581–590 of 1001 posts
The more I find out about Altman the more I agree with the previous board about removing him. The guy just feels sleazy to me. Though he is doing what I want and that is not giving a fuck about artificial monopolies granted by government ie copyright
When the offer was declined by scarjo, they could still train on her works of art and just hire a soundalike to make recordings regardless of whether they used it during training.
Then, at release time - either they get the buzz of artist-licensed "Her" or they get the buzz /outrage/Streisand of unlicensed "Her". Even if they take it down, OpenAI benefits.
I feel like the folks who fear the tech are wrong. But when the supposed stewards do such a moustache-twirling announcement, it seems like maybe we do need some restraint.
If a trade group can't put some kind of goodwill measures in place, we will inevitably end up with ham fisted legislation.
Well, that statement lays out a damning timeline: - OpenAI approached Scarlett last fall, and she refused. - Two days before the GPT-4o launch, they contacted her agent and asked that she reconsider. (Two days! This means they already had everything they needed to ship the product with Scarlett’s cloned voice.) - Not receiving a response, OpenAI demos the product anyway, with Sam tweeting “her” in reference to Scarle…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds judicious. You probably wouldn't get sued, and would prevail if sued. However, the question of how much human voice space Scarlett can lay claim to remains unsettled. Your example suggests that it might be quite a bit, if law and precedent causes people to take the CYA route. Consider the hypothetical: EvilAI, Inc. would secretly like to piggyback on the success of Her. They hire Nancy Schmo for their training…
I know toying with these edge cases is the “curious” part of HN discussions, but I can’t help but think of this xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1494/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if this account is true, Sam Altman is a deeply unethical human being. Given that he doesn't bring any technical know how to building of AGI, I just don't see the reason to have such a person in charge here. The new board should act.
He has “The Vision”… It’s the modern entrepreneurship trope that lowly engineers won’t achieve anything if they weren’t rallied by a demi-god who has “The Vision” and makes it all happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scar Jo thought it sounded like herself, and so did people who knew her personally. That is what matters. OWNERSHIP over her contributions to the world.
I mostly agree with you, but I actually don't think it matters if it sounded exactly like her or not. The crime is in the training: did they use her voice or not? If someone licenses an impersonator's voice and it gets very close to the real thing, that feels like an impossible situation for a court to settle and it should probably just be legal (if repugnant).
Because then the actual case would be fairly bizarre: an entirely separate person, selling the rights to their own likeness as they are entitled to do, is being prohibited from doing that by the courts because they sound too much like an already famous person.
EDIT: Also up front I'm not sure you can entirely discuss timelines for changing out technology here. We have voice cloning systems that can do it with as little as 15 seconds of audio. So having a demo reel of what they wanted to do that they could've used on a few days notice isn't unrealistic - and training a model and not using it or releasing it also isn't illegal.
The more I find out about Altman the more I agree with the previous board about removing him. The guy just feels sleazy to me. Though he is doing what I want and that is not giving a fuck about artificial monopolies granted by government ie copyright
The man is literally lobbying congress to obtain an artificial monopoly on AI in the name of "safety". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO0J2Yw7usM
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing about the situation is that Altman is willing to lie and steal a celebrity's voice for use in ChatGPT. What he did, the timeline, everything - is sleazy if, in fact, that's the story. The really concerning part here is that Altman is, and wants to be, a large part of AI regulation [0]. Quite the public contradiction. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-openai-artificial...
Altman has proven time and again that he is little more than a huckster wrt technology, and in business he is a stone cold shark. Conman plain and simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scar Jo thought it sounded like herself, and so did people who knew her personally. That is what matters. OWNERSHIP over her contributions to the world.
I mostly agree with you, but I actually don't think it matters if it sounded exactly like her or not. The crime is in the training: did they use her voice or not? If someone licenses an impersonator's voice and it gets very close to the real thing, that feels like an impossible situation for a court to settle and it should probably just be legal (if repugnant).