Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#531

Post by Cheer2171 »

startupsfail wrote: post #511
windexh8er wrote: post #497

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.

> easy to loose track of something really minor. Like some intern’s idea

Yes, because we all know the high profile launch for a major new product is entirely run by the interns. Stop being an apologist.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#532

Post by ramenbytes »

tjmc wrote: post #375
LewisVerstappen wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did they even cheat here? OpenAI did nothing wrong. The movie industry does the same thing all the time. If an actor/actress says no they you find someone else who can play the same role.

Nothing? If you're acting like the sea witch in "The Little Mermaid" you're probably doing something wrong.

Key difference here is that Scarlett still has her voice.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#533

Post by vasilipupkin »

windexh8er wrote: post #497
nickthegreek wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement from scarlet really changed my perspective. I use and loved the Sky voice and I did feel it sounded a little like her, but moreover it was the best of their voice offerings. I was mad when they removed it. But now I’m mad it was ever there to begin with. This timeline makes it clear that this wasn’t a coincidence and maybe not even a hiring of an impressionist (which is where things get a little more w…

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...

if this account is true, Sam Altman is a deeply unethical human being. Given that he doesn't bring any technical know how to building of AGI, I just don't see the reason to have such a person in charge here. The new board should act.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#534

Post by MrMetlHed »

worstspotgain wrote: post #322
jakelazaroff wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Not a lawyer) I think the issue is not just that they sound similar, but that OpenAI sought to profit from that perceived similarity. It’s pretty clear from Sam Altman’s “her” tweet that OpenAI, at least, considers it a fairly narrow slice of the human voice space.

That's true. As I suggested, this case may well be open and shut. But what if it was Google's or Meta's voice that sounded exactly like Sky, i.e. without a history of failed negotiations? The amount of "likeness" would technically be identical. Are companies better off not even trying to negotiate to begin with?

It'd be fine to not negotiate if you weren't going to use a voice that sounded famous. If I were offering something that let you make any kind of voice you want, I would definitely not market any voice that sounded familiar in any way. Let the users do that (which would happen almost immediately after launch). I would use a generic employee in the example, or the CEO, or I'd go get the most famous person I could afford that would play ball. I would then make sure the marketing materials showed the person I was cloning and demonstrated just how awesome my tool was at getting a voice match.

What I wouldn't do is use anything that remotely sounds famous. And I would definitely not use someone that said "no thanks" beforehand. And I would under no circumstances send emails or messages suggesting staff create a voice that sounds like someone famous. Then, and only then, would I feel safe in marketing a fake voice.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#535

Post by IncreasePosts »

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #454
IncreasePosts wrote: post #224

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…

Disregarding the cases settled out of court (which have nothing to do with case law):

1) Tom Waits vs Frito-Lay: Frito-Lay not only used a soundalike to Tom Waits, but the song they created was extremely reminiscent of "Step Right Up" by Waits.

2) Bette Midler vs. Ford Motor Company: Same thing - this time Ford literally had a very Midler-esque singer sing an exact Midler song.

3) Beastie Boys vs. Monster Energy: Monster literally used the Beastie Boys' music, because someone said "Dope!" when watching the ad and someone at Monster took that to mean "Yes you can use our music in the ad".

Does Scarlett Johansson have a distinct enough voice that she is instantly recognizable? Maybe, but, well, not to me. I had no clue the voice was supposed to be Scarlett's, and I think a lot of people who heard it also didn't think so either.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#536

Post by fourside »

LewisVerstappen wrote: post #316
npunt wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people cheat on (relatively) small things, it's usually an indication they'll cheat on big things too

How did they even cheat here? OpenAI did nothing wrong. The movie industry does the same thing all the time. If an actor/actress says no they you find someone else who can play the same role.

[dead]

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#537

Post by mycologos »

nerdponx wrote: post #334
ecjhdnc2025 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often wonder why tech people think so positively about companies they idolise who are Uber-ing their way through regulations. Where do they think it stops? Why would people not want laws? The answer is so they can do the things that the laws prevent. This is POSIWID territory [0]. "The purpose of a system is what it does". Not what it repeatedly fails to live up to. What was the primary investment purpose of Uber?…

> I often wonder why tech people think so positively about companies they idolise who are Uber-ing their way through regulations. Where do they think it stops? Because they don't think about the consequences, and don't want to. Better to retreat into the emotional safety of techno-fantasy and feeling like you're on the cutting edge of something big and new (and might make some good money in the process). Same reason…

> Because they don't think about the consequences, and don't want to.

This is a dangerous way of thinking about people who disagree with you, because once you decide somebody is stupid, it frees you from ever having to seriously weigh their positions again, which is a kind of stupidity all its own.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#538

Post by ramenbytes »

LewisVerstappen wrote: post #316
npunt wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people cheat on (relatively) small things, it's usually an indication they'll cheat on big things too

How did they even cheat here? OpenAI did nothing wrong. The movie industry does the same thing all the time. If an actor/actress says no they you find someone else who can play the same role.

I don't think that's quite the same. Are they going out and hiring impersonators of the actors who declined the role or digitally enhancing the substitute to look like them? That seems closer to what happened here.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#540

Post by mbreese »

startupsfail wrote: post #511
windexh8er wrote: post #497

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.

This is an unforced error, but it isn’t minor. It’s quite large and public.

The general public doesn’t understand the details and nuances of training an LLM, the various data sources required, and how to get them.

But the public does understand stealing someone’s voice. If you want to keep the public on your side, it’s best to not train a voice with a celebrity who hasn’t agreed to it.

Post reply on HN