They should have used the voice of HAL 9000.
https://youtu.be/ARJ8cAGm6JE?si=iscBkXp1uwXmPBzR&t=63
Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
871–880 of 1001 posts
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#872Earlier 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...
> The thing about the situation is that Altman is willing to lie and steal a celebrity's voice for use in ChatGPT. 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…
> That’s as much of a contradiction as a thief wanting to be a large part of lock regulation.
Based on what I see in the videos from The Lockpocking Lawyer, that would be a massive improvement.
Now, the NSA and crypto standards, that would have worked as a metaphor for your point.
(I don't think it's correct, but that's an independent claim, and I am not only willing to discover that I'm wrong about their sincerity, I think everyone writing that legislation should actively assume the worst while they do so).
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#873I think we should all strive to meet the standards of “Weird” Al Yankovic. He set out to do something that was widely hated by a very powerful and litigious sector, and yet after a full career he is widely revered by both the public and the industry. He masterfully sidestepped any problems by adhering to the basic concept of consent while still getting what he wanted 99% of the time.
There was never an argument about whether what Weird Al was doing was legal or not. Parody has been 100% covered by fair use laws from day one, and getting permission was just the cherry on top. OpenAI exists on much murkier legal grounds.
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#874Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > 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?
Are those people then reselling the contents of the books?
How is that relevant? Is OpenAI reselling the contests of books? If so, this is the first I have heard of it.
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#875[deleted]
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#876Well, 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…
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…
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#877Well, 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…
ChatGPT is way better than to need stupid ripoffs than this Sam should be ashamed to have ever thought of ripping off anyone's voice, let alone done it and rolled it out. They are building some potentially world-changing technology, but cannot rise above being basically creepy rip-off artists. Einstein was right about requiring improved ethics to meet new challenges, and also that we are not meeting that requirement.…
> ChatGPT is way better than to need stupid ripoffs than this
Of course it’s not. All of ChatGPT is a ripoff. That’s what training data (which they did not license) is.
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#878Earlier 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.
I don’t know a single person who has ever mentioned wanting an AI assistant, and I know a lot of people who are creeped out by the idea. I live in a swing state and work for a big tech company but most of my friends aren’t in tech. So I’m not sure that a “majority agrees” about anything related to an AI assistant
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#879Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there actually any evidence for this? AFAIK, other similar claims about people doing certain things when lying have been debunked(like fidgeting, avoiding eye contact, etc)
It's context amd person to person specific, with many possibilities for false positives and negatives.
Right - the only reason Murati's behavior was "a tell" was that rational observers had a good reason to believe her statement was evasive and misleading, regardless of how she said it. In that context her emotional response is a funny (yet only barely rational) indication that she wasn't being honest. But trying to go the other direction - "her emotional response seems dishonest, what part of her statement was a lie?" - is as scientific as astrology[1], and a disaster for real people to use in real life. You'll quickly end up accusing innocent people for mean and bigoted reasons.
[1] Modern quack science might be worst than modern astrology/etc, since the stance of "I know it's not real, but..." means astrology folks can freely disregard horoscopes that are socially or ethically objectionable. If you're claiming your BS is actually Science, I think for a lot of people there's a sort of vicious feedback loop. Especially with social stuff, where these claims are essentially unfalsifiable. ("Body language reading is Science and cannot fail, it can only be failed by my incompetence.")
Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice
#880Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think for most people the answer is “worse”.
Curious, how?
The above comment from MBCook captures it well but basically I would say that for the majority of people I know:
Cons: the rise of scams, carbon emissions, and, some think, existential risk.
Pros: ??? You can be more efficient at the email job you hate. And it gives you advice on gardening and home improvement so you don’t have to call your uncle.
Cons outweigh the pros