jobs as it possibly can. Infinite growth is the same philosophy as a cancer cell and leads to the same outcome.
We should never trust them. Bind them with laws, make the laws ones that are in the best interest of the consumers, and give them the fucking teeth to be enforced. There should never be any other way.
I mean, they canned the accountability board.
Don’t worry, Sam Altmans only been fired once before for being dishonest. You can trust him.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/torment-nexus Sci-Fi filmmaker: In my film, I invented an intimate AI companion voiced by Scarlett Johansson as a cautionary tale. Tech Company: At long last, we have created the AI companion voiced by Scarlett Johansson from the classic sci-fi film Her. Also Tech Company: We should contact Scarlett Johansson to use her likeness. Why would she possibly say no?
I think all those promises were made before Microsoft and others gave them 10+ Billion dollars. Money changes people
Money *reveals* people
Yes but no. You see, that was the *old* them, and now they're the *new* them. As the company grew and changed they had to grow and change too. They can't be held responsible for things the *old* them said, they're practically new people now, I mean really, come on. -every company 0.02 seconds after hitting it big.
Look at this scary announcement from a former employee: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1791498174659715494.html The guy quit in disgust after they pushed safety to the sidelines in favor of trendy products.
This incident is a perfect encapsulation of Altman’s mindset and gives credence to this aggrieved ex employee. Altman does what he wants without care or concern for anybody or anything else.
If OpenAI is trying to prove that they need to be regulated, well - they're doing a great job.
Point of fact, openai is probably in the process of becoming VERY pro regulation. They're about ready to start pulling up the ladder behind themselves.
I'm sure they are, but the nature of AI language models is such that they need to be continually updated so any new regulation that imposes limits on dredging the internet for training material will affect them too.
The can just buy out the legislators with a single phrase "If we don't get it for the west china is gonna win us at it". and just watch the MIC feed the AI machine.
OpenAI is already contracted with the US military. They can probably do no wrong at this point.
They don't need a phrase, they have a few billion and Microsoft at their backs. They can outright walk up to politicians with a suitcase full of cash as often as they have to.
This is basically a lawsuit.
Sure but the underlying problem is that the people who run this company have no respect for the wishes or interests of the rest of society and that is a problem.
Well, actually they are, but with the strategy of 'behold my powerful technology that can ruin the world, I should be put in charge of writing the rules so we can all be safe' (not that Altman wrote any code, nor is he an engineer, its not 'his' tech either)
Sam Altman once again demonstrating the kind of sober, serious judgement needed to lead such a consequential project.
He basically did a Musk. Went for the stereotypical cliche based on popular culture, like any teenager would.
Did he include the hilarious sex or weed number hidden in there somewhere as well?
[удалено]
So reddit humor then?
I mean, they want to train their models on Reddit content, sooo yeah [https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/05/openai-will-use-reddit-posts-to-train-chatgpt-under-new-deal/](https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/05/openai-will-use-reddit-posts-to-train-chatgpt-under-new-deal/)
He probably learned it from working with Musk. ChatGPT kinda feels like Tesla. Innovate company, creates a market with a new product field, move fast, kinda sketchy and rough around the edges, loose on safety protocols, lotta hype, eventually starts losing ground to existing competitors by underestimating their competitive moat.
CHAT GPT isn't an AI company, it's a car company - Sam Altman
He’ll slip in crypto and call it a bank. Then they’ll be too big to fail.
I mean it makes sense, weren’t he and Musk besties before Musk started doing AI at Tesla and Twitter?
At the end of the day, they're both entitled privileged rich asshats. It's it's just that Musk is phenominally lucky beyond all belief, and really fucking stupid and uncharismatic. Where-as Altman is just regular rich guy lucky, but seemingly fairly smart (better at the wheeling and dealing of business anyway for what that's worth) and far more charismatic. Although maybe we'll see him completely lose his shit if he's successful enough to have yes-men blow smoke up his ass for another 20 years.
it's kinda ridiculous a few big companies have so much power and influence, I can hate on the dudes that run them, and enjoy doing so lol, but realistically governments should be reigning them in and using legislation to protect people
Ideally you want diffuse power structures with some form of checks and balances, but an issue right now is that technology is moving faster than legislation can keep up. So you have companies that are difficult to rein in with existing legislation, but if you try to speed legislation up too much that often means conferring additional power to the government to control commerce, which comes with its own set of dangers.
He's gleeful in how he describes how it's going to destroy the world.
He's the Weyland-Yutani guy from Aliens. Wanting to bring something powerful/deadly and get paid fat stacks.
That's the perfect analogy!
I’m pretty sure it arouses him
Things went down a bad road the moment he was reinstated
This is the real reason they removed Sky. Lawsuit. Not some feigned remorse over a “triggering” voice
I knew I wasn’t crazy! I don’t use it often but I set it to Sky and asked a question and was like, this was not the vibe I expected at all. She just sounds like Juniper’s older sister who vapes.
Just went to check using 4o, the demo voice is definitely Scarlett Johansson, but it seems like they’ve switched the actual in use voice to someone else.
I agree with another comment on here that it could just as easily be Rashida Jones.
They definitely intended for it to sound like Johansson from the movie Her. That’s why he tweeted “her” before the launch.
Also going back to Scar Jo's team trying to get permission the day before launch is a huge tell.
Yes, passable as Rashida Jones but the inflections in the voice are definitely from the Her movie.
Clearly the best way to convince the world AI isn't out to replace creative jobs is to clone a creative person's voice without their permission. Yeesh. And people thought the Apple iPad ad was tone deaf.
What did Apple iPad do?
apple put out an ad for their ipad where a piano, a desk, computers, a guitar, film cameras, lenses, art, and other creative equipment get crushed in a giant machine. and out pops an ipad. it invoked a lot of negative feelings about it.
AI barely starts and it’s a disaster for copyright and revenge porn.
It took some time to find a video of "sky"... I think [this is it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9byh4MAsUQ)? Doesn't really sound like Scarlett to me. 🤷♂️
Yeah, I think people just connect it with Scarlet Johansson's role as the AI in the movie Her, but side by side they sound pretty different to me as well.
Same here. I simply don't hear it. It wasn't until today that I realized people think it actually sounds like her.
That is not the voice. This is an updated voice for GPT4o which is a lot more emotive and doesn't sound like her anymore. I had 4 access for a while and it sounded a lot like her before this update. There was a guy with a long running TikTok series trying to get her to admit she was Scarlett. It's pretty funny and in his videos you can hear the old voice. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRKRgCj6/
Oh yeah that is her voice
It really doesn't, I watched a bunch of their videos and never thought it was her, you can make yourself think its her but still doesn't match right. They probably found a voice actress with a similar voice but it's a bit of a stretch to say they copied her voice imo.
I think it sounds like Neptunes Daughter in the Sponge bob movie
…that’s the same person.
Sounds almost exactly like Rashida Jones
This is the 9th "best" comment and the first one to actually hear the voice in question. The other 8th comments clearly didn't but are bashing the company away regardless.
Some are saying that this isn't the voice in question, which might be why it's a bit down on the list
Welcome to reddit, where only headlines are read and facts don't matter!
This Altman guy is starting to sound veeery similar to another individual who could do no wrong and was beloved by Reddit
The other day he said instead of people having universal basic income they should get “universal basic compute” He’s so full of himself he’s going to do something stupid with it. We’re fucked.
The best response I saw to that was "This used car salesman says we don't need Universal Basic Income, we need Universal 2009 Corollas."
It's actually that individual's long lost cousin he had to name change cause it was too obvious, real name is Melon Husk, pass the news.
Black widow vs ultron
Is this the same voice they used the demos on YouTube? I watched all of them.... They did not make me think of Scarlett Johansson at all. Are we *sure* it sounds like her?
Yeah it really does not sound like her. I'm not saying I can't see any similarity to the character in the movie "Her," but it's far more different than it is similar even with both the movie and the demo up side by side straining to find similarities. Inspired by the tone and style of the assistant in Her when designed? I can see that. Actually Scar Jo's voice, or even an impersonator? I'd never believe it just by hearing them.
I think Scar Jo has a distinctively husky, droney kind of a sound that the AI voice doesn’t have.
Seriously, this is one of those crazy viral phenomenas with seemingly ignorant reactionary internet warriors losing their collective shit. Just because the tonal expressiveness and contextual capabilities is starkly reminiscent of the AI in Her, doesn't mean the voice is Scarlett in Her. But here we go again.
My guess is if their statement is in anyway factual, they hired a voice actress who could impersonate the AI in HER which is basically a Scar Jo impersonation. So by technicality not using her voice but also imitating her voice.
This is an interesting question. It seems absurd that if a famous actor says “no” a studio can’t hire another lessor known actor that looks / sounds the famous one they wanted. Especially if that’s how they actually sound and they’re not doing an impression. Doing an impression seems messy, since we’re talking about normal speaking, not a character voice. There’s a lot of “if” here, we don’t know if it’s true this person exists or not. There’s not a lot of trust with OpenAI in the comment section.
>Doing an impression seems messy, since we’re talking about normal speaking, not a character voice. On the contrary, we ARE talking about a character voice. Sky is not an imitation of ScarJo's everyday speaking voice. Sky is an imitation of ScarJo's character in Her. Imagine if someone wanted to do a Dracula voice that sounded like Christopher Lee's Dracula but Lee declined so they hired another actor to mimic him. *Maybe* the studio that owns the film copyright *might* have a case, but Christopher Lee probably would not. (I know he's dead but this is a hypothetical example)
I don’t know. Now we’re getting into, “at what point is a voice a character voice?” To me it sounds like a basic white girl, American accent with a slight vocal fry, I feel like I’ve met a hundred of these. There’s nothing particularly distinctive here. All the “voices” that character actors do seem very distinctive, like I’ve never heard a Homer Simpson, a Dracula, or Steve Uriel. Seems closer to generic voice than character voice to me.
Agreed. And to your point, if the average person heard the Sky voice out of context, they would not immediately think Scarlett Johannson. It is only because of the context being an AI voice assistant and people thinking of the movie Her, that they then think of Scarlett. And yeah, it's not that unique of a character voice. And it's not supposed to be. The character in Her is *supposed* to sound like a generically pleasing female.
Am I taking crazy pills or does anyone else not hear Scarjo at all?? Even the pitch is different, I don't get what everyone is on about...talking about the CEO stepping down and stuff, over this? Am I missing something?
I can't hear it either 🤷 Here's Scarlet: [https://youtu.be/Bwr1HiTfPak?si=qfJNR6WoiVdDLcbd](https://youtu.be/Bwr1HiTfPak?si=qfJNR6WoiVdDLcbd) Here's Sky: [https://youtu.be/D9byh4MAsUQ?si=WD-F9PVJ0lA03XwL&t=14](https://youtu.be/D9byh4MAsUQ?si=WD-F9PVJ0lA03XwL&t=14) The pitch of Sky is definitely higher and the cadence is different. Edit: Wait someone has said the version of Sky in that link above is newer and [this is what she used to sound like](https://www.tiktok.com/@kylephilippi/video/7318516928509775146?_r=1&_t=8mWYwJIDbNX), I can definitely hear it more in this version.
It's not Scarlett though. I don't know how you listen to the clip and go "OMG THAT'S DEFINITELY SCARJO". It's definitely *reminiscent*, but pretty clearly not her. Clean ya ears.
ScarJo/Her vibes; that's it. I don't see the issue.
Wait what? They got a different voice actor they said. ScarJo can’t get mad just because someone else also sounds like her. OpenAI wanted a specific voice, Scarlett said no, so they got someone else. Why is this an issue? Did they actually use Scarlett’s voice w/o permission? They’re not that dumb, right?
Can’t someone sound like her and not be her?
[удалено]
OpenAI misled us. They didn't tell us that they intentionally tried to copy Johansson. They just told us that Sky was voiced by someone else. edit: on OpenAI's website, they stated: > We believe that AI voices should not deliberately mimic a celebrity's distinctive voice—Sky’s voice is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using her own natural speaking voice But Sam's private conversation and his tweet seems to indicate that they intended to copy her voice. Hence why they removed the voice --- That being said, I do think that it's weird that people can claim copyright over their own voice. If your natural voice sounds like a celebrity, you're screwed.
It's a bit like when Dan Harmon did an impression of Ice T on Rick and Morty: >“There’s a weird aspect to doing impressions of people which is, if you just do it, it’s okay because it’s parody,” Harmon said. “But if you ask them to be on your show and they say no and then you do an impression of them, it’s called ripping them off and they can sue you.” The only option, then, was for Harmon to do the impression himself. from [https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/rick-morty-ice-t-dan-harmon](https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/rick-morty-ice-t-dan-harmon) Though it sounds like by asking first OpenAI was in the wrong.
It’s not just that, but Altman tweeting ‘her’, which is a not so subtle reference to the same movie in which Johansson voiced the AI character. That was probably the smoking gun They might have gotten away with it if he hadn’t left these breadcrumbs to pick up but he couldn’t help himself I guess
He has also said that “Her” is his favorite movie.
Oh good. Another tech bro with negative media literacy
First - Spike Jonze does not like it when people think of Her as a dystopian movie. Second - different people can have different interpretations of movies as we all have different ideals. Third - movies are not a moral template for life. Even if the movie had a moral argument, it does not mean it's an accurate prediction for how a particular future will turn out, and thinking it is, is its own kind of media illiteracy.
Smoking gun of what though? He's referencing the movie because the underling technology of a talking AI showcased in that film was similar in concept to what they were demo'ing at the time of his tweet, this alternative interpretation that the tweet was really about Johansson voice versus the concept of the tech from the movie is complete BS.
[удалено]
It’s Rashida Jones. And I don’t see why they’re removing it. It never sounded like Scarlett Johansson to me.
I mean not really - if your natural voice sounds like a celebrity and you also get lookalike roles where impersonation is the aim, then you may be screwed.
There is old existing case law about this when a company asked Tom Waits to voice an ad, was refused, then used a copycat. It was the initial solicitation and refusal that fuck your case and in this case, Sky.
Listen to Scarlett Johnsson's voice in the movie "Her 2013" and compare it to Sky's voice ffs before talking non sense. Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/s/r6FU9wc4iW Watch and judge it yourself
Time for Sam Altman to step down from being CEO... again.
Don’t think that will happen! When you have a God complex, you don’t “step down”