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

411–420 of 487 posts

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#411

Post by danielmarkbruce »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #227
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. This whole thing is more stupidity than anything else. There is nothing wrong with using a voice that sounds like her. There is everything wrong with referencing the movie and sort of implying it is the voice from the movie. They could have easily let others make the connection. So dumb.

Why is it wrong to explicitly mimic a part played in a movie? Are we saying that the actor owns their portrayal of the role? OpenAI should’ve owned their actions. "Yes, we wanted to get a voice that sounded like the one from Her." There’s nothing wrong with that.

Not an IP lawyer, but I think the company that produced the movie owns the relevant IP, and Johansson might also own IP around it.

You can have an opinion on it, but they are going to get sued. Just like I can't take Moana and throw her in an ad where it says "I like [insert cereal here]", they can't take a character and use it without expecting Disney/whoever to come sue them.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#412

Post by czl »

nradov wrote: post #335
czl wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had the film Her used someone else as the AI voice that sounded like Johansson would there be complaints about the film using a voice that sounded like Johansson? Does it matter if producers try to hire her first? Because only Johansson has that voice? Johansson does not visually show up the film Her and if not for the film credits could the voice in that film be used to use identity her from hundreds millions of oth…

I don't know about complaints but Ms. Johansson might be able to win a civil suit in that hypothetical situation. It would depend on the facts of the particular case, particularly any evidence that the defendants acted in bad faith. I think a lot of technologists don't understand how burden of proof works in civil trials, or that there is no presumption of "innocence".

Civil trails are based on a preponderance of evidence (aka 50%) burden of proof standard (vs beyond reasonable doubt standard in criminal trails).

I can see a civil judge or jury being given evidence showing very few listeners think the voices match in _blind voice tests_.

Here for example you can listen to the voices side by side:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cwy6wz/comment/l4...

And here is voice of another actress ( Rashida Jones ):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385414AVZcA

This test is not blind but YOU tell me which you think is similar to the openAI sky voice? And what does that tell you about likely court result for Johansson? And having reached this conclusion yourself would you now think the other actress Rashida Jones is entitled to compensation based on this similarly test? Because there are no other women with similar voices?

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#413

Post by talldayo »

WalterBright wrote: post #369
starttoaster wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I already kind of replied to this rebuttal in advance in my first comment that you replied to. But I’ll refute it again a second way. Textile machinery impacted a very specific sector of work. We’re talking here about an advancement in technology threatening to substitute the creativity of humans one day. With textile machinery, other technological advancements eventually created new jobs which helped to displace the…

The US cannot suppress AI. There's a lot of other countries which would love to pick up the AI flag if we drop it, and then they'll bury us. I've used AI in my programming work. After you get used to it, you see its limitations. It's not that clever, it's mostly mush. It's better than stackoverflow, though :-/ I've seen AI written articles, and they're pretty much drivel. Of course, most articles are drivel anyway, b…

> What I fear about AI is not their economic uses, but their use in warfare.

AI has been used in warfare in the form of computer vision for like 20 years now. That's the scariest application of AI you will ever have to worry about; putting ChatGPT in a GBU-12 isn't going to make it any more dangeorus.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#414

Post by p_j_w »

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…

>My theory is that it had to do with pg praising him so publicly—I think it evoked a "why him and not me?" feeling in readers. The weird-ironic thing is that the complaint has only grown as Sam has achieved more...running OpenAI through the biggest tech boom since the iPhone is...rather obviously massive. I think if Sam unifies gravity into quantum theory, brokers peace in the middle east, and cures cancer, we'll still be hearing these complaints—because they're not really grounded either in objective achievement or lack of it. It's some kind of second-order phenomenon, and actually rather interesting. At least if you aren't Sam!

You're right, posting this was a bad idea. It reads like a "neener neener you're just jealous" defense of someone you happen to like.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#415

Post by czl »

FireBeyond wrote: post #319
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.

The whole "Her" thing, and the fact that even Johansson's family and friends couldn't tell it apart are somewhat telling. Or Altman could reveal the identity of the voice actress OpenAI did use. I'm sure that will happen, and remove all doubt...

> even Johansson's family and friends couldn't tell it apart are somewhat telling.

You can listen to the voices side by side:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cwy6wz/comment/l4...

And here is voice of another actress ( Rashida Jones ):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385414AVZcA

This test is not blind but YOU tell me which you think is similar to the openAI sky voice? And what does that tell you about likely court result for Johansson? And having reached this conclusion yourself would you now think the other actress Rashida Jones is entitled to compensation based on this similarly test? Because there are no other women with similar voices? What might support from friends and family of Rashida Jones be an indication of?

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#417

Post by dang »

p_j_w wrote: post #414
dang wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>My theory is that it had to do with pg praising him so publicly—I think it evoked a "why him and not me?" feeling in readers. The weird-ironic thing is that the complaint has only grown as Sam has achieved more...running OpenAI through the biggest tech boom since the iPhone is...rather obviously massive. I think if Sam unifies gravity into quantum theory, brokers peace in the middle east, and cures cancer, we'll sti…

I can see how it might read that way! I just think the phenomenon is a curious one. Sometimes I post for that reason.

There is, however, a more dominant rule, which is never to contradict an angry crowd, because doing so only produces more of the same. I break that rule sometimes but not often.

(Edit: s/mob/crowd. I realized on my bike ride hours later that 'mob' was too harsh.)

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#418

Post by dang »

aredox wrote: post #386
dang wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't know the truth about a painful family situation by consuming internet drama. Internet users have their own reasons for engaging in such drama—no doubt rooted in their own painful family situations, and from that point of view their reasons make sense—but none of this discussion is reliable. It is frequently harmful though. Internet users don't pause to consider the harm they may be contributing to, but some…

1. YC is not a neutral party, it has clear, deep ties with Sam Altman. 2. The behavior of Annie Altman at childhood is very abnormal and very consistent with trauma. 3. The bahavior of Sam & co locking Annie out of her heritage and witholding support that would be chup change for them is appaling in itself. 4. We don't know if it is truly the HN community that deemed it off topic.

My point is that you can't determine anything about 2 or 3 from internet drama, it's harmful to pretend that you can (The same goes for any family. It's just that people tend to direct this energy at celebrities, because that's how the celebrity system works in our culture.

(I'm not arguing 1 and 4 because they're beside the point I was making)

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#419

Post by czl »

hluska wrote: post #334
czl wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why would they try to resume negotiations Could they be trying to avert possible negative public perception even if they believe all they did was 100% legal? If you have ample funds and are willing to pay someone to make X easier for you does your offer to pay them imply that X is against the law? If your voice sounds like someone famous now you are prevented from getting any voice acting work? Because that famous…

I don’t know why you’re asking me those last three questions. First, I’m not a lawyer. Second, I didn’t make any claims that could make those questions relevant. Instead, I’ll repeat my earlier claim - this was reckless. If they were trying to avoid a strong negative perception, they failed. And they failed with an actor who sued Disney shortly after they paid her $20 million to make a movie.

You asked the good question about why they may have acted as they did and I attempted to answer it. In hindsight based on results it may look reckless but decisions need to be judged based on that is known at the time they are made and the public reaction was not a foregone outcome. The openAI sky voice has been available since last September why was there no outrage about it back then?

You can listen to the voices side by side:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cwy6wz/comment/l4...

And here is voice of another actress ( Rashida Jones ):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385414AVZcA

This test is not blind but YOU tell me which you think is similar to the openAI sky voice?

> And they failed with an actor who sued Disney shortly after they paid her $20 million to make a movie.

OpenAI did not fail. They suspended the sky voice and backed down not to further anger a segment of the public who views much of what OpenAI does in a negative light. Given the voice test above do you seriously think OpenAI would lose in court? Would that matter to the segment of population that is already outraged by AI? How are journalists and news companies affected by AI? How might their reporting be biased?

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#420

Post by caeril »

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…

I agree that he should have been honest, but from the opposite perspective.

Altman should have said, "Yes, we made the voice similar to this washed-up actress, but her voice is not much different from anyone else with similar regional upbringing, year of birth, habits, and ethnic background, so we invite anyone else born in the mid-eighties, raised in Greenwich, and with Danish heritage, to sue us too. We'll see how well you do in court. Otherwise, get fucked."

This whole thing with anybody giving a shit about your voice, which isn't even yours, as it's a product of your environment and genes, and will be strikingly similar to anyone with similarities thereof, is insane.

Altman shouldn't have used weasel words, I agree. He should have owned it, because it's a total non-issue, and the people upset about it need to be shamed as the Luddite assholes that they are.

Post reply on HN