Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

twitter.com

821–830 of 1001 posts

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

#821
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very obvious bias against OpenAI in the comments here. Possible motives: a) there's a visceral human reaction against anyone extraordinarily successful and powerful (Nietzsche wrote about this). b) resentment for OpenAI's advancements in code generation and its possible impact on the job market. I don't think much of the outrage here is motivated by altruism, it's probably more about siding with whoever opposes your…

Or maybe the prospect of theft and unpermissioned copying of an extremely personal quality (one's voice) is (correctly) being called out? People aren't as selfish/petty as you're making them out.

Can you provide the evidence indicating that her voice was stolen? Maybe also an audio analysis of the vocal characteristics involved and the degree of similarity? And wouldn't it be prudent to investigate these matters before making such accusations?

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

#822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I often wonder why tech people think so positively about companies they idolise who are Uber-ing their way through regulations. Where do they think it stops? Because they don't think about the consequences, and don't want to. Better to retreat into the emotional safety of techno-fantasy and feeling like you're on the cutting edge of something big and new (and might make some good money in the process). Same reason…

> Because they don't think about the consequences, and don't want to. This is a dangerous way of thinking about people who disagree with you, because once you decide somebody is stupid, it frees you from ever having to seriously weigh their positions again, which is a kind of stupidity all its own.

> because once you decide somebody is stupid

You just have made up an argument. There is no stated nor implied stupidity.

You can't dismiss critique of carelessness like that.

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

#823
post #700

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…

What I don’t understand is what they expected to happen? Apparently they had no confidence in defending themselves, so why even release with the voice in the first place?

They underestimated how quickly people would take off the headphones and jump on the bandwagon to claim affinity with an injured celebrity.

Are you suggesting they should have engineered the voice actress' voice to be more distinct from another actress they were considering for the part? Or just not gone near it with a 10ft pole? because if the latter the studios can just release a new Her and Him movie with different voices in different geo regions and prevent anyone from having any kind of familiar engaging voice bot.

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

#824

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…

AFAIK they yanked it pretty quickly and the subsequent scandal has widely informed people that it was not authorized by Scarlett Johansson. So while it was clearly a violation resulting from a sequence of very stupid decisions by OpenAI, I am not sure if there would be much in the way of damages.

Johansson is rich. The real value she could get from this would be as an advocate for the rights of creatives, performers and rights holders in the face of AI. If this goes to discovery OpenAI is done.

How much do you think Disney or Universal Music or Google or NYT would give to peek inside OpenAI's training mixture to identify all the infringing content?

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

#825

Altman often uses tactical charisma to trap gullible people, government entities, and any unsuspecting powerful person for his ends. He will not bat an eyelid to take whatever unethical route if that gives him "moat". He relentlessly talks as if "near-term AGI" is straining to get out of the bottle in his ClosedAI basement. He will tell you with great concern about how "nervous" or "scared" (he said this to the US Co…

"Tactical charisma" is a good one. Honestly though, if you actually listen to him and read his words he seems to be even more devoid of basic empathetic human traits than even Zuckerberg who gets widely lampooned as a robot or a lizard. He is a grifter through-and-through.

Emotional intelligence /true empathy cannot be learned or acquired, at least IMHO.

But it can be learned to be mimicked almost to perfection, either by endless trial & error or by highly intelligent motivated people. It usually breaks apart when completely new intense / stressful situation happens. Sociopaths belong here very firmly and form majority.

If you know what to look for, you will see it in most if not all politicians, 'captains of industry' or otherwise people who got to serious power by their own deeds.

Think about a bit - what sort of nasty battles they had to continually keep winning with similar folks to get where they are, this ain't the place for decent human beings, you/me would be outmatched quickly. Jordan Peterson once claimed you have cca 1/20 of sociopaths in general population, say 15 millions just in US? Not every one is highly intelligent and capable of getting far, but many do. Jobs, Gates, Zuckenberg, Bezos, Musk, Altman and so on and on. World is owned and run by them, I'd say without exception.

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

#826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably is illegal in CA: https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... "when voice is sufficient indicia of a celebrity's identity, the right of publicity protects against its imitation for commercial purposes without the celebrity's consent."

But why? Sounds like a violation to the rights of the sound actor

Did you read the statement? They approached Scarlett twice, including two days before launch. Sam even said himself that Sky sounds like 'HER'.

This isn't actually complicated at all. OpenAI robbed her likeness against her express will.

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

#827
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very obvious bias against OpenAI in the comments here. Possible motives: a) there's a visceral human reaction against anyone extraordinarily successful and powerful (Nietzsche wrote about this). b) resentment for OpenAI's advancements in code generation and its possible impact on the job market. I don't think much of the outrage here is motivated by altruism, it's probably more about siding with whoever opposes your…

I propose the following razor: Never attribute to jealousy that which can be explained by a difference of perspective. Jealousy can explain any criticism of anybody. That makes it an epistemic hazard; you can always fall back to it, and you can develop a habit of doing so. And then you have deafened yourself. Any substantive criticisms will be lost on you. As will any opportunity to learn from those you disagree with…

That would be tautological, as 'difference of perspective' is a restatement of the phenomenon at a higher level of abstraction. Someone who is resentful will likely have a different perspective than they would otherwise have. Psychological motives are real and don't disappear by simply assuming a variant of a problem-solving heuristic. Notice also I didn't use the word 'jealousy.' I do think that speculations about psychological motives should be made only after careful consideration and generally remain unprovable. However, the uncertainty of psychological motives shouldn't prevent us from ever addressing them.

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

#828
post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really doesn't sound like a "mid-level exceeding their mandate". It sounds like Altman was personally involved in recruiting her. She said no and they took what they wanted anyway.

It feels weird to be defending Altman, but those of us who go hard on the legitimately serious shit are held to a high standard on being fair and while multiple sources have independently corroborated e.g. the plainly unethical and dubiously legal NDA shit Vox just reported on, his links to this incident seem thinly substantiated. I’m not writing the guy a pass, he’s already been fired for what amount to ethics breac…

Scarlet Johansson literally mentioned that Sam personally reached out to her team.

The CTO was on stage presenting the thing and the CEO was tweeting about it.

Please explain for us which part of this is happening without the CEO's signature.

Of everyone who has been harmed and had their work stolen or copyright infringed by Sam's team, Scarlett Johansson is the one person (so far) who can actually force the issue and a change, and so the community is right to rally behind her because if they're so brazen about this, it paints a very clear picture of the disdain they hold the rest of us in.

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

#829
post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people aren’t that selfish or petty. But there are some people who are—and by an unfortunate quirk of human nature, they tend to believe everyone else is just like them.

So your response is ... "No I'm not, you are." Well. This reaction invites further psychological interpretations, lol.

Uh, what? This is a pretty well-researched phenomenon: A very high percentage of people who engage in pathological behaviors that take advantage of other people believe that “everyone does it” and rely on that as justification. Penn & Teller did a pithy bit on the topic.

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

#830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Inherent to the functioning of debate is that debates are settled, just like exchanges in a market. That's their only function. Constant debate of an ever-increasing number of talking points, by definition, renders any notion of progress impossible. Some debates might be settled for some time, but I don't think "settled" is inherent in the functioning of a debate, and certainly not any sense of permanence even if th…

>plenty of people thought the debate over the legal status of slaves was "settled" Are you saying plenty of people don't consider it to be settled now? Not knowing you personally I'd be willing to bet almost any amount you are not genuinely open to be persuaded by a pro-slavery or divine monarchy debate. People weren't argued into their shackles and neither were they argued out of them. Just look at the US DoI. It sa…

> >plenty of people thought the debate over the legal status of slaves was "settled"

> Are you saying plenty of people don't consider it to be settled now?

Many ultra-conservative Muslims do not consider the issue of slavery to be "settled", in they argue that slavery is still permissible under Islamic law, and consider principled abolitionism to be heretical. Examples include Saleh Al-Fawzan, [0] the most senior Islamic scholar in Saudi Arabia, and Daniel Haqiqatjou, [1] a controversial American Muslim with a knack for social media–to say nothing of the leadership of groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram.

Now, this is clearly a minority opinion in contemporary Islam–maybe you could even say "fringe". Still, if it is fringe, it is a fringe that likely numbers in the millions worldwide – and thus counts as "plenty of people".

And, so nobody thinks I'm unfairly picking on Islam, it is not the only major religion in which slavery is still defended. In the 1980s, Rabbi Meir Kahane introduced a bill into the Israeli Knesset, providing for (inter alia) the enslavement of the Palestinians. The Israeli political class found his bill so offensive, they attempted to prevent him from introducing it – but the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that in a democracy, a democratically elected member of the legislature could not be denied the right to introduce a bill, no matter how abhorrent its content. His bill included clauses such as "Non-Jews will be obliged to assume duties, taxes and slavery. If he does not agree to slavery and taxes, he will be forcibly deported". One MK compared it to the Nuremberg Laws; it was near-unanimously rejected. Yet, before one dismisses the late Rabbi Kahane and his followers as some tiny irrelevant minority, consider that one of his devout supporters, Itamar Ben-Gvir, is currently Israel's National Security minister, [2] and there are at least tens of thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands, of Kahanists in Israel today. And proslavery views in Judaism are not limited to Kahanism; the American Haredi Rabbi Avigdor Miller (died 2001) was an ardent anti-Zionist (on religious grounds), and hence radically opposed to Kahane's ultra-Zionism – but he also "defended slavery as an ennobling institution that should not have been abolished" [3]. And, Miller is still very popular in Haredi Judaism, and while it would be wrong to assume that every Haredi Jew agrees with Miller on this, it appears quite a few (possibly even "plenty") of them do.

Christianity, too, has its contemporary slavery advocates. The American Calvinist theologian R. J. Rushdoony (died 2001) founded the "theonomy" movement, which argues (contrary to most Christians) that Old Testament laws should still be applied in the present day, including the biblical laws for slavery. Rushdoony argued that the Bible "recognizes that some people are by nature slaves" and that antebellum American slavery was "generally benevolent". [4] And again, while you might want to dismiss the theonomy movement as some minuscule irrelevant fringe, its leadership has close links to the current speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mike Johnson. [5]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleh_Al-Fawzan#Controversial_...

[1] https://muslimskeptic.com/2023/04/10/slavery-minor-marriage/

[2] https://www.jpost.com/opinion/who-is-itamar-ben-gvir-the-loy...

[3] https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/belief/articles/evangelic...

[4] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...

[5] https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-profound-influence-of-chri...

Post reply on HN