OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

Post by WalterBright » Thu, May 23, 2024, 5:27 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #716

giobox wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Movie Her predates all of this by years, and Sam Altman even tweeted "her"! The OpenAI team are clearly well aware of Scarlett's voice (its inconceivable the majority of the team at OpenAI haven't at least seen part of the film that almost defined their industry). The movie predates all of this by years - of course they knew. When auditioning actors "months before" they can still look for an actor who guess what?…

> its inconceivable the majority of the team at OpenAI haven't at least seen part of the film that almost defined their industry Let's not exaggerate. It was a somewhat popular movie, yes, but not really defining and far from the first example of conversational AI speaking woman's voice. There are plenty of examples in movies and TV shows. If anything, the seminal work in this space is Star Trek casting Majel Barrett…

Post by Athari » Thu, May 23, 2024, 5:29 PM UTC

mastax wrote: post #686

asaxena76 wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if thats true why would that be illegal or unethical? She can't possibly have a copyright on all voices that sounds like "her"

There have been cases where it was decided that a person had rights[0] to their distinctive voice, as an extension of the Right of Publicity[1]. For example Midler v. Ford Motor Co.[2], and one or two other cases I've seen mentioned but can't remember. [0]: Though not necessarily "copyrights"? [1]: https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-o... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_…

Post by WalterBright » Thu, May 23, 2024, 5:31 PM UTC

jmull wrote: post #631

Well, here are some things that aren't really being disputed: * OpenAI wanted an AI voice that sounds like SJ * SJ declined * OpenAI got an AI voice that sounds like SJ anyway I guess they want us to believe this happened without shenanigans, but it's bit hard to. The headline of the article is a little funny, because records can't really show they weren't looking for an SJ sound-alike. They can just show that those…

Post by l33tman » Thu, May 23, 2024, 5:33 PM UTC

gunapologist99 wrote: post #708

jmull wrote: post #631

Well, here are some things that aren't really being disputed: * OpenAI wanted an AI voice that sounds like SJ * SJ declined * OpenAI got an AI voice that sounds like SJ anyway I guess they want us to believe this happened without shenanigans, but it's bit hard to. The headline of the article is a little funny, because records can't really show they weren't looking for an SJ sound-alike. They can just show that those…

Regardless of the moral implications, "sounds almost exactly the same" is not copyright infringement. Perhaps it could be trademark infringement if she had trademarked her voice like Harley-Davidson attempted (and failed) to trademark the sound of their motorcycles, but "sounds alike" is a pretty hard case to prove, and it's completely blown away if they can demonstrate that another human sounds indisputably similar.…

Post by Karrot_Kream » Thu, May 23, 2024, 5:38 PM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #748

TeMPOraL wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but then again, I totally expected this opening the comment threads. Same happened with RMS debacle, same happened with similar events earlier, same happened on many a Musk stories. It seems that a neat narrative with clear person/object to hate, once established, is extremely resilient to facts that disprove it.

I also see this dynamic on these same kinds of threads, but what I see is that one side is very sure that the facts disprove something, and the other side is very sure they don't. I've been on both sides of this, on different questions. I don't think there is anything weird about this, it's just a dispute over what a given fact pattern demonstrates. It's totally normal for people to disagree about that. It's why we p…