41–50 of 81 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This week might be the bit flip on his reputation. Starting to see defense comments getting downvoted, when earlier critical comments would get downvoted. Once you pass that 50% opinion it's pretty hard to reverse.
you'd need a long standing campaign ala Bill Gates from the 2000s. It seems like the truth shines through eventually though.
I’m mystified as to two things here: first that people feel this is ‘open and shut’ in Ms Johannsen’s favor, and second that this hasn’t been settled economically. IF: OpenAI had advertised SJ as being a voice, had sold the plus subscription with that voice as a benefit, and had instructed talent scouting and internal editors to ‘copy her’ then this would be open and shut. We know for sure the first part did not happ…
I’m mystified as to two things here: first that people feel this is ‘open and shut’ in Ms Johannsen’s favor, and second that this hasn’t been settled economically. IF: OpenAI had advertised SJ as being a voice, had sold the plus subscription with that voice as a benefit, and had instructed talent scouting and internal editors to ‘copy her’ then this would be open and shut. We know for sure the first part did not happ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
They wanted Scarlett Johansson specifically, couldn't get her and then hired someone They hired the Sky voice actress well before contacting SJ. with the intent to convince the public it was her. The only evidence for this is Sam's "her" tweet, which can easily be referring to the concept of a realistically-voiced AI assistant rather than SJ in particular.
Then why would they need to contact SJ 2 days before the release? If they already had the Sky voice complete? If there wouldn't be enough time to have SJ record everything for the voice?
To me, it doesn't pass the sniff test. Either their talent department is just really bad at planning and had no clue it was releasing just two days later (unlikely), or they were trying to get an agreement signed with her before the release, anticipating that this would happen (likely).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Contrary to layperson belief, there is little new in deepfakes. People have been faking the image of celebs for many years decades (SNL) and faking their personality even further (Hustler v Falwell, Lohan v GTA). The porn industry has an entire genre dedicated to parodies of famous people and famous situations. And there are the professional celeb lookalikes. Every historical film involves someone trying to mimic…
Parody is considered fair use because the public knows that it isn't the celebrity. This isn't the case here. If you want analogies it's like creating a Ferrari body, putting it around a cheap car and trying to sell it.
A proud tradition?
If it goes to court, it will be an interesting case and may have big ramifications. I believe the person used was selected because she sounded like Scarlett. If guilty, will it be illegal for people sounding like famous people get voice work ? I have heard ads with people sounding like various US Presidents over the years, could doing that be illegal ?
> If guilty, will it be illegal for people sounding like famous people get voice work ? The question implies that you believe a professional voice actor has a single voice they can use. That is a silly thing to believe.
People can sound alike or even identical.
I’m mystified as to two things here: first that people feel this is ‘open and shut’ in Ms Johannsen’s favor, and second that this hasn’t been settled economically. IF: OpenAI had advertised SJ as being a voice, had sold the plus subscription with that voice as a benefit, and had instructed talent scouting and internal editors to ‘copy her’ then this would be open and shut. We know for sure the first part did not happ…
commercial benefit for copyright is not limited to literally selling things but also covers ads and publicity. the legal system may be asked to consider if a press release for a new model counts as advertising, and if implying a connection to Her was a significant part of said advertisement. the fact that it does not cost money does not make it legal. PETA can't go around running its mouth saying "Beyonce supports PE…
Two people can naturally have a very similar voice and it would be pretty absurd to have someone not allowed to use their own voice.
It isn’t absurd for someone in a specific industry to have their voice protected within that trade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They wanted Scarlett Johansson specifically, couldn't get her and then hired someone They hired the Sky voice actress well before contacting SJ. with the intent to convince the public it was her. The only evidence for this is Sam's "her" tweet, which can easily be referring to the concept of a realistically-voiced AI assistant rather than SJ in particular.
> They hired the Sky voice actress well before contacting SJ. Then why would they need to contact SJ 2 days before the release? If they already had the Sky voice complete? If there wouldn't be enough time to have SJ record everything for the voice? To me, it doesn't pass the sniff test. Either their talent department is just really bad at planning and had no clue it was releasing just two days later (unlikely), or th…
According to OpenAI, they wanted SJ for a separate voice (https://openai.com/index/how-the-voices-for-chatgpt-were-cho...), possibly as a "one more thing" conclusion to the demo. You can say that they're lying, and certainly OpenAI doesn't have the highest credibility at the moment, but it's at least plausible.
or they were trying to get an agreement signed with her before the release, anticipating that this would happen (likely)
If they anticipated this would happen, why wouldn't they just ditch the Sky voice altogether?
Yeah, I don't get this at all. I don't have a donkey in this fight, but it seems to me that 1. They wanted to build the experience from the movie Her. 2. They wanted to use Johansson's voice because that would be a cool tie-in. 3. Johansson said no, so they went with somebody else. 4. End of story.