zlacker

>>mjcl+(OP)
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 Scarlett’s film.

- When Scarlett’s counsel asked for an explanation of how the “Sky” voice was created, OpenAI yanked the voice from their product line.

Perhaps Sam’s next tweet should read “red-handed”.

>>anon37+t5
This statement from scarlet really changed my perspective. I use and loved the Sky voice and I did feel it sounded a little like her, but moreover it was the best of their voice offerings. I was mad when they removed it. But now I’m mad it was ever there to begin with. This timeline makes it clear that this wasn’t a coincidence and maybe not even a hiring of an impressionist (which is where things get a little more wishy washy for me).

>>nickth+R7
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...

>>windex+qA
> The thing about the situation is that Altman is willing to lie and steal a celebrity's voice for use in ChatGPT.

He lies and steals much more than that. He’s the scammer behind Worldcoin.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/richardnieva/worldcoin-...

> Altman is, and wants to be, a large part of AI regulation. Quite the public contradiction.

That’s as much of a contradiction as a thief wanting to be a large part of lock regulation. What better way to ensure your sleazy plans benefit you, and preferably only you but not the competition, than being an active participant in the inevitable regulation while it’s being written?

>>latexr+tC1
> That’s as much of a contradiction as a thief wanting to be a large part of lock regulation.

Based on what I see in the videos from The Lockpocking Lawyer, that would be a massive improvement.

Now, the NSA and crypto standards, that would have worked as a metaphor for your point.

(I don't think it's correct, but that's an independent claim, and I am not only willing to discover that I'm wrong about their sincerity, I think everyone writing that legislation should actively assume the worst while they do so).

>>ben_w+DF1
> Based on what I see in the videos from The Lockpocking Lawyer

The Lockpicking Lawyer is not a thief, so I don’t get your desire to incorrectly nitpick. Especially when you clearly understood the point.

>>latexr+DK1
You noticed your confusion but still went on the aggressive, huh. Ah well.

"A is demonstrating a proof of B" does not require "A is a clause in B".

A being TLPL, B being that the entire lock industry is bad, so bad that anyone with experience would be a massive improvement, for example a thief.

>>ben_w+mN1
I’m not confused and my reply was not aggressive. I don’t think it will be a good use of time to continue this conversation because discussions should get more substantive as they go on and this was an irrelevant tangent to which I have no desire to get sucked in to.

Other people have commented to further explain the point in other words. I recommend you read those, perhaps it’ll make you understand.

>>40428005

>>40428280