Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice • Hacker News Board

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

#611

Post by jcranmer » Tue, May 21, 2024, 4:23 AM UTC

vasilipupkin wrote: post #533

windexh8er wrote: post #497

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...

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.

I mean, there's already been some yellow flags with Altman already. He founded Worldcoin, whose plan is to airdrop free money in exchange for retinal scans. And the board of OpenAI fired him for (if I've got this right) lying to the board about conversations he'd had with individual board members.

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

#612

Post by benreesman » Tue, May 21, 2024, 4:24 AM UTC

crznp wrote: post #601

benreesman wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It feels weird to be defending Altman, but those of us who go hard on the legitimately serious shit are held to a high standard on being fair and while multiple sources have independently corroborated e.g. the plainly unethical and dubiously legal NDA shit Vox just reported on, his links to this incident seem thinly substantiated.

I’m not writing the guy a pass, he’s already been fired for what amount to ethics breaches in the last 12 months alone. Bad actor any way you look at it.

But I spent enough time in BigCo land to know stuff like this happens without the CEO’s signature.

I’d say focus on the stuff with clear documentary evidence and or credible first-hand evidence, there’s no shortage of that.

I get the sense this is part of an ambient backlash now that the damn is clearly breaking.

Of all the people who stand to be harmed by that leadership team, I think Ms. Johansson (of who I am a fan) is more than capable of seeing her rights and privileges defended without any help from this community.

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

#613

Post by oblio » Tue, May 21, 2024, 4:25 AM UTC

xbmcuser wrote: post #573

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

You're sort of funny. He's ignoring the existing artificial monopolies just to make money, when it suits him.

He's using trade secrets, copyright, patents, NDAs liberally.

This is not a principled stand, just opportunism.

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

#614

Post by jahewson » Tue, May 21, 2024, 4:25 AM UTC

whynotminot wrote: post #366

whoknowsidont wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sounds like one of those situations you'd have to prove intent. (and given the timeline ScarJo laid out in her Twitter feed, I'd be inclined to vote to convict at the present moment)

Not necessarily, because this would be a civil matter, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence - it’s glaring obvious that this voice is emulating the movie Her and I suspect it wouldn’t be hard to convince a jury.

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

#615

Post by imjonse » Tue, May 21, 2024, 4:27 AM UTC

vasilipupkin wrote: post #533

windexh8er wrote: post #497

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...

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 rubs elbows with very powerful people including CEOs, heads of state and sheiks. They probably want 'one of them' in charge of the company that has the best chances of getting close to AGI. So it's not his technical chops and not even 'vision' in the Jobs sense that keeps him there.

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

#616

Post by comp_throw7 » Tue, May 21, 2024, 4:28 AM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #450

mensetmanusman wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Effective altruism would posit that it is worth one voice theft to help speed the rate of life saving ai technology in the hands of everyone.

Effective Altruists are just shitty utilitarians that never take into account all the myriad ways that unmoderated utilitarianism has horrific failure modes. Their hubris will walk them right into federal prison for fraud if they’re not careful. If Effective Altruists want to speed the adoption of AI with the general public, they’d do well to avoid talking about it, lest the general public make a connection between E…

> When they start talking about the utility of committing crimes or other moral wrongs because the ends justify the means, I tend to start assuming they’re bad at morality and ethics.

Extremely reasonable position, and I'm glad that every time some idiot brings it up in the EA forum comments section they get overwhelmingly downvoted, because most EAs aren't idiots in that particular way.

I have no idea what the rest of your comment is talking about; EAs that have opinions about AI largely think that we should be slowing it down rather than speeding it up.

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

#617

Post by ethbr1 » Tue, May 21, 2024, 4:29 AM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #596

ethbr1 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would have thought that if they made the decision to go ahead despite getting two "no"s, that they at least had a legal position they thought was defensible and worth defending. They likely have a legal position which is defensible. They're much more worried that they don't have a PR position which is defensible. What's the point of winning the (legal) battle if you lose the war (of public opinion)? Given the res…

How is the PR position not defensible? One of the worst things you can generally do is admit fault, particularly if you have a complete defense. Buckle in, go to court, and double-down on the fact that the public's opinion of actors is pretty damn fickle at the best of times - particularly if what you released was in fact based on someone you signed a valid contract with who just sounds similar. Of course, this is al…

In what world does a majority of the public cheer for OpenAI "stealing"* an actress's voice?

People who hate Hollywood? Most of that crowd hates tech even more.

* Because it would take the first news cycle to be branded as that

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

#618

Post by zamadatix » Tue, May 21, 2024, 4:29 AM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #576

morkalork wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coolio didn't say yes to Amish paradise but the record label that had the rights agreed to the deal without him (which certainly shows who's in charge in that industry eh?). Many years later, Coolio admitted that he was wrong about the whole thing though.

Oh my. That’s disappointing, in the sense that I believe I’ve heard Al say that he always checks with the artist.

If you take Weird Al's word for it, he was told Coolio had approved and only later found out it was the other way around:

"…two separate people from my label told me that they had personally talked to Coolio… and that he told them that he was okay with the whole parody idea…Halfway into production, my record label told me that Coolio’s management had a problem with the parody, even though Coolio personally was okay with it. My label told me… they would iron things out — so I proceeded with the recording and finished the album."

https://www.vulture.com/2011/12/gangstas-parodist-revisiting...

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

#619

Post by insane_dreamer » Tue, May 21, 2024, 4:30 AM UTC

vasilipupkin wrote: post #533

windexh8er wrote: post #497

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...

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.

I thought we had already established this when the previous board tried to oust him for failing to stick to OpenAI’s charter. This is just further confirmation.

> The new board should act

You mean like the last board tried? Besides the board was picked to be on Altman’s side. The independent members were forced out.

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

#620

Post by jahewson » Tue, May 21, 2024, 4:31 AM UTC

apantel wrote: post #563

hn_20591249 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like sama may have put a big hole in that argument when he tweeted "her", now it is very easy to say that they knowingly cloned ScarJo's likeness. When will tech leaders learn to stop tweeting.

They can say they had a certain thing in mind, which was to produce something like ‘Her’, and obviously Scarjo would have sold it home for them if she participated. But in lieu of the fact that she didn’t, they still went out and created what they had in mind, which was something LIKE ‘Her’. That doesn’t sound illegal.

Not illegal, because this would be a civil case. But they’re on thin ice because there’s a big difference between “creating something like Her” and “creating something like Scarlet Johansson’s performance in Her”.