861–870 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When people cheat on (relatively) small things, it's usually an indication they'll cheat on big things too
How did they even cheat here? OpenAI did nothing wrong. The movie industry does the same thing all the time. If an actor/actress says no they you find someone else who can play the same role.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 ke…
> > Isn't OpenAI mostly built upon disregarding the copyright of countless people? > It sure was. Can you cite something that elaborates on this point? Do people who read books and then learn from it also disregard copyright? How is what OpenAI does meaningfully different from what people do?
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…
They approached Johansson and she said no. They found another voice actor who sounds slightly similar and paid her instead. The movie industry does this all the time. Johansson is probably suing them so they're forced to remove the Sky voice while the lawsuit is happening. I'm not a fan of Sam Altman or OpenAI but they didn't do anything wrong here.
I think it’s interesting that Johansson chose to forgo substantial royalties and collaboration potential But it must feel pretty fucking weird and violatory when you spend your entire life thinking about how you are going to deliver certain lines and that’s your creative Body of work, and then for someone to just take that Voice and apply it to any random text that can be generated? I get why she wouldn’t want to let…
She choose to forego being a billion lonely guys AI girlfriend Not a bad call for someone already rich
Also, suddenly your voice is being used to say things that you would never say. What could go wrong?
Suddenly, instead of ScarJo, the famous movie star, you are that crazy voice from OpenAI.
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...
He lies and steals much more than that. He’s the scammer behind Worldcoin.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/richardnieva/worldcoin-...
> Altman is, and wants to be, a large part of AI regulation. Quite the public contradiction.
That’s as much of a contradiction as a thief wanting to be a large part of lock regulation. What better way to ensure your sleazy plans benefit you, and preferably only you but not the competition, than being an active participant in the inevitable regulation while it’s being written?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI confirmed it by removing the voice immediately after Johansson's lawyers reached out
That's not confirmation. That's called prudence.
How else am I supposed to interpret this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd think that Worldcoin would be enough proof of what he is but I guess people missed that memo.
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).
It’s both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here and that voice really was the only good one. I don't know why they don't bring the voices from their API over, which are all much better, like Nova or Shimmer ( https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/text-to-speech )
I think because it is not text-to-speech. It probably isn't simple to transfer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
if this account is true, Sam Altman is a deeply unethical human being. Given that he doesn't bring any technical know how to building of AGI, I just don't see the reason to have such a person in charge here. The new board should act.
This isn’t even close to the most unethical thing he has done. This is peanuts compared to the Worldcoin scam.