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

Post by Conasg » Thu, May 23, 2024, 2:24 PM UTC

talldayo wrote: post #544

thepasswordis wrote: post #540

In the movie “Her”, there is a smart AI assistant that you can talk to and is friendly and has good natural language. How is it not obvious to everybody that this is what Sam and the OpenAI people are referencing with their tweets? Scarlett Johanssons voice is certainly pleasing, but it feels misplaced to assume that the voice is the important thing here and not everything else.

> How is it not obvious to everybody that this is what Sam and the OpenAI people are referencing with their tweets? Because according to Johansson, Sam also approached her twice in an attempt to license her voice legitimately. That's not the sort of thing that happens when you make an incidental reference to a film; he wanted that voice, so badly that he tried making a second offer (and got refused). > but it feels m…

Post by pc86 » Thu, May 23, 2024, 2:25 PM UTC

dbreunig wrote: post #505

zug_zug wrote: post #481

When I first used ChatGPT's voice assistant's I was like "Wow, this one is clearly Scarlett Johansson from Her, they even copy her mannerisms." 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.

This shows how bad it is. If you're proactively sharing a package of docs with the Washingington Post, you're toast. Altman's outreach, his tweet, and the thousands of tweets and comments talking about how similar Sky is to ScarJo is enough to win the case in California.

Post by spaceribs » Thu, May 23, 2024, 2:26 PM UTC

Post by talldayo » Thu, May 23, 2024, 2:27 PM UTC

Conasg wrote: post #551

talldayo wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it not obvious to everybody that this is what Sam and the OpenAI people are referencing with their tweets? Because according to Johansson, Sam also approached her twice in an attempt to license her voice legitimately. That's not the sort of thing that happens when you make an incidental reference to a film; he wanted that voice, so badly that he tried making a second offer (and got refused). > but it feels m…

I know it's kind of nitpicking, but it was never intended to be misanthropic or a psychological horror. It's a sci-fi romantic drama; I don't really see where the misanthropy or psychological horror aspects are?

Post by yoyohello13 » Thu, May 23, 2024, 2:29 PM UTC

squigz wrote: post #15

pavlov wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?