zlacker

>>richar+(OP)
This whole thing is starting to feel like another Sam Altman spotlight production. There's enough evidence to show no wrongdoing, but it was handled in a way to make people think there was a scandal. Maximum spotlight for relatively low risk. I wonder if people will get tired of being jerked around like this.

>>throwa+pY
I don't think you understand. It's extremely well established in law, you can't approach someone to voice an advert for you, get told no, and then hire an impersonator to do it. Take all the AI hype bullshit and the cult of personality bullshit out of it. What Altman did is very standard and very clearly not allowed. He will end up paying for this in monetary terms, and paying further for it in the reputation damage - in that no one can trust OpenAI to conduct business in good faith.

>>Silver+Vo1
> It's extremely well established in law, you can't approach someone to voice an advert for you, get told no, and then hire an impersonator to do it.

Can you explain and/or cite the legal basis here? What cases? What law?