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

781–790 of 1001 posts

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

#781

Post by belter »

windexh8er wrote: post #497
nickthegreek wrote: post #102

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...

This whole exchange from 1:04:53 to 1:10:22 takes a whole different meaning....

https://youtu.be/P_ACcQxJIsg?t=3891

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

#782

Post by hoseja »

gds44 wrote: post #731
trustno2 wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Altman wants to be a part of AI regulation in the same way Bankman Fried wanted to be a part of cryptocurrency regulation.

Whats really interesting about our timeline is when you look at the history of market capture in Big Oil, Telco, Pharma, Real Estate, Banks, Tobacco etc all the lobbying, bribing, competition killing used to be done behind the scenes within elite circles. The public hardly heard from or saw the mgmt of these firm in media until shit hit the fan. Today it feels like managment is in the media every 3 hours trying to ca…

So great to have twitter so the narcissistic psychopaths can't resist revealing themselves for clout.

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

#783

Post by nmeofthestate »

stavros wrote: post #111

This is the first I've heard of this, but I've used the "Sky" voice extensively and never once thought it sounded like Johansson. Has anyone else noticed a similarity? To me they sound pretty different, Johansson's voice is much more raspy.

Yes when the demos first came out I don't remember seeing anyone comparing the voice to Scarlett Johansson's. It seems to be a meme that's taken hold subsequently with the news about OpenAI trying to license her voice.

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

#784

Post by [deleted] »

npunt wrote: post #129
anon373839 wrote: post #62

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…

When people cheat on (relatively) small things, it's usually an indication they'll cheat on big things too

[deleted]

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

#785

Post by kombookcha »

surfingdino wrote: post #732
mbreese wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an unforced error, but it isn’t minor. It’s quite large and public. The general public doesn’t understand the details and nuances of training an LLM, the various data sources required, and how to get them. But the public does understand stealing someone’s voice. If you want to keep the public on your side, it’s best to not train a voice with a celebrity who hasn’t agreed to it.

I had a conversation with someone responsible for introducing LLMs into the process that involves personal information. That person rejected my concern over one person's data appearing in the report on another person. He told me that it will be possible to train AI to avoid that. The rest of the conversation convinced me that AI is seen as magic that can do anything. It seems to me that we are seeing a split between…

The "AI is magic and we should simply believe" is even being actively promoted because all these VC hucksters need it.

Any criticism of AI is being met with "but if we all just hype AI harder, it will get so good that your criticisms won't matter" or flat out denied. You've got tech that's deeply flawed with no obvious way to get unflawed, and the current AI 'leaders' run companies with no clear way to turn a profit other than being relentlessly hyped on proposed future growth.

It's becoming an extremely apparent bubble.

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

#786

Post by dsign »

iainctduncan wrote: post #484

Sam Altman appears to not be smart enough to realize how much damage his unbridled selfishness and weaselry are capable of doing to Open AI. They have no moat, they can't fix hallucinations, and people are starting to realize it's nowhere near as useful or close to AGI as he's been saying. If they hate him too, this ship is sunk. What a bloody arrogant idiot.

I wish you were right and that ship would be sunk, by the grace of Sam Altman the bloody arrogant idiot. There are burning issues that AI could tackle, unsolved problems that cost billions of lives and whose solution require non-human information processing. But instead of those life-or-death matters, we are using all of that compute to wreck our species cultural back-bone and identity. If Sam Altman the bloody arrogant idiot by his greed manages to convince us that we have taken a wrong turn with our application of AI, then I will hang a portrait of him in my living room.

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

#787

Post by thelastCube »

keepamovin wrote: post #68
logrot wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> I think you're pretty naive. I don’t think it’s about me, but since you brought it up, I try to maintain my innocence in this world. I try to be biased towards that rather than cynicism, at least… I think that’s important. Cynicism is a kind of arrogance: where you think you’ve seen it all before… but you’re wrong. But thank you for the opportunity Your comment provides to speak to that: I do appreciate it. the cha…

I think you are a class act.

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

#788

Post by ben_w »

pwdisswordfishc wrote: post #716
ben_w wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much as I dislike crypto, that's more of "having no sense of other people's privacy" (and hubris) than general scamminess. It's a Musk-error not an SBF-error. (Of course, I do realise many will say all three are the same, but I think it's worth separating the types of mistakes everyone makes, because everyone makes mistakes, and only two of these three also did useful things).

> that's more of "having no sense of other people's privacy" Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

It's not particularly advanced, it's the same thing that means the supermajority of websites have opted for "click here to consent to our 1200 partners processing everything you do on our website" rather than "why do we need 1200 partners anyway?"

It's still bad, don't get be wrong, it's just something I can distinguish.

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

#789

Post by surfingdino »

kombookcha wrote: post #785
surfingdino wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a conversation with someone responsible for introducing LLMs into the process that involves personal information. That person rejected my concern over one person's data appearing in the report on another person. He told me that it will be possible to train AI to avoid that. The rest of the conversation convinced me that AI is seen as magic that can do anything. It seems to me that we are seeing a split between…

The "AI is magic and we should simply believe" is even being actively promoted because all these VC hucksters need it. Any criticism of AI is being met with "but if we all just hype AI harder, it will get so good that your criticisms won't matter" or flat out denied. You've got tech that's deeply flawed with no obvious way to get unflawed, and the current AI 'leaders' run companies with no clear way to turn a profit…

On the plus side, lots of cheap nVida cards heading for eBay once it bursts.

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

#790

Post by akudha »

windexh8er wrote: post #497
nickthegreek wrote: post #102

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...

What is so special about her voice? They could’ve found a college student with a sweet voice and offered to pay her tuition in exchange for using her voice, no? Or a voice actor?

Why be cartoonishly stupid and cartoonishly arsehole and steal a celebrity’s voice? Did he think Scarlett won’t find out? Or object?

I don’t understand these rich people. Is it their hobby to be a dick to as many people as they can, for no reason other than their amusement? Just plain weirdos

Post reply on HN