Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#601

Post by crznp »

benreesman wrote: post #574
anon373839 wrote: post #62

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…

I know I have a reputation as an OpenAI hater and I understand why: it’s maybe 5-10% of the time that the news gives me the opportunity to express balance on this. But I’ve defended them from unfair criticism on more than a few occasions and I feel that of all the things to land on them about this one is a fairly mundane screwup that could be a scrappy PM pushing their mandate that got corrected quickly. The leadersh…

It really doesn't sound like a "mid-level exceeding their mandate".

It sounds like Altman was personally involved in recruiting her. She said no and they took what they wanted anyway.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#602

Post by janalsncm »

whoknowsidont wrote: post #329
charlieyu1 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why? Sounds like a violation to the rights of the sound actor

Because it's meant to give the _appearance_ or _perception_ that a celebrity is involved. Their actions demonstrate they were both highly interested and had the expectation that the partnership was going to work out, with the express purpose of using the celebrity's identity for their own commercial purposes. If they had just screened a bunch of voice actors and chosen the same one no one would care (legally or other…

What OpenAI did here is beyond the pale. This is open and shut for me based off of the actions surrounding the voice training.

I think a lot of people are wondering about a situation (which clearly doesn’t apply here) in which someone was falsely accused of impersonation based on an accidental similarity. I have more sympathy for that.

But that’s giving OpenAI far more than just the benefit of the doubt: there is no doubt in this case.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#603

Post by sangupta »

hyperhopper wrote: post #566
sangupta wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the recent departures at OpenAI it seems that all ethics and morals are going down the drain and OpenAI becoming the big-bully.

There were never any. None of the models or code are actually open. It claims to be a nonprofit but is effectively a for profit company pulling the strings of a nonprofit just to avoid taxes.

I guess you are right. The era of "don't be evil" if there ever was one, is now long gone and forgotten.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#605

Post by m_mueller »

anon373839 wrote: post #62

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…

I still have Sky voice. Is it because of my region?

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#606

Post by svachalek »

wraptile wrote: post #589
ocodo wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not going to lie, he had me. He appeared very genuine and fair in almost all media he appeared like podcasts but many of his actions are just so hard to justify.

He has a certain charm and seeming sincerity when he talks. But the more I see of him, the more disturbing I find him -- he combines the Mark Zuckerberg stare with the Elizabeth Holmes vocal fry.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#608

Post by burntalmonds »

spullara wrote: post #377
anon373839 wrote: post #62

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…

The voice was shipped last september.

Do you know if the voice was the same back in september?

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#609

Post by afro88 »

ecjhdnc2025 wrote: post #220
nabla9 wrote: post #107

Johansson has money to hire lawyers and immediate access to media, so they backed off. Altman and OpenAI will walk over everyone here without any difficulty if they decide to take whats ours.

I often wonder why tech people think so positively about companies they idolise who are Uber-ing their way through regulations. Where do they think it stops? Why would people not want laws? The answer is so they can do the things that the laws prevent. This is POSIWID territory [0]. "The purpose of a system is what it does". Not what it repeatedly fails to live up to. What was the primary investment purpose of Uber?…

> POSIWID

You need to be honest about what it actually does then. Cherry picking the thing you don't like and ignoring the rest will bring you no closer to true understanding

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#610

Post by jonathankoren »

smt88 wrote: post #364
ncr100 wrote: post #246

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).

This has been settled law for 34 years. See Tom Waits v Frito-Lay.

They literally hired an impersonator, and it cost them 2.5 million (~6 million today).

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-st...

Post reply on HN