691–700 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI will settle, not sure how you read that in reverse.
Settling isn't unilateral. OpenAI can offer to settle, but if she doesn't accept, there will be no settlement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Not OP, or the replier, but I think the longer answer here is that if Scarlett Johansson can't win a lawsuit against a company that has effectively: (1) Used content she has created (vocal lines) in order to train a generative AI with the ability to create more of that content (vocal lines), without permission or payment, let alone acknowledgement (2) In doing so removed the scarcity of the content she provides (Gene…
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect that'll be OpenAI's defense.
That is what discovery is for. If this would ever get to that phase. Someone from OpenAi hired the agency who hired the voice talent (or talents) for the voice data. They sent them a brief explaining what they are looking for, followed by a metric ton of correspondence over samples and contracts and such. If anywhere during those written communications anyone wrote “we are looking for a ScarlettJ imitator”, or words…
It will come down to what makes the complaining celebrity's voice iconic, which for Scarjo is the 'gravelly' bit. Which smooth Sky had none of.
[1] actress reading poem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWEEAjRFJKc
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...
Well, this confirms that OpenAI have been shooting from the hip, not that we needed much confirmation. The fact that they repeatedly tried to hire Johansson, then went ahead and made a soundalike while explicitly describing that they were trying to make it be like her voice in the movie … is pretty bad for them.
This is so pointless and petty too. Like "hee hee our software is just like the movies". And continuing the trend of tech moguls watching bleak satire and thinking it's aspirational.
Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus
https://x.com/AlexBlechman/status/1457842724128833538?lang=e...
Assuming Sam Altman is not stupid, this could be part of some elaborate plan and a calculated strategy. The end goals could range from immediate practical outcomes like increased publicity (see ChatGPT's mobile app revenue doubled overnight: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/chatgpts-mobile-app-revenue-s...) and market impact, to more complex objectives like influencing future legal frameworks and societal norms around AI.
Well, this confirms that OpenAI have been shooting from the hip, not that we needed much confirmation. The fact that they repeatedly tried to hire Johansson, then went ahead and made a soundalike while explicitly describing that they were trying to make it be like her voice in the movie … is pretty bad for them.
It’s definitely sketchy (classic OpenAI) But my question is: is what they did actually illegal? Can someone copyright their own voice?
Plus the tone of the voice is likely an unimportant detail to theor success. So pushing up against the legal boundaries in this specific domain is at best strange and at worst a huge red flag for their ethics and how they operate.
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…
Apparently they had no confidence in defending themselves, so why even release with the voice in the first place?