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

441–450 of 487 posts

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#441

Post by glenstein »

caeril wrote: post #423
glenstein wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Mi…

> ChatGPT is currently king of the mountain. This is completely false. Claude Opus is significantly better than GPT 4. > Mistral/Mixtral (decent with no censoring/guard rails) These models have been heavily censored, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Community efforts like Dolphin to fine-tune Mixtral have some success, but no, Karen is definitely still hard at work in France, ensuring that Mistral AI's models…

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. You're right that Claude Opus is better, which I hadn't known, but I think in your zeal to make that point you're completely forgetting what my comment was about.

It's nevertheless true that there is a coherent landscape of better and worse models, and Chat GPT really does have separation from the other models as I mentioned above. I even mentioned that ChatGPTs position would be subject to change. My understanding is that this most recent version of Claude has been out and about in the wild for perhaps 2 months.

I feel like with even a little bit of charitable interpretation you could read my comment in a way that accounts for the emergence of such a thing as a new and improved model of Claude. So I appreciate your correction but it's hard to see how it amounts to anything more than a drive-by cheap shot that's unrelated to the point I'm making.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#442

Post by eastbound »

SrslyJosh wrote: post #212
afavour wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He kind of ruined that argument when he tweeted “Her” alongside the video. Pretty clearly drawing a line between the voice and Johansson’s portrayal in the movie. Incredible, really. It would have been so easy to just… not do that.

Given: 1. The plot of "Her" (guy falls in love with synthesized voice, played by Johansson) 2. Altman's affinity for the film (the article says he's called it his "favorite movie") Reaching out to Johansson about cloning her voice, then doing so without permission feels like Altman is creeping on her. The sooner this bubble pops, the better.

Oh, the irony. Actors are afraid of being digitalized and used without their content, and the first B2C AI company digitalizes a soundalike of the voice of one of the first 3 AI movies, without her consent…

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#443

Post by pmarreck »

flumpcakes wrote: post #29
pmarreck wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter because Sky's voice is materially and objectively different from ScarJo's. Anyone who heard them both side by side would immediately realize this.

The clips that I have seen sound very similar to Scarlett Johansson to me, to the point that I thought it was her likeness on purpose. Is this Sky? https://www.tiktok.com/@kylephilippi/video/73185169285097751...

https://soundcloud.com/peter-marreck-fb/sky-voice-and-scarjo...

I made this myself. They do not sound the same to me. Am I living in a bizarro world?

In fact I think Rashida Jones would be a closer (but still not identical) match vs Scarjo

IN FACT, I bet any young woman's voice spoken clearly would sound as similar

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#444

Post by pmarreck »

nomel wrote: post #248
pmarreck wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter because Sky's voice is materially and objectively different from ScarJo's. Anyone who heard them both side by side would immediately realize this.

Comparison: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40435695

I already made my own, below. Whatever similarity that exists here is not significant enough to merit ScarJo throwing a fit about it.

Rashida Jones, as your link indicates, might be a closer match.

Or literally any young woman who enunciates clearly.

https://soundcloud.com/peter-marreck-fb/sky-voice-and-scarjo...

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#445

Post by CRConrad »

nradov wrote: post #333
mensetmanusman wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The code for these systems is around 1000 lines. It just takes $100,000,000 in electricity costs to execute the program. Open source might not matter.

I guess what we really need is super cheap fusion power or something? Or perhaps a way to easily share the cost by spreading the training load and electricity bill across millions of home computers?

It's not literally the electricity that's the problem. It's the power it -- the electricity for a tiny part, and all our data for the overwhelming majority -- gives to "Big Tech" rentiers, like Altman is or at least is aspiring to become.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#446

Post by pmarreck »

kalupa wrote: post #26
pmarreck wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter because Sky's voice is materially and objectively different from ScarJo's. Anyone who heard them both side by side would immediately realize this.

lol

https://soundcloud.com/peter-marreck-fb/sky-voice-and-scarjo...

I'm sorry but either you are tone-deaf or these are not remotely the same voice. I made this myself after getting fed up with this bullshit.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#447

Post by CRConrad »

couchdb_ouchdb wrote: post #329
SrslyJosh wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given: 1. The plot of "Her" (guy falls in love with synthesized voice, played by Johansson) 2. Altman's affinity for the film (the article says he's called it his "favorite movie") Reaching out to Johansson about cloning her voice, then doing so without permission feels like Altman is creeping on her. The sooner this bubble pops, the better.

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

Maybe they aren't going anywhere, but they sure af ought to.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#448

Post by CRConrad »

FireBeyond wrote: post #320
yreg wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He kind of ruined that argument when he tweeted "Her" Why? The grandparent is not saying it's coincidence. Why is it not okay to hire someone who has a voice similar to celebrity X who you intentionally want to immitate? I mean if you don't actually mislead people to believe that your immitation is actually X - which would be obviously problematic?

Alright then, the solution is simple. All he has to do is name the actress that OpenAI -did- hire for the voice work, right? That would put any doubt to rest.

Jennifer Tilly? ;-)

(Can't for the life of me recall if she sounds anything like Johansson; just putting her forward to tease her relative here. (Who is in the wrong in his arguments above.))

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#449

Post by CRConrad »

frankacter wrote: post #291
dragonwriter wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Setting a precedent that if your natural voice sounds similar to a more famous actor precludes you from work would be a terrible precedent to set. Yes, but literally no one anywhere is suggesting that the voice actress used would be banned from work because of any similarity between her voice and Johansson's; that’s an irrelevant strawman. Some people are arguing that there is considerable reason to believe that th…

>Yes, but literally no one anywhere is suggesting that the voice actress used would be banned from work because of any similarity between her voice and Johansson's; that’s an irrelevant strawman It's not. The original comment in this chain was drawing parallel to a lawsuit in which someone intentionally took steps to impersonate an actor. This situation is a voice actor using their "natural voice" as a source of work…

> The original comment in this chain was drawing parallel to a lawsuit in which someone intentionally took steps to impersonate an actor.

> This situation is a voice actor using their "natural voice" as a source of work.

Work which was then marketed with heavy implications referring to another actor. Which is what makes this situation so similar to the earlier one.

Re: Sam Altman is showing us who he really is

#450

Post by CRConrad »

czl wrote: post #419
hluska wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

> OpenAI did not fail. They suspended the sky voice and backed down

Yeah, that's failing.

Post reply on HN