521–530 of 1001 posts
From the Ars Technica story[1], this is very funny: > But OpenAI's chief technology officer, Mira Murati, has said that GPT-4o's voice modes were less inspired by Her than by studying the "really natural, rich, and interactive" aspects of human conversation, The Wall Street Journal reported. People made fun of Murati when she froze after being asked what Sora was trained on. But behavior like that indicates understan…
This is the first I've heard of this, but I've used the "Sky" voice extensively and never once thought it sounded like Johansson. Has anyone else noticed a similarity? To me they sound pretty different, Johansson's voice is much more raspy.
There's two different things: the Sky voice they launched last year, as heard here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcgV2u9Kxh0 . The voice actor is the same, but the intonation is fairly flat. They changed the voice to intone like Scarlett Johansson's character. It's like they changed the song the voice was singing to one that lots of people recognise.
What's likely different is that GPT-4o can output the tonality instructions for text to speech now.
It's probably the same voice, but different instructions for generations. One was without tonal indicators, one with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing about the situation is that Altman is willing to lie and steal a celebrity's voice for use in ChatGPT. What he did, the timeline, everything - is sleazy if, in fact, that's the story. The really concerning part here is that Altman is, and wants to be, a large part of AI regulation [0]. Quite the public contradiction. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-openai-artificial...
Most likely it was an unforced error, as there’ve been a lot of chaos with cofounders and the board revolt, easy to loose track of something really minor. Like some intern’s idea to train the voice on their favorite movie. And then they’ve decided that this is acceptable risk/reward and not a big liability, so worth it. This could be a well-planned opening move of a regulation gambit. But unlikely.
If in fact, that was the case, then OpenAI is not aligned with the statement they just put out about having utmost focus on rigor and careful considerations, in particular this line: "We know we can't imagine every possible future scenario. So we need to have a very tight feedback loop, rigorous testing, careful consideration at every step, world-class security, and harmony of safety and capabilities." [0]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wouldn't necessarily call that damning. "Soundalikes" are very common in the ad industry. As are disclaimers that celebrity voices are impersonated when there is additional context which makes it likely that the voice would be considered something other than a mere soundalike, like direct reference to a work in which the impersonated celebrity was involved as part of the same publicity campaign. And liability for…
The most famous case of voice appropriation was Midler vs Ford, which involved Ford paying a Midler impersonator to perform a well known Midler song , creating the impression that it was actually Bette. Where are the signs or symbols tying Scarlett to the openAI voice? I don't think a single word, contextless message on a separate platform that 99% of openAI users will not see is significant enough to form that conne…
The replies to Altman's message showed readers did connect it to the film. And people noticed the voice sounded like Scarlett Johansson and connected it to the film when OpenAI introduced it in September.[1]
How do you believe Altman intended people to interpret his message?
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/177v8wz/i_have_a_r...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It probably is illegal in CA: https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... "when voice is sufficient indicia of a celebrity's identity, the right of publicity protects against its imitation for commercial purposes without the celebrity's consent."
But why? Sounds like a violation to the rights of the sound actor
At this point it’s time to create lists of “ethical” AI services, ones that aren’t OpenAI nor other bad actors. I’m dropping my ChatGPT Plus today. Any suggestions on what to replace it with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing about the situation is that Altman is willing to lie and steal a celebrity's voice for use in ChatGPT. What he did, the timeline, everything - is sleazy if, in fact, that's the story. The really concerning part here is that Altman is, and wants to be, a large part of AI regulation [0]. Quite the public contradiction. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-openai-artificial...
Most likely it was an unforced error, as there’ve been a lot of chaos with cofounders and the board revolt, easy to loose track of something really minor. Like some intern’s idea to train the voice on their favorite movie. And then they’ve decided that this is acceptable risk/reward and not a big liability, so worth it. This could be a well-planned opening move of a regulation gambit. But unlikely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't necessarily call that damning. "Soundalikes" are very common in the ad industry. For example, a car company approached the band sigur ros to include some of their music in a car commercial. Sigur ros declined. A few months later the commercial airs with a song that sounds like an unreleased sigur ros song, but really they just paid a composer to make something that sounds like sigur ros, but isn't. So mayb…
Case law says no. There have been several legal cases where bands have sued advertisers for copying their distinct sound. Here are a few examples: The Beatles vs. Nike (1987): The Beatles' company, Apple Corps, sued Nike and Capitol Records for using the song "Revolution" in a commercial without their permission. The case was settled out of court. Tom Waits vs. Frito-Lay (1988): Tom Waits sued Frito-Lay for using a s…
Very interesting to see this there. Does anyone know how could that be legislated?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or perhaps they cloned a character's likeness? Is there a distinction? Are they trying to make it sound like Her, or SJ? Or just trying to go for a similar style? i.e. making artistic choices in designing their product Note: I've never watched the movie.
I honestly don't think Scarlett (the person, not her "her" character) has anything to favor their case, aside from the public's sympathy. She may have something only if it turns out that the training set for that voice is composed of some recordings of her (the person, not the movie), which I highly doubt and is, unfortunately, extremely hard to prove. Even that wouldn't be much, though, as it could be ruled a deriva…