151–160 of 1001 posts
Everything OpenAI and Altman related seems to have multiple layers like an onion.
If we wait long enough we might get documents which show they uses Scarlett Johansson's voice but hired an actress to claim it's hers.
One month later it might be the opposite again.
In times of AI fakes real evidence is hard to find.
You can hear both voices for yourself and tell they are different, but y'all such NPCs you just believe the bullcrap the media spoon-feeds you not the literal sounds in your ears. New theory, HN is a honey pot for dumb people that Y Combinator studies how to make money from. Previous theory it was a Alzheimer's style "Fake bus stop" used to round up imposter hackers and keep them contained while the real Hackers did…
This whole thing is starting to feel like another Sam Altman spotlight production. There's enough evidence to show no wrongdoing, but it was handled in a way to make people think there was a scandal. Maximum spotlight for relatively low risk. I wonder if people will get tired of being jerked around like this.
Occam's Razor argues that Sam simply wanted ScarJo's voice, but couldn't get it, so they came up with a legally probably technically OK but ethically murky clone.
I think it's really problematic that the government is protecting voice actor's careers. It's like if they disallowed cars on the roads to protect horse carriages. Clearly with the new technology a whole economic sector is gone and irrelevant over night. Now amateurs and small projects can afford to add good sounding voices to their creations. This is good news in the end The same goes for actors and their likenesses…
> like if they disallowed cars on the roads to protect horse carriages What? Nobody is banning OpenAI from licensing voices. The censure is on, at the very least, using an unlicensed likeness to promote their new products without compensation. (Assuming Sky truly is a clean-room product.) Likeness just became a tradeable product. That wasn't true before. The better analogy is in recognising mineral rights, including…
Only because the government is making it that way. It's not an inevitability. It's a shortsighted move that doesn't add any value to society. It only serves to make celebrities even more wealthy
I think it's really problematic that the government is protecting voice actor's careers. It's like if they disallowed cars on the roads to protect horse carriages. Clearly with the new technology a whole economic sector is gone and irrelevant over night. Now amateurs and small projects can afford to add good sounding voices to their creations. This is good news in the end The same goes for actors and their likenesses…
Why should the creative sources (artists, actors, writers, etc.) be left out of the cut, while the tech companies are reaping the rewards?
"But those stars are rich, they'll survive."
Yeah, maybe - but the creative world is 0.001% wealthy people, and the rest being people that barely get by - and could earn more money by doing pretty much anything else.
I get the argument about copyright protections stifling progress, but it bugs me something fierce that people here are essentially saying it's OK for the AI/ML creators to become filthy rich, while the people they are ripping off should just do something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a pretty generous take on the situation. Sam Altman isn't some robin hood character taking from the rich to give to the poor. If AI companies can keep operating with impunity, taking as much data as they want with no compensation for the creators, or consequence for infringement, that's not good. I agree that the technology is great, and it will empower small creators, but I'm also worried about the cowboy beh…
In this context they aren't "creators" because they don't create anything. These actors are not being compensated, b/c they're not actually performed any additional work or doing any acting If you record my voice at a conference and then create a synthetic replica.. why would I care? You didn't make me do any additional work or anything
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> like if they disallowed cars on the roads to protect horse carriages What? Nobody is banning OpenAI from licensing voices. The censure is on, at the very least, using an unlicensed likeness to promote their new products without compensation. (Assuming Sky truly is a clean-room product.) Likeness just became a tradeable product. That wasn't true before. The better analogy is in recognising mineral rights, including…
"Likeness just became a tradeable product. That wasn't true before." Only because the government is making it that way. It's not an inevitability. It's a shortsighted move that doesn't add any value to society. It only serves to make celebrities even more wealthy
Likeness wasn’t mass producible. It is now. That isn’t because of government but technology.
> doesn't add any value to society
According to whom? Certainly not Johansson or OpenAI.
> only serves to make celebrities even more wealthy
You don’t see how an entry-level actor doesn’t benefit from their first short skit being a substitute for a life’s work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copying by hiring a sound-alike/impersonator is an implementation detail. They knew full well that they were trying to copy her voice. Then they asked. And they got a no. And then they did it anyway. I don't see how the implementation details matter at all.
It's their natural voice. Are they not allowed to hire a person that sounds like... any famous person? Aren't others in this thread claiming how similar voices can be and theyre not unqiue?
People see what they want to see. If it wasn't for us being biased by the surrounding circumstances I don't think people would have confused their voices. Their voices are not that similar. I probably personally know people with a voice as similar to SJ as Sky's. You probably do too. The voice actress says the same: "I’ve never been compared to her by the people who do know me closely." But then suddenly a story emer…
Sounds like a female. Sounds like a white person. Sounds like between 30 and 40. It must be SJ.
I think it's really problematic that the government is protecting voice actor's careers. It's like if they disallowed cars on the roads to protect horse carriages. Clearly with the new technology a whole economic sector is gone and irrelevant over night. Now amateurs and small projects can afford to add good sounding voices to their creations. This is good news in the end The same goes for actors and their likenesses…
It boils down to dollars and cents. Why should the creative sources (artists, actors, writers, etc.) be left out of the cut, while the tech companies are reaping the rewards? "But those stars are rich, they'll survive." Yeah, maybe - but the creative world is 0.001% wealthy people, and the rest being people that barely get by - and could earn more money by doing pretty much anything else. I get the argument about cop…