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

371–380 of 487 posts

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#371

Post by czl »

__loam wrote: post #351
czl wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and until the court settles the questions at hand, Open AI and its ilk are operating in a legal gray area. My understanding of western law is that things are ok unless law forbids it. So they are operating in an area that under _current_ laws is ok but because of what may be at stake many wish the current laws were different and are willing to use litigation and lobby efforts to that end. This is NOT IN REPLY TO YO…

Why are we imagining a hypothetical situation in the context of talking about things that are currently happening? It's an interesting thought experiment but it's kind of irrelevant because brain implants are nowhere near that level and as far as I know, freedom of thought is already part of western law. I am not a lawyer though, I just think we can think about the actual damages to real people rather than make shit…

I put the "NOT IN REPLY TO YOU" since I meant that as a thought experiment of a possible future that where a similar situation may arise. Notice it is not freedom of thought that is in question. What is in question is freedom to share your sensations with others. You are watching a live football game and you share the sensations (what you see / hear / smell) with friends and family who are not there, etc. add to this technology that enables perfect memory of you sensations and instantly sharing them. In that possible future many will litigate and complain that their copyright and broadcast rights are being violated and they must be compensated much like what is happening with generative AI today. Sure this is scifi today. So were "flying machines" and "moon visits" and magic of our global communication pocket devices, etc. Gpt4o is a bunch of matrix math being done on high purity ore and refined sand powered by the sun / wind / splitting atoms / ... A century back few would believe it. Even a decade back, any predictions about a real AI like gpt4o working in just a decade, would you believe such predictions?

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#372

Post by djur »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #211
limitedfrom wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I encourage you to look through this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co .

1. The case is from 1988. That’s the year I was born. Societal norms are in a constant state of flux, and this one case from 36 years ago isn’t really an indication of the current state of how case law will play out. 2. Ford explicitly hired an impersonator. OpenAI hired someone that sounded like her, and it’s her natural voice. Should movies be held to the same standard when casting their actors? This is about as ab…

> OpenAI hired someone that sounded like her, and it’s her natural voice.

They say so, yes. Seems like they didn't want to go through discovery in order to prove it.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#373

Post by djur »

kaiwen1 wrote: post #209
FMecha wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See Waits vs. Frito Lay.

In that case, as I understand it, the voice actor intentionally mimicked Waits, purposefully using his intonations, style of speech, and phrasing, all of which were not natural to the voice actor. He was intentionally mimicking Waits. I doubt the same claim can be made of the Sky voice actor.

OpenAI had the opportunity to prove as much in court and chose not to.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#374

Post by djur »

mikepalmer wrote: post #347

What if we take AI out of the equation. Should the voice actress who voiced Sky (call her A) be unable to do any voice work because she sounds too much like SJ? How about if the production company that made "Her" wants to make "Her 2". SJ declines the voice work. Are they not allowed to hire A to do the voice work? They ask SJ again but she still declines. They make the movie with A. Was it bad form? Just trying to f…

The relevant case law concerns defendants who "use an imitation to convey the impression" that it's the actual person. Just having a voice that sounds like SJ is not a problem, but the "Her" tweet and the fact that they tried to get her on board complicates the issue, and if there's any paper trail that they intentionally chose a soundalike that might be trouble.

Actors don't work in films without detailed contracts, so the normal rules don't necessarily apply in that situation. The producers of Her might have the right to use SJ's likeness in related material. In any case, if they made another movie with a soundalike, the soundalike would be credited and not just called "A", so there would be no confusion about whose voice it was.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#375

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #338
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.

> I wonder how long this thread will last on HN Users flagged it and it also set off the flamewar detector. I don't think we'd turn the penalties off on this one because because this article is derivative of the threads HN has already had on the recent things - threads like these: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40421225 - May 2024 (970 comments) Jan…

[deleted]

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#376

Post by disqard »

vunderba wrote: post #270
staunch wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steve Jobs was a superficial asshole but was fundamentally a good and ethical person. There's only one major ethical mistake documented in his entire life (being an absentee father while his first daughter was young), which he spent decades making amends for. The people that emulate Steve Jobs poorly are usually real assholes with a long list of ethical mistakes.

By all accounts, he was an incredible bully not just to his employees but also to his family as well. He refused to recognize his daughter even after a paternity test, and despite being a multi millionaire 1000 times over only paid child support when forced to by the courts. Does that sound like the behavior of a good and ethical person?

Shhhhh, he's the patron saint of the tech world, and you're on HN -- do you really expect a large percentage of folks here to share your views?

FWIW, I think he did understand some very fundamental truths about how to sell technology to the masses, but he definitely diverged from Alan Kay's philosophy outlined in "Dynabook".

IMO, he's less of a "savior" and more of a "god-tier salesperson".

Edit: I mentioned the "Dynabook", because Jobs often used the "bicycle for the mind" line, in interviews and newspaper ads.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#377

Post by dragonwriter »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #211
limitedfrom wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I encourage you to look through this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co .

1. The case is from 1988. That’s the year I was born. Societal norms are in a constant state of flux, and this one case from 36 years ago isn’t really an indication of the current state of how case law will play out. 2. Ford explicitly hired an impersonator. OpenAI hired someone that sounded like her, and it’s her natural voice. Should movies be held to the same standard when casting their actors? This is about as ab…

> The case is from 1988. That’s the year I was born. Societal norms are in a constant state of flux, and this one case from 36 years ago isn’t really an indication of the current state of how case law will play out.

Correct, while Midler presents a similar fact pattern and is a frequently taught and cited foundational case in this area, the case law has evolved since Midler, to an even stronger protection of celebrity publicity rights, that is even more explicitly not concerned with with the mechanism by which the identity is appropriated. Waits v. Frito Lay (!992), another case where voice sound-alike was a specific issue, has been mentioned in the thread, but White v. Samsung Electronics America (1993) [0], while its fact pattern wasn't centered on sound-alike voice appropriation, may be more important in that it underlines that the mechanism of appropriation is immaterial so long as the appropriation can be shown:

—quote—

In Midler, this court held that, even though the defendants had not used Midler's name or likeness, Midler had stated a claim for violation of her California common law right of publicity because "the defendants … for their own profit in selling their product did appropriate part of her identity" by using a Midler sound-alike. Id. at 463-64.

In Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir. 1983), the defendant had marketed portable toilets under the brand name "Here's Johnny"--Johnny Carson's signature "Tonight Show" introduction–without Carson's permission. The district court had dismissed Carson's Michigan common law right of publicity claim because the defendants had not used Carson's "name or likeness." Id. at 835. In reversing the district court, the sixth circuit found "the district court's conception of the right of publicity … too narrow" and held that the right was implicated because the defendant had appropriated Carson's identity by using, inter alia, the phrase "Here's Johnny." Id. at 835-37.

These cases teach not only that the common law right of publicity reaches means of appropriation other than name or likeness, but that the specific means of appropriation are relevant only for determining whether the defendant has in fact appropriated the plaintiff's identity. The right of publicity does not require that appropriations of identity be accomplished through particular means to be actionable. It is noteworthy that the Midler and Carson defendants not only avoided using the plaintiff's name or likeness, but they also avoided appropriating the celebrity's voice, signature, and photograph. The photograph in Motschenbacher did include the plaintiff, but because the plaintiff was not visible the driver could have been an actor or dummy and the analysis in the case would have been the same.

Although the defendants in these cases avoided the most obvious means of appropriating the plaintiffs' identities, each of their actions directly implicated the commercial interests which the right of publicity is designed to protect.

–end quote–

> Ford explicitly hired an impersonator. OpenAI hired someone that sounded like her, and it’s her natural voice.

Hiring a natural sound-alike voice vs. an impersonator as a mechanism is not the legal issue, the issue is the intent of the defendant in so doing (Ford in the Midler case, OpenAI in a hypothetical Johansson lawsuit) and the commercial effect of them doing so.

[0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/971...

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#378

Post by sshine »

hnfong wrote: post #336
couchdb_ouchdb wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What bubble? This isn't crypto. Have you used these tools? They aren't going anywhere.

There could be a bubble in terms of stock valuation, but the tools are definitely going to stay. This could be kinda like the dot com bubble -- the Internet went on to become BIG, but the companies just went bust... (and the ones that strive are probably not well known)

I finally caved and started using GPTs daily a couple of days ago.

I went to ask the Internet "best AI tools", and there's no clear consensus:

Various Redditors go on to suggest "here's 100 you might like to try".

So there's clearly a bubble, thousands of startups all trying for similar things.

I am personally looking forward to try Wolfram GPT:

https://www.wolfram.com/wolfram-plugin-chatgpt/

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#379

Post by piva00 »

NautilusWave wrote: post #260
panarky wrote: post #6

Altman would have us believe it's all just an innocent misunderstanding but without actually saying so: "We cast the voice actor behind Sky’s voice before any outreach to Ms. Johansson." Is he trying to suggest the company did not try to make the voice sound like her without her permission? The statement sounds like it's written by a lawyer to be technically true while implying something that is actually false. These…

Non-sequitur statements like this drive me nuts. Somehow, politicians and executive types learn how to use just enough of them to make the audience forget what they're not saying.

It's quite funny (not sure if ironic) in the context of OpenAI, ChatGPT can do exactly the same thing: generate a string of sentences that from cursory skimming might sound about right but when reading with attention you find all the cracks and incongruences in the generated text.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#380

Post by davidguetta »

This is the biggest first world problem thread / story ive seen recently about open ai.

Who the HELL has time to seriously care if ONE OF THE voices sounds like some famous actress ?

At least when people mentionned DoD AI contracts or some privacy issues there was some merit...

Post reply on HN