Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

twitter.com

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671

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'm beginning to think this Sam Altman guy isn't so trustworthy.

And perhaps not consistently candid either.

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

#672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement from scarlet really changed my perspective. I use and loved the Sky voice and I did feel it sounded a little like her, but moreover it was the best of their voice offerings. I was mad when they removed it. But now I’m mad it was ever there to begin with. This timeline makes it clear that this wasn’t a coincidence and maybe not even a hiring of an impressionist (which is where things get a little more w…

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...

the whole technology is based on fucking over artists, who didn't expect this exact thing?

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

#673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement from scarlet really changed my perspective. I use and loved the Sky voice and I did feel it sounded a little like her, but moreover it was the best of their voice offerings. I was mad when they removed it. But now I’m mad it was ever there to begin with. This timeline makes it clear that this wasn’t a coincidence and maybe not even a hiring of an impressionist (which is where things get a little more w…

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 doesn’t want to be part of regulation. sama wants to be the next tk. he wants to be above regulation, and he wants to spend Microsoft’s money getting there.

E.g. flying Congress to Lake Cuomo for an off-the-record “discussion” https://freebeacon.com/politics/how-the-aspen-institute-help...

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

#674
Has Sam already tweeted how sorry he is? All things considered, this might actually give people perspective on how weird OpenAI has been when it comes to respecting other people’s property.

The top comment in this thread is crazy too, they probably contacted her two days prior to launch on the off chance that they could use her as a marketing puppet.

Lost for words on this one.

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

#675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Thanks. Yeah, I don't think Weird Al would lie about something like that.

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

#677
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's clearly not her voice right? The version that's been on the app for a year just isn't. Like, it clearly intending to be slightly reminiscent of her, but it's also very clearly not. Are we seriously saying we can't make voices that are similar to celebrities, when not using their actual voice?

Normally I'd agree if this were some vague "artist style", but this was clearly an attempt to duplicate a living person, a media celebrity no less.

An actress that specifically played the voice of AI in a movie about AI no less.

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

#678
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.

I have exactly the same feeling as I think you do. When you reach the levels of success he has, there will always be people screaming that you are incompetent, evil and every other negative adjective under the sun. But he genuinely seemed to care about doing the right thing. But this is just so lacking of basic morals that I have to conclude that I was wrong, at least to an extent.

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

#679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Effective Altruists are just shitty utilitarians that never take into account all the myriad ways that unmoderated utilitarianism has horrific failure modes. There's a fair amount of EA discussion of utilitarianism's problems. Here's EA founder Toby Ord on utilitarianism and why he ultimately doesn't endorse it: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/YrXZ3pRvFuH8SJaay/... >If Effective Altruists want to speed the…

I’ve had to explain myself a few times on this, so clearly I communicated badly.

I probably should have said _those_ Effective Altruists are shitty utilitarians. I was attempting—and since I’ve had to clarify a few times clearly failed—to take aim at the effective altruists that would make the utilitarian trade off that the commenter mentioned.

In fact, there’s a paragraph from the Toby Ord blog post that I wholeheartedly endorse and I think rebuts the exact claim that was put forward that I was responding to.

> Don’t act without integrity. When something immensely important is at stake and others are dragging their feet, people feel licensed to do whatever it takes to succeed. We must never give in to such temptation. A single person acting without integrity could stain the whole cause and damage everything we hope to achieve.

So, my words were too broad. I don’t actually mean all effective altruists are shitty utilitarians. But the ones that would make the arguments I was responding to are.

I think Ord is a really smart guy, and has worked hard to put some awesome ideas out into the world. I think many others (and again, certainly not all) have interpreted and run with it as a framework for shitty utilitarianism.

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

#680

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…

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…

I think "beyond the pale" is a bit hyperbolic. The voice actor has publicity rights, too.
Post reply on HN