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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by FireBeyond »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #533
windexh8er wrote: post #497

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.

> if this account is true, Sam Altman is a deeply unethical human being

I thought this when he didn't launch Worldcoin in the US but Africa, and consistently upped the ante to the point where he was offering people in the poorer parts of the continent amounts that equalled two months wages or more to scan their retinas.

Why was that necessary? It wasn't to share the VC windfall.

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

#972

Post by krick »

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…

The funniest thing to me is the very fact that they wanted this voice so much that they though it was worth the hassle (so obvious in hindsight). I mean, I get it, the movie reference was welcome by their auditory (which is kinda cringey on it's own, to be honest, but ok, that's just reality). But it's not even a very pleasant voice, I remember people chuckling at the choice of Johansson's voice for the role back then. It was clearly a choice dictated by the fact that she is famous. It was marketing, the movie producers needed her name, not the voice. And OpenAI couldn't even use the name. It all just seems so silly now.

…Unless, of course, all this scandal isn't also a part of marketing campaign.

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

#974

Post by Andrex »

trustno2 wrote: post #707
windexh8er wrote: post #497

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...

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

I'm glad I'm not the only one drawing SBF personality comparisons here. I'd throw Martin Shkreli into the mix too for good measure. Awful.

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

#975

Post by gravescale »

trustno2 wrote: post #707
windexh8er wrote: post #497

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...

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

Less poacher turned gamekeeper and more poachers infiltrating the gamekeeper council.

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

#976

Post by chipweinberger »

gcr wrote: post #284
chipweinberger wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps they cloned a character's likeness? Is there a distinction? Are they trying to make it sound like Her, or SJ? Or just trying to go for a similar style? i.e. making artistic choices in designing their product Note: I've never watched the movie.

That’s a weaksauce argument IMO. The character was played by SJ. Depictions of this character necessarily have to be depictions of the voice actress. Your argument may be stronger if OpenAI said something like “the movie studio owns the rights to this character’s likeness, so we approached them,” but it’s not clear they attempted that.

The character has a very distinct tonality. particularly the inflections and word emphasis.

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

#977

Post by benreesman »

benreesman wrote: post #612
crznp wrote: 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…

I retract my remarks trying to give the benefit of the doubt on this, it’s now covered thoroughly by the credible mainstream press and I apologize to both the siblings and Ms. Johansson for being skeptical.

There is value in OpenAI, there are (a steadily shrinking number of) ethical pros there guilty of nothing worse than wanting to make a good living. Groups including but not limited to the voice group have done excellent, socially positive work.

But the leadership team is a menace (as I’ve been saying for years) and it’s just time for a clean sweep at the senior leadership level.

I’ve been such a vocal critic for so long that I’m always looking for an opportunity to present a balanced view whenever there’s a reasonable doubt.

Wrong again, me.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/05/opena...

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

#978

Post by [deleted] »

trustno2 wrote: post #707
windexh8er wrote: post #497

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...

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

[deleted]

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

#979

Post by eaglefield »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #535
ProjectArcturis wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Case law says no. There have been several legal cases where bands have sued advertisers for copying their distinct sound. Here are a few examples: The Beatles vs. Nike (1987): The Beatles' company, Apple Corps, sued Nike and Capitol Records for using the song "Revolution" in a commercial without their permission. The case was settled out of court. Tom Waits vs. Frito-Lay (1988): Tom Waits sued Frito-Lay for using a s…

Disregarding the cases settled out of court (which have nothing to do with case law): 1) Tom Waits vs Frito-Lay: Frito-Lay not only used a soundalike to Tom Waits, but the song they created was extremely reminiscent of "Step Right Up" by Waits. 2) Bette Midler vs. Ford Motor Company: Same thing - this time Ford literally had a very Midler-esque singer sing an exact Midler song. 3) Beastie Boys vs. Monster Energy: Mon…

Obviously it'll be up to some court to decide, but I don't think openai did themselves any favours in a possible voice protection lawsuit, when Sam Altmann tweeted out "her". That makes it seem very much like the imitation was intentional.

Additionally I think you're understating the similarity to the Midler v Ford case. It has a similar pattern where they first contacted the "original", then hired an impersonator. The song wasn't at issue, they had a license to that part.

I think this part of some of the court documents[0] is especially relevant. Hedwig was the sound alike hired.

> Hedwig was told by Young & Rubicam that "they wanted someone who could sound like Bette Midler's recording of [Do You Want To Dance]." She was asked to make a "demo" tape of the song if she was interested. She made an a capella demo and got the job.

> At the direction of Young & Rubicam, Hedwig then made a record for the commercial. The Midler record of "Do You Want To Dance" was first played to her. She was told to "sound as much as possible like the Bette Midler record," leaving out only a few "aahs" unsuitable for the commercial. Hedwig imitated Midler to the best of her ability.

> After the commercial was aired Midler was told by "a number of people" that it "sounded exactly" like her record of "Do You Want To Dance." Hedwig was told by "many personal friends" that they thought it was Midler singing the commercial. Ken Fritz, a personal manager in the entertainment business not associated with Midler, declares by affidavit that he heard the commercial on more than one occasion and thought Midler was doing the singing.

> Neither the name nor the picture of Midler was used in the commercial; Young & Rubicam had a license from the copyright holder to use the song. At issue in this case is only the protection of Midler's voice.

So the fact that us random internet commentors did not recognize her voice doesn't seem to matter in cases like these. It's enough that the sound alike had been told to mimic the original voice, and that people familiar with the voice be fooled.

[0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/849...

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

#980

Post by theyinwhy »

titanomachy wrote: post #946
theyinwhy wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to discover truths, 3 hours research seems like a good deal. Anyways, I got you covered. Altman has had a plan for this from the get go: https://www.techemails.com/p/sam-altman-emails-elon-musk

What's the quote from this that indicates he is trying to "obtain an artificial monopoly on AI"?

"On Jun 24, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Sam Altman wrote:" [...] "5) I think the right plan with the regulation letter is to wait for this to get going and then I can just release it with a message like "now that we are doing this, l've been thinking a lot about what sort of constraints the world needs for safefy.""
Post reply on HN