981–990 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in fact, the movie was originally recorded with Samantha Morton doing the voice of the AI, but she was replaced with Johansson last minute!
Really? Are there any leaks of the original version? I would love to see the difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Looking bad" is not illegal. If OpenAI didn't do anything illegal, saying it shouldn't do something because it might "look bad" is unfounded. In general, listening to what people say and avoiding things that might "look bad" to someone is a bad life strategy.
They may or may not have done anything illegal. I think the facts in this article help their legal case significantly! It is a bad life strategy as an individual to worry too much about the judgement of others. But marketing and PR are important parts of running a business. It may be annoying that your customers care about things that you see as silly PR stuff, but it still matters to the business.
Well it was the busines that engaged in the silly PR stuff in the first place, so... They knew it would matter to the business, they just hoped it would go differently. That's why they did it in the first place.
I think it's really problematic that the government is protecting voice actor's careers. It's like if they disallowed cars on the roads to protect horse carriages. Clearly with the new technology a whole economic sector is gone and irrelevant over night. Now amateurs and small projects can afford to add good sounding voices to their creations. This is good news in the end The same goes for actors and their likenesses…
That's a pretty generous take on the situation. Sam Altman isn't some robin hood character taking from the rich to give to the poor. If AI companies can keep operating with impunity, taking as much data as they want with no compensation for the creators, or consequence for infringement, that's not good. I agree that the technology is great, and it will empower small creators, but I'm also worried about the cowboy beh…
(No no, you're perfectly right [except perhaps about "the technology is great, and it will empower small creators"], but yagotta admit, your example in justaposition with your user id is funny.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if someone created a deep fake porn video of you, that wouldn't bother you either? Because, after all, you didn't do any work or anything.
Not the person you replied to, but IMO it depends. My reaction would never be "we must make it so people can't do deepfakes anymore". That would cause people to stop using it for positive/benign things as well. If someone is spreading deepfake porn of someone, and you could make the case that they are doing so in order to harm that person's reputation, then legal action would make sense, I think.
Are there actually any "benign" uses for deepfakes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of all voice actors are piss poor, not ultra wealthy celebrities. The ultra wealthy celebrities just happen to be the only ones who could legally defend themselves and can create a media fuzz. You're basically suggesting that it's okay to copy anyone's voice and appearance without ever giving them compensation and without regard to personality rights. That's insane. Even for someone who thinks this…
As long as it's clear it's not actually me and I'm not personally endorsing the product then what is the problem? Here you are talking to OpenAI's system and it's clear Scarlett isn't personally answer you and the answers don't represent her or her views
At least the second time I've seen you making that argument on this page. So however long it was between your (at least) two comments to this effect, apparently it wasn't long enough for you to realise that the whole purpose of deepfake technology is to make it NOT "clear" that it's not actually you and you're not personally endorsing the product.
Tom Waits provides the template here. He successfully sued Cheetos for impersonation. The major similarity: Waits, like Johansson, declined an offer to use his voice in advertising.
And so OpenAI can't legally... use any adult white female's voice in their product? I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't there have to actually be a reasonable voice resemblance to conclude that there's impersonation? In a side-by-side "taste test" I don't think these two voices are very similar.
No, they can't legally use an adult white female's voice that might be mistaken for Johansson's in their product and imply it has anything to do with Johansson's performance in the movie _Her_.
So... Smart tweet there, Sam. Really smart.
(I don't quite get why the Techbro - venture capitalist sphere is so enamored with this guy. From all I've seen reported about him, he seems not only a grade-A arsehole, but dumb as a fucking brick. But maybe they identify with that.)
If Right to Publicity laws indeed favor Scarlet here, then the law is really outdated and needs to catch up with the current paradigm. A company wanted a voice, had something in their minds, approached a voice actor who has a similar voice to what they have in mind, got rejected, then approached next candidate and worked with her. Simple as that. If this is illegal, I don't know what is legal.
OpenAi had been working with the "Sky" voice actress for months before first contacting Scarlett Johansson.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And one of the co-founders of OpenAI (Karpathy) also quite literally said "The killer app of LLMs is Scarlett Johansson." the day after the announcement. https://x.com/karpathy/status/1790373216537502106
He wouldn't be the only person to want Scarlett Johansson voice inside ChatGPT, I read several comments wanting that (I guess "Sky" voice doesn't sound so similar after all), btw Karpathy doesn't really work for OpenAI anymore.
You say that as if it would give him less credibility.
In reality, it is of course the exact other way around.
It doesn't really matter now, the thought has already crept inside most people's minds, whether they copied her voice or didn't. Sam probably should have changed the voice as soon as Scarlett noped out from the deal. All this furore could have been avoided.
@sama has done a good job at portraying himself as an elon/zuck hybrid visionary. he's either going to deliver on the agi promise or be the next @sbf_ftx. there's no in between.
Yeah, because those are such universally-beloved role models that modelling oneself on them is a genius move.