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

631–640 of 1001 posts

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

#631

Post by rvz »

swat535 wrote: post #238

Does Sam has any more reputation to burn? Seriously, who would genuinely trust him at this point? I mean I know he has hundreds of blind followers but good Lord, you would think that the man, with all his years of experience had some sense to introspect about what he is trying to achieve vs how he is going about it. Money really does blind all our senses, doesn't it?

> Does Sam has any more reputation to burn? Seriously, who would genuinely trust him at this point?

Sam doesn’t care.

After the board threw him out of his own company, why would he allow that to happen again? With that, he now trusts far much less people.

> Money really does blind all our senses, doesn't it?

That is why the cultishness was full on display last year when he was fired by the board.

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

#632

Post by emsign »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #287
ncallaway wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are we seriously saying we can't make voices that are similar to celebrities, when not using their actual voice? They clearly thought it was close enough that they asked for permission, twice. And got two no’s. Going forward with it at that point was super fucked up. It’s very bad to not ask permission when you should. It’s far worse to ask for permission and then ignore the response. Totally ethically bankrupt.

Yes, totally ethically bankrupt. But what bewilders me is that they yanked it as soon as they heard from their lawyers. 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. But it kind of looks like they released it knowing they couldn't defend it in court which must seem pretty bonkers to in…

It looks really unprofessional at minimum if not a bit arrogant, which is actually more concerning as it hints at a deeper disrespect for artists and celebrities.

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

#633

Post by lawn »

ocodo wrote: post #560
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...

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.

You'd think that Worldcoin would be enough proof of what he is but I guess people missed that memo.

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

#634

Post by pseudalopex »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #535
ProjectArcturis wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Case law says no. There have been several legal cases where bands have sued advertisers for copying their distinct sound. Here are a few examples: The Beatles vs. Nike (1987): The Beatles' company, Apple Corps, sued Nike and Capitol Records for using the song "Revolution" in a commercial without their permission. The case was settled out of court. Tom Waits vs. Frito-Lay (1988): Tom Waits sued Frito-Lay for using a s…

Disregarding the cases settled out of court (which have nothing to do with case law): 1) Tom Waits vs Frito-Lay: Frito-Lay not only used a soundalike to Tom Waits, but the song they created was extremely reminiscent of "Step Right Up" by Waits. 2) Bette Midler vs. Ford Motor Company: Same thing - this time Ford literally had a very Midler-esque singer sing an exact Midler song. 3) Beastie Boys vs. Monster Energy: Mon…

The Midler v. Ford decision said her voice was distinctive. Not the song.

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

#635

Post by gunsle »

benreesman wrote: post #612
crznp wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 breac…

You’re allegedly “not writing the guy a pass” but then you go on to do so anyways. If Johansson isn't lying and Altman did personally reach out to her, I really don’t see how you can even attempt to argue this is some middle manager gunning for a promotion. In the same way you’re complaining that she needs no help from the community in defending herself, Altman needs no help from you reaching this hard. Like how can you not see that hypocrisy?

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

#636

Post by silver_silver »

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.

It shouldn’t be forgotten that his sister has publicly accused him and his brother of sexually abusing her as a child.

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

#637

Post by [deleted] »

XorNot wrote: post #587
smt88 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

If OpenAI commissioned a voice actor to lend their voice to the Sky model, and cast on the basis of trying to get someone who is similar sounding to the Scarlett Johannson, but then did not advertise or otherwise use the voice model created to claim it was Scarlett Johannson - then they're completely in the clear. Because then the actual case would be fairly bizarre: an entirely separate person, selling the rights to…

[deleted]

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

#638

Post by emsign »

gibbitz wrote: post #379
ncallaway wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are we seriously saying we can't make voices that are similar to celebrities, when not using their actual voice? They clearly thought it was close enough that they asked for permission, twice. And got two no’s. Going forward with it at that point was super fucked up. It’s very bad to not ask permission when you should. It’s far worse to ask for permission and then ignore the response. Totally ethically bankrupt.

Are we surprised by this bankruptcy. As neat as AI is, it is only a thing because the corporate class see it as a way to reduce margins by replacing people with it. The whole concept is bankrupt.

Problem is they really believe we either can't tell the difference between a human and an AI model eventually, or they think we don't care. Don't they understand the meaning of art?

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

#639

Post by dewbrite »

acomjean wrote: post #597
thatoneguy wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in past court cases I’m familiar, you can’t use an impersonator and get people to think it’s the real thing. It’s not like Tom Waits ever wanted to hock chips https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-st...

Or Bette Midler singing for ford. She turned them down. They used a sound alike, she sued and won https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co .

They used a sound-alike and had her sing one of her songs. I believe that's a different precedent, in that it's leveraging her fame.

Imo Sky's voice is distinct enough from Scarlett, and it wasn't implied to _be_ her.

Sam's "Her" tweet could be interpreted as such, but defending the tweet as the concept of "Her", rather than the voice itself, is.

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

#640

Post by qbxk »

rockemsockem wrote: post #455
MBCook wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. If what they’re doing is so incredibly valuable, just pay for the resources you’re using. If your business model only works if you steal stuff from other people you don’t have a business.

Not commenting on open AI specifically, but I feel like actually acquiring the data is borderline impossible if you only follow legal channels. Where can I insert my money to buy every penguin random house book? How do I pay every deviant art artist whatever amount they're owed?

you're not wrong, and i think the technology exists to accomplish something that did this, and has for a few years. but the end result would be a system that funnels money from large numbers of people, to different large numbers of people. and a lot of overlap and cross payments too. maybe there's a good business in transaction fees on that? but it seems like big numbers going to other people while a much smaller number goes to the party owning the system is not an appealing business in our world.

ipso facto why does it not exist while spotify buys podcasts and kills them

Post reply on HN