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

OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#11

Post by bawolff »

richardatlarge wrote: post #2

Quote from the Post article: But while many hear an eerie resemblance between “Sky” and Johansson’s “Her” character, an actress was hired to create the Sky voice months before Altman contacted Johansson, according to documents, recordings, casting directors and the actress’s agent.

> But while many hear an eerie resemblance between “Sky” and Johansson’s “Her” character,

I wonder to what extent it is because they were prompted to listen for that. Would they still hear the resemblance if they didn't know who to compare it to?

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#12

Post by trevyn »

Ariel_Asura wrote: post #5

It seems increasingly difficult for common people to protect their voices, especially when even Scarlett Johansson can't manage it. As a part-time voice actor with a unique voice, I'm concerned about what I should do if my voice is used without permission and the company denies it. How can I protect myself in such a situation?

>How can I protect myself in such a situation?

Choose a different career, like maybe public-opinion influencer.

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#13

Post by pavlov »

jrockway wrote: post #10

I was perusing some Simpsons clips this afternoon and came across a story to the effect of "So and so didn't want to play himself, so Dan Castellaneta did the voice." It's a good impression and people didn't seem very upset about that. I am not sure how this is different. (Apparently this particular "impression" predates the Her character, so it's even easier to not be mad about. It's just a coincidence. They weren't…

Surely there’s some kind of difference between “voice impression for a two-line cameo in one episode of an animated sitcom” and “reproducing your voice as the primary interface for a machine that could be used by billions of people and is worth hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Is there a name for this AI fallacy? The one where programmers make an inductive leap like, for example, if a human can read one book to learn something, then it’s ok to scan millions of books into a computer system because it’s just another kind of learning.

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#14

Post by onion2k »

hotdogscout wrote: post #6

A sensational lie spread much quicker than the truth even on HN, with no sign of course correction. I hope Sam feels fine after so much baseless harassment.

A 'lie' that OpenAI themselves believed enough to take the voice down from their app to check.

Presumably they trained this voice, and then wanted an official celebrity endorsement to make it better for marketing. At some point the people at OpenAI forgot it wasn't actually Scarlett. I don't think you can be critical of HN for believing it too in that case.

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#15

Post by squigz »

pavlov wrote: post #13
jrockway wrote: post #10

I was perusing some Simpsons clips this afternoon and came across a story to the effect of "So and so didn't want to play himself, so Dan Castellaneta did the voice." It's a good impression and people didn't seem very upset about that. I am not sure how this is different. (Apparently this particular "impression" predates the Her character, so it's even easier to not be mad about. It's just a coincidence. They weren't…

Surely there’s some kind of difference between “voice impression for a two-line cameo in one episode of an animated sitcom” and “reproducing your voice as the primary interface for a machine that could be used by billions of people and is worth hundreds of billions of dollars.” Is there a name for this AI fallacy? The one where programmers make an inductive leap like, for example, if a human can read one book to lear…

> for example, if a human can read one book to learn something, then it’s ok to scan millions of books into a computer system because it’s just another kind of learning.

Since this comes up all the time, I ask: What exactly is the number of books a human can ingest before it becomes illegal?

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#16

Post by 0110101001 »

jrockway wrote: post #10

I was perusing some Simpsons clips this afternoon and came across a story to the effect of "So and so didn't want to play himself, so Dan Castellaneta did the voice." It's a good impression and people didn't seem very upset about that. I am not sure how this is different. (Apparently this particular "impression" predates the Her character, so it's even easier to not be mad about. It's just a coincidence. They weren't…

Just to clarify for people who don't read it, the article isn't claiming this was trained on the voice of someone doing a Scarlett Johannson impression. It says it was trained on the natural voice of someone who sounds similar to Johannson's, hired months before Altman reached out to her.

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#17

Post by MattGaiser »

Ariel_Asura wrote: post #5

It seems increasingly difficult for common people to protect their voices, especially when even Scarlett Johansson can't manage it. As a part-time voice actor with a unique voice, I'm concerned about what I should do if my voice is used without permission and the company denies it. How can I protect myself in such a situation?

> with a unique voice

Is your voice truly unique out of the 8 billion out there in the world? Nobody could plausibly pass as you?

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#18

Post by skilled »

The thing that worried me initially was that:

- the original report by Scarlett said she was approached months ago, and then two days prior to launch of GPT-4o she was approached again

Because of the above, my immediate assumption was that OpenAI definitely did her dirty. But this report from WaPo debunks at least some of it, because the records they have seen show that the voice actor was contacted months in advance prior to OpenAI contacting Scarlett for the first time. (also goes to show just how many months in advance OpenAI is working on projects)

However, this does not dispel the fact that OpenAI did contact Scarlett, and Sam Altman did post the tweet saying "her", and the voice has at least "some" resemblance of Scarlett's voice, at least enough to have two different groups saying that it does, and the other saying that it does not.

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#19

Post by sschueller »

"She worked closely with a film director hired by OpenAI to help develop the technology’s personality."

So you are trying to tell me there was zero chance that this film director was not aware of the movie "Her" and may have been influenced by it?

Why doesn't the voice sound like the Enterprise's computer from TNG? I don't mean sound, I mean cadence, more professional and not like a sexline operator.

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#20

Post by maxglute »

pavlov wrote: post #13
jrockway wrote: post #10

I was perusing some Simpsons clips this afternoon and came across a story to the effect of "So and so didn't want to play himself, so Dan Castellaneta did the voice." It's a good impression and people didn't seem very upset about that. I am not sure how this is different. (Apparently this particular "impression" predates the Her character, so it's even easier to not be mad about. It's just a coincidence. They weren't…

Surely there’s some kind of difference between “voice impression for a two-line cameo in one episode of an animated sitcom” and “reproducing your voice as the primary interface for a machine that could be used by billions of people and is worth hundreds of billions of dollars.” Is there a name for this AI fallacy? The one where programmers make an inductive leap like, for example, if a human can read one book to lear…

How unique is a voice? I'm sure there's enough people out ther who sounds like Johansson. There's probably some argument for voice + personality + face + mannerisms, some gestalt that's more comparable to copying the likeness "person". But openAI is copying a fictional character played by Johansson, it's not her. Do actor/esses get to monopolize their depiction of fictional characters? Especially when it's not tied to physical represenation. What if OpenAI associate it with an avatar that looks nothing like her. I'm sure hollywood and/or actors union is figuring this out.
Post reply on HN