481–490 of 1001 posts
No amount of unverifiable "records" (just pieces of paper provided by somebody who has a multimillion dollar incentive to show one outcome) will change my mind.
But if they can produce the actual voice artist I'd be more open-minded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, to me, it's just sounds like they know how to cover all their bases. To me, it sounds like they had the idea to make their AI sound like "her". For the initial version, they had a voice actor that sounds like the movie, as a proof of concept. They still liked it, so it was time to contact the real star. In the end, it's not just the voice, it would have been the brand, just imagine the buzz they would h…
> In the end, someone probably felt like it's a bit too dodgy as it resemblance was uncanny What if it wasn’t a computer voice model but rather a real-life voice actress that you could pay a few cents to try to imitate Scarlett Johansson’s voice as best as she could? That’s effectively what’s happening here, and it isn’t illegal. It guess it also leads to the bigger question: do celebrities own their particular frequ…
> That’s effectively what’s happening here, and it isn’t illegal.
Profiting from someone else's likeness is illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That’s effectively what’s happening here, and it isn’t illegal. It is more complicated than that. Check out Midler v. Ford Motor Co, or Waits V. Frito Lay.
Ford hired impersonators, she's not an impersonator, that's her real voice. She's allowed to be a voice actor using her real voice. Your can point to the "Her" tweet, but it's a pretty flimsy argument.
And besides, it sounds more like Rashida Jones anyway. It's clearly not an impersonation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed — seems like they had a plan, and probably talked extensively with Legal about how to develop and execute the plan to give themselves plausible deniability. The tweet was inadvisable, and undoubtedly not part of the actual plan (unless it was to get PR).
> unless it was to get PR I think this possibility doesn't receive enough attention, there is a class of people who've figured out that they can say the most scandalous things online and it's a net positive because it generates so much exposure. (As a lowly middle class employee you can't do this - you just get fired and go broke - but at a certain level of wealth and power you're immune from that.) It is the old PT…
Nothing in this article changes the essence of her complaint.
The only real, though partial, rebuttal to her is that OpenAI copied a work product she did for a movie, and the movie was was more than her voice, so it's not totally her own work. So maybe the movie team as a whole has a stronger complaint than the voice actor alone.
She didn't lose any game of wits. She just got done dirty by someone who got away with it. She doesn't need money from them. She has respect from people who matter, SAM and OpenAI behaved badly like big tech always does. If OpenAI permanently stops using Johansson-like Sky voice, she'll win what she wanted.
Of course, anyone whose voice sounds like an AI has the unpleasantness of that experience, and a rich person is more able to endure it than a regular Johansson.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, to me, it's just sounds like they know how to cover all their bases. To me, it sounds like they had the idea to make their AI sound like "her". For the initial version, they had a voice actor that sounds like the movie, as a proof of concept. They still liked it, so it was time to contact the real star. In the end, it's not just the voice, it would have been the brand, just imagine the buzz they would h…
A more charitable scenario might be that they hire the voice actor and it sounds a bit like her. Someone suggests why don't we just get Scarlett to do it properly, wouldn't that be cooler? They reach out and she says no. They decide to continue with the one that sounds a bit like her.
Why in the world would one expect the more charitable scenario?
If Right to Publicity laws indeed favor Scarlet here, then the law is really outdated and needs to catch up with the current paradigm. A company wanted a voice, had something in their minds, approached a voice actor who has a similar voice to what they have in mind, got rejected, then approached next candidate and worked with her. Simple as that. If this is illegal, I don't know what is legal.
OpenAi had been working with the "Sky" voice actress for months before first contacting Scarlett Johansson.
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…
I don't know, to me, it's just sounds like they know how to cover all their bases. To me, it sounds like they had the idea to make their AI sound like "her". For the initial version, they had a voice actor that sounds like the movie, as a proof of concept. They still liked it, so it was time to contact the real star. In the end, it's not just the voice, it would have been the brand, just imagine the buzz they would h…
I can't help but think that this was all planned. It is a very intricately planned, and geniously executed marketing ploy to make sure everyone knows about the company, the new release, that there is voice now, and even makes everyone look into it just to "see for themselves". Whether this was in with ScarJo in the loop or not, does not really change the outcome, but would be a nice information we probably will never…
It's not very impressive. As a result of the negative publicity, most people know OpenAI as the company that steals things from other people. Most of them will never hear that this one time, OpenAI didn't actually do the thing they were accused of doing. That's the problem with having a repeat liar as a CEO: you lose any credibility for those rare instances when you're actually telling the truth.
An ad-blocking generation of people who pirated music and movies with the zeal of a god-given right now complaining about AI taking peoples work. Ok.
If GPTxyz is convenient and makes their life easier, they will use it.
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?
https://x.com/search?q=scarjo+until%3A2024-05-14&src=typed_q...
https://x.com/search?q=johansson+until%3A2024-05-14&src=type...