They should have copied die voices from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Congress_(2013_film) instead. Would have been like Amazon removing 1984 from customers Kindles..
Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
761–770 of 1001 posts
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#762Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Does not the 'her' tweet give away the game. Aas you said, it was a midler impersator singing one of midlers songs. In this case they have a voice for their AI assistant/phone sex toy that is very much like the actress that played a famous ai assistant/phone sex toy. Even if he is taken as meaning the concept it's very very damning. If they had, instead, mimic'ed another famous actor's voice that hasn't played a robot/ai/whatever and used that would that really be any better though? Christopher Walken, say, or hell Bette Midler?
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#763Most of the reactions here are in unison, so there's little left to contribute in agreement. I'll ask the devil's advocate / contrarian question: How big a slice of the human voice space does Scarlett lay a claim to? The evidence would be in her favor in a civil court case. OTOH, a less famous woman's claim that any given synthesized voice sounds like hers would probably fail. Contrast this with copyrighted fiction.…
This sort of copyright seems completely unethical to me.
We have 8 billion people, probability of unique voice and intonation is extremely unlikely. Imagine someone else owning your voice. Someone much richer and more powerful. No entertainment is worth putting fellow human beings through such discrimination and cruelty.
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#764Earlier quoted context omitted.
the whole technology is based on fucking over artists, who didn't expect this exact thing?
It's not just the artists, anything you do in the digital realm and anything that can be digitised is fair game. In the UK NHS GP practices refuse to register you to see a doctor even when it's urgent and tell you to use a third-party app to book an appointment. You have use your phone to take photos of the affected area and provide a personal info. I fully expect that data to be fed into some AI and sold without me…
Important to note the "The NHS" is not a single entity and the GP practice is likely a private entity owned in partnership by the doctors. There are a number of reasons why individual practices can refuse to register.
Take your point about LLMs though.
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#765Earlier quoted context omitted.
it could make life better for a lot of people, but training their models on copyright material, which makes life worse for another set of people.
I think majority agrees that we're ok with a few millionaire priviledge actors losing small amount of their value in favor of personal AI assistants for general populace. How is that even a topic worth discussing is trully perplexing.
No man, a majority do not believe that and it's really weird that you think they do.
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#766Isn't OpenAI mostly built upon disregarding the copyright of countless people? And hasn't OpenAI recently shown that they can pull off a commercial coup d'état, unscathed? Why would they not simply also take the voice of some actress? That's small potatoes. No one is going to push back against OpenAI meaningfully. People are still going to use ChatGPT to cheat on their homework, to phone-in their jobs, and to try to…
>Isn't OpenAI mostly built upon disregarding the copyright of countless people?
It sure was. But OpenAI decided to poke the Bear and is being sued by NYT. And apparently as a sidequest they thought it best to put their head in a lion's mouth. I wouldn't call the PR clout and finances of an A-list celebrity small potators.
They could have easily flown under the radar and have been praised as the next Google if they kept to petty thievery on the internet instead of going for the high profile content.
>People are still going to use ChatGPT to cheat on their homework, to phone-in their jobs, and to try to ride OpenAI's coattails.
Sure, and ChatGPT isn't goint to make lots of money from these small time users. They want to target corporate, and nothing scares of coporate more than pending litigation. So I think this will bite them sooner rathter than later.
>Maybe OpenAI will eventually settle with the actress, for a handful of coins they found in the cushions of their trillion-dollar sofa.
I suppose we'll see. I'm sure she was offered a few pennies as is, and she rejected that. She may not be in it for the money. She very likely doesn't need to work another day in her life as is.
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#767Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just the artists, anything you do in the digital realm and anything that can be digitised is fair game. In the UK NHS GP practices refuse to register you to see a doctor even when it's urgent and tell you to use a third-party app to book an appointment. You have use your phone to take photos of the affected area and provide a personal info. I fully expect that data to be fed into some AI and sold without me…
Important to note the "The NHS" is not a single entity and the GP practice is likely a private entity owned in partnership by the doctors. There are a number of reasons why individual practices can refuse to register. Take your point about LLMs though.
I went to see my GP and the lady at the reception told me they no longer book visits at the reception and I had to use the app. Here's the privacy policy https://support.patientaccess.com/privacy-policy They reserve the right to pass your data to third party contractors and to use it for marketing purposes. There is the obligatory clause on regarding the right to be forgotten, but the AI companies claim it is impossible to implement.
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#768Earlier 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…
Everyone is so mad about them stealing a beloved celebrity’s voice. What about the millions of authors and other creators whose copyrighted works they stole to create works that resemble and replace those people? Not famous enough to generate the same outrage?
I think the unique thing about this case is not specifically the "voice theft", but that OpenAI specifically asked for permission and were denied, which eliminates most of the usual plausible deniability that gets trotted out in these cases.
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#769Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also very easy to say that they were inspired by the concept of the movie, but the voice is different.
Sure if they hadn’t contacted her twice for permission, including 2 days before launch.
I heard the voice before hearing this news and didn't recognize her, but it's crazy if they really cloned her voice without her permission. Even worse somehow since they did such a bad job at it.
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#770Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not an impossible situation, courts have settled it, and what you describe is not how the law works (despite how many computer engineers think to the contrary.)
Courts have settled almost nothing related to AI. We don't even know if training AI using copyrighted works is a violating of copyright law. Please point to a case where someone was successfully sued for sounding too much like a celebrity (while not using the celebrity's name or claiming to be them).
Multiple cases already answering your question in this thread.