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

401–410 of 487 posts

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#401

Post by hluska »

klyrs wrote: post #368
hluska wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That says he asks for permission. His new song would generate songwriter credits and they’re paid out totally differently from regular royalties. Is that what you mean by him paying for rights?

Rereading your comment, I see that my answer rather falls short of your question. I don't claim to know anything about Weird Al beyond what he wrote on that page.

Honestly pal, I really appreciate you trying! I’m one of very few people strange enough to care about the minutiae of this. I’m grateful that you jumped into my weird rabbit hole with me for awhile. It was kind of you to try to help me.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#402

Post by ryandrake »

orthecreedence wrote: post #10
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…

> We should not give a sneaky and deceptive man this much power over our future. We should not give anybody this much power over our future.

Just to state the obvious, "we" are not doing anything here. "We," as in "the general public 'we'" don't have much of a choice when someone has lots of money and lawyers and wants to use those resources to sneakily and deceptively make more money. Unless "we" elect better representatives who are willing to write and enforce laws governing the wealthy's ability to effectively do whatever they want, then "we" don't have much of a say.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#403

Post by ryandrake »

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)

It's an exuberance bubble. Every tech company on earth is racing to "do something with AI" because all of their competitors are trying to "do something with AI" and they don't want to be left out of the excitement. The excitement and exuberance will inevitably cool, and then a new thing will emerge and they'll all race to "do something with that new thing."

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#404

Post by Reubachi »

barfingclouds wrote: post #399
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…

It doesn’t sound like her

I listened to a comedy podcast early last week that was using Chatgpt4 with this voice to make some funny bits/jokes.

Without having any context about who the voice was, or the "Drama" between OpenAI and actress in question, or even really being aware of Scarlett Johansson's body of work, I immediately went "Oh that's Scarlett Johansson or whatever, cool"

To read all of this after the fact is almost comical. It's as if the powers that be realized the issues with the "one-man-in-charge-of-ai" platform and created this almost unbelievable story to decredit him.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#405

Post by sillysaurusx »

lelandfe wrote: post #395
sillysaurusx wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. But in this particular case, there are two factors that make that irrelevant for me. One, I would have made their same mistake. (If I was Sam, I too would have found it a really cool idea to make GPT have the voice of Her, and I too would not have realized there was one dumb court case from the 80s standing in the way of that.) Two, it’s bogus that conceptually this isn’t allowed. I’m already anti-IP — I think th…

"This is perfectly legal!" Actually, there's a similar court case from 1988 that creates legal precedent for her to sue. "That's just one case! And it's from 1988! That's 36 years ago: rounded up, that's 4 decades!" Actually, there's a court case from 1992 that built on that judgement and expanded it to define a specific kind of tort. "That's bad law! Forget the law! I demand a moral justification." Anyway, asking a…

If you approach a debate from a bad faith standpoint, don’t be surprised when the other person doesn’t change their mind. "I think you’re a liar" is a great way to make them nope out.

Which is a shame, since you had a decent argument.

Except it isn’t. Again, you’re acting like OpenAI tried to profit off of Scarlett. They tried to profit off of the portrayal she did in the movie Her. These are not the same thing, and treating them as interchangeable is some next level moral rationalization. One is taking advantage of someone. The other is what the movie industry is for.

Now, where’s this case from 1992 that expended and defined the scope of this?

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#406

Post by Reubachi »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #55
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…

It's not a vague suggestion - in the full statement that's been reported elsewhere, he explicitly says it. > The voice of Sky is not Scarlett Johansson's, and it was never intended to resemble hers. We cast the voice actor behind Sky’s voice before any outreach to Ms. Johansson. Out of respect for Ms. Johansson, we have paused using Sky’s voice in our products. We are sorry to Ms. Johansson that we didn’t communicate…

scenario

-the creator of a new widget takes tha widget to another widget manufacturer and says "Would you like to put your stamp on this? It's similar to yours, yet derivative enough and we would both benefit."

- other widget manufacturer says "no"

-Creator of widget then puts the badge on the widget anyway, gets called out/faces legal action

-Creator of widget says "Well, we planned to put the badge on there anyway before even considering the other widget manufacturer. It's just coincidence.

This shouldn't even go to court. Laughable that the face of modern tech is cheesing this much.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#407

Post by glenstein »

sshine wrote: post #378
hnfong wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

I understand there's way too much out there, but I think there is at least some clarity about the landscape at present.

ChatGPT is currently king of the mountain. That could change, but right now that's how it is.

Google's Gemini and Facebook's Llama 3 are clearly in a tier below. The 100s of tools you are seeing are various mixed and matched technologies that also belong in this tier.

Claude (massive context) and Mistral/Mixtral (decent with no censoring/guard rails) are interesting for special cases. And if you're determined and want to put in the effort, you can experiment or self-host and perhaps come up with some capabilities that do something special that suits a use case or something you want to optimize for (although not everyone has time for that).

So I wouldn't say it's just all this one big swirl of confusion and therefore a bubble and due to come crashing down. There's wheat, there's chaff, there's rhyme and reason.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#408

Post by malfist »

tasuki wrote: post #370
dclowd9901 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is still salient. People who don’t have Wikipedia links will be forgotten. Though I guess maybe that’s always been true.

Your legacy can continue as part of the AI trained on your output. What would you prefer? Would you want people to remember your name? Your face? Your voice? Which people? How often should they have to remember you? For how many thousands of years?

That's like saying that your happy someone person who plagiarized your work got famous because you live on in their "trained output"

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#409

Post by wvenable »

zemo wrote: post #366
wvenable wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is real life not fiction. Perhaps we shouldn't crucify people for this sort of vague association.

there’s a huge gulf between saying “I think that guy is wrong” on a web forum and sentencing them to death in an extremely public and slow and painful manner. Nobody is being crucified here. It is intellectually dishonest to see criticism as crucifixion.

This isn't criticism, it's a witch hunt. Your argument here boils down to "he's evil" because of his movie preferences.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#410

Post by dustfinger »

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…

> We should not give a sneaky, deceptive and manipulative person this much power over our future.

I think this should be applied to our government. In my opinion, it is a failing in the structure of our government that those running the country control the police and appear to rarely be investigated unless by the request of a political opponent. They are seemingly outside of the law. It would be better if they were under perpetual investigation; forever kept in check. We should have assurance that those leading our country are not villainous traitors.

Post reply on HN