zlacker

>>mjcl+(OP)
SJ mentions deep fakes.

It is quite possible that OpenAI has synthesized the voice from SJ material.

However If OpenAI can produce the woman who did is the current voice, and she has a voice nearly identical that of SJ would that mean OpenAI had done something wrong?

Does SJ since she is a celebrity hold a "patent" right to sound like her.

The more likely scenario is that they have hired a person and told her to try and imitate how SJ sounds.

What is the law on something like that?

>>ThinkB+26
The answer, based on two different court precedents (Bette Midler, Tom Waits), is that the company can't do that. Companies cannot hire soundalike people to advertise their products after the person with a distinctive voice they really wanted declined. Doesn't matter if they hired a soundalike and used her voice.

>>not2b+C8
There is a big, big difference between actively and intentional imitating a voice, and having a broadly similar voice though!

>>crimso+P9
Yeah but...

Them trying (and failing) to negotiate the rights, and then them vaguely attempting again 2 days before launch, and fucking Altman tweeting a quite obvious reference to a movie in which SJ is the voice of an AI girlfriend - leans very very strongly in the direction of "active and intentional imitation".

Anybody trying to claim some accidental or coincidental similarity here has a pretty serious credibility hole they need to start digging themselves out of.