zlacker

>>helsin+(OP)
Breaking working functionality is not cool. Sure they should perhaps license from Scarlett Johansson directly though. It might cost 1% of their GPU budget though. Pulling the rug though, really gives end users a lack of control of the interface, and harms trust in their product and organisation.

Edit: I know it's not really Scarlett Johansson, but it does sound very similar, and they can do better to make it right, in terms of sound and legality!

>>luke-s+t7
> really gives end users a lack of control of the interface

This is the case for all mobile and web apps and has been the norm for over a decade now. If you want control over the UI or functionality, use local software that doesn't check some server for feature flags.

Even if Scarlett Johansson would agree to license her voice, which is a big if, it's not her voice that's being removed. It's a different actress that some users thinks sounds like Scarlett.

https://openai.com/index/how-the-voices-for-chatgpt-were-cho...

>>sorenj+q8
I'm pointing out that it harms OpenAI to make users feel this way, I know it's common to give users a lack of control these days and that edge LLM's are not viable for this yet, and good luck with third party ChatGPT clients etc!

I'm not saying it's her voice. I'm not disputing that they found someone with a similar sounding voice. But OpenAI should still aim to license from Scarlett Johansson and fine-tune on real licensed audio from her, the real deal, and let users switch to it if they want to.