zlacker

>>helsin+(OP)
It is incredibly disheartening to see what was born a non-profit dedicated to guiding AI towards beneficial (or at the very least neutral) ends, to predictably fall into the well-worn SV groove of progressively shittier behavior in the pursuit of additional billions. What is victory for Open AI even supposed to look like by now?

>>projec+DZ1
What's shitty about this?

They approached Johansson and she said no. They found another voice actor who sounds slightly similar and paid her instead.

The movie industry does this all the time.

Johansson is probably suing them so they're forced to remove the Sky voice while the lawsuit is happening.

Nothing here is shitty.

>>LewisV+s92
If they didn't use her voice at all, doesn't seem like there would be a case or even concern.

Also, they proceeded to ask her for rights just 2 days before they demoed the Sky voice. It would be pretty coincidental that they actually didn't use her voice for the training at all if they were still trying to get a sign off from her.

>>0x6c6f+qc2
If they used her actual voice for training the model that shipped then I agree with you. It seems like they used the voice from another woman who sounds similar though.

>>LewisV+Hc2
It doesn't "seem like" in this instance, "no no that is not what we did we commissioned someone else" without specifying who is their claim.

From technical standpoint, a finetuned voice model can be built from just few minutes of data and GPU time on top of an existing voice model, almost like how artists LoRAs are built for images. So it is entirely within possibility that that had happened.