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

Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 487 posts

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#161

Post by actuallyalys »

s1k3s wrote: post #35

I love how we went from questioning copyright & licensing to "GPT vs Google, which one is better". To every artist or engineer out there who contributed to the general knowledge: you lost, everything you've ever done to help other people is now part of the models and there's nothing you can do to take it back. What even happened to the copyright strikes artists were supposed to bring up against these AI companies? Th…

> I love how we went from questioning copyright & licensing to "GPT vs Google, which one is better".

Have we? Certainly the people litigating haven't. And as this article notes, actors' newest contract does have protections against AI. SAG-AFTRA's press release states [0] they are pursuing legislation. That could be bluster or could go nowhere, but certainly people haven't given up.

[0]: https://www.sagaftra.org/sag-aftra-statement-regarding-scarl...

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#163

Post by ambyra »

phkahler wrote: post #110
ambyra wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not especially similar. I think the talking style is very close, people say it is flirty in the same way as the film. You can’t copyright look and feel though, can you?

>> You can’t copyright look and feel though, can you? Microsoft argued in court that you can not and won. See Apple vs Microsoft if I recall correctly.

lol, I figured with this audience everyone would know I was being sarcastic, it’s such a famous case, poe’s law I guess

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#164

Post by bobthepanda »

robofanatic wrote: post #69
miohtama wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are hundreds of people with similar voices. If any voice actor can pull the same accent than Ms. Johansson, it should be fair game, as long it was the original training material? Voices cannot be copyrighted or be exclusive, although I am sure Hollywood will try to copyright them in some point.

I believe professional singer's voices will be copyrighted in future if not getting already.

they have been since 1988. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#165

Post by sillysaurusx »

kaiwen1 wrote: post #104

There are many people with voices similar to Scarlett Johansson's. If SJ is unwilling to be a voice actor for OpenAi, then why should OpenAI not find a similar voice and use that instead? SJ certainly does not have a monopoly on all voices similar to hers. Anyone in possession of such a voice has the same right as SJ to monetize it. And someone did in fact exercise that right. If you compare the Sky voice to SJ's, th…

I too am mystified.

I think what’s going on here is that Scarlett is famous, and so media outlets will widely cover this. In other words, this latest incident hasn’t riled up people any more than usual — if you scan the comments, they’re not much different from how people already felt about OpenAI. But now there’s an excuse for everybody to voice their opinions simultaneously.

They’re acting like the company literally stole something.

It also didn’t help that OpenAI removed the Sky voice. Why would they do that unless they have something to hide? The answer of course is that Scarlett is famously rich, and a famously rich person can wage a famously expensive lawsuit against OpenAI, even if there’s no basis. But OpenAI should’ve paid the cost. Now it just looks like their hand was caught in some kind of cookie jar, even though no one can say precisely what kind of cookies were being stolen.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#166

Post by wsatb »

game_the0ry wrote: post #28

I wonder how long this thread will last on HN... How much influence does @sama have around here nowadays? For the record, I was never impressed with him - I am not aware of single consequential thing he has done or built other than take the credit for the fine work of the AI scientist + engineers at OpenAI. It feels like the company is just a vehicle for how own ambition and legacy, not much else.

Couldn't this be said for most CEOs? They're never really the ones doing the dirty work.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#167

Post by michaelmrose »

bobthepanda wrote: post #145
michaelmrose wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need fair use for something that isn't copyrightable.

No, it is. Waits v. Frito Lay was a successful lawsuit where Tom Waits sued Frito Lay for using an impression of his voice in a radio commercial. https://casetext.com/case/waits-v-frito-lay-inc See also Midler v. Ford Motor Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co .

Correct me if I'm wrong that had nothing to do with copyright and fair use is moot

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#168

Post by zemo »

wvenable wrote: post #146
zemo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you have to be willfully missing the point when he said Her was his favorite movie, tweeted just “her” when the Sky voice was announced, and when they repeatedly tried to get the voice actor from Her. People who do underhanded things don’t just come out and say “look at me, doing the bad thing!”

I don't think any of this translates to anything bad. He loves the movie. OpenAI invented similar technology. They wanted to use Scarlett's voice to market it. She said no. They used a different voice. People really want their to be a crime here with no evidence. You all have ears, you can listen to both clips back to back and discover, unsurprisingly, that they are actually different voices. Not even an imitation.

what do you think Her is about?

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#169

Post by andrewflnr »

hluska wrote: post #152
andrewflnr wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes it weird, but it doesn't (itself) mean they literally used her voice. It just means they were inspired by the movie. It's not illegal to be weird.

I think it’s less the voice and more about how they went about it. They were apparently in negotiations with her and they fell apart. Then they tried to resume negotiations with her two days before the new model launched. If it was just an actor, it might be a case of inspiration gone awry. But this particular actor sued Disney in 2021 after making a lot of movies and a lot of money making movies for them. Deliberate…

Oh, sure. There's plenty of other ways OpenAI have been boneheaded. I'm just saying the mere fact of referencing "Her" implies very little.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#170

Post by wizzwizz4 »

kneel wrote: post #18
bbqfog wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Did you believe her when she claimed that she was shadow banned from all social media because of her brother? Or that she had to become a sex worker to pay the bills because of his 'technological abuse'?

It's not that different to (substantiated) things I've heard from other people, so… personally, I believe it. The alleged sexual / medical / financial abuse is pretty typical, as is the account hacking. If it helps, New York Magazine has substantiated some of the minor details: https://archive.ph/j4lVw#60%.

Sam Altman is fairly influential, and worse abuses from social media companies are well-documented, so as conspiracy theories go, this "Sam-induced shadowbans" one is quite plausible.*

Technically, nobody is forced to become a sex worker to pay the bills. But people can be forced to choose between bad options in order to pay the bills, and it's not that rare that the other options are worse than online sex work. Especially if you have mental health issues, and a disability that prevents standing-up work. Colloquially, "had to become a sex worker" (or "survival sex work", Annie's actual words) wouldn't be a misrepresentation of that.

*: Devil's advocate: saying the wrong things in the presence of the black box can be enough to get shadowbanned. It's plausible that words involved in discussions of abuse might end up automatically censored by a badly-designed learning-from-user-reports ML system. It's also plausible that many similarly-designed systems would independently end up categorising the same sorts of things as "don't show this to other users". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40435430 (placing blame on user reports coming from Sam Altman's fans) is a stronger theory.

Post reply on HN