zlacker

>>richar+(OP)
When I first used ChatGPT's voice assistant's I was like "Wow, this one is clearly Scarlett Johansson from Her, they even copy her mannerisms."

No amount of unverifiable "records" (just pieces of paper provided by somebody who has a multimillion dollar incentive to show one outcome) will change my mind.

But if they can produce the actual voice artist I'd be more open-minded.

>>zug_zu+AJ1
Funny, I'm the opposite. I saw clips from the film after the controversy (it's been ten years since I saw the film itself) and Sky sounds nothing like Johansson to me. No amount of unverifiable "records".

>>stavro+LM1
1. The sky voice currently available in the app is a different model from the one they presented (one is pure TTS, the new one in GPT-4o is a proper multi modal model that can do speech in and out end to end)

2. Look at these images and tell me they didn't intend to replicate "Her": https://x.com/michalwols/status/1792709377528647995

>>m_ke+uN1
Genuine question, what's wrong with trying to replicate in real life an idea from a SciFi movie ?

I understand that it could be problematic if OpenAI did one of two things:

- imitated Scarlett Johansson's voice to impersonate her

- misled people into believing that GPT-4o is an official by-product of the film Her, like calling it “the official Her AI”

The first point is still unclear, and that's precisely the point of the article

For the second point, the tweets you posted clearly show that the AI from Her served as an inspiration for creating the GPT-4o model, but not a trademark infringement

Will Matt Damon receive royalties if a guy is ever stuck on Mars ?

>>lairv+r22
> Genuine question, what's wrong with trying to replicate in real life an idea from a SciFi movie ?

The thing is, there are several cases where a jury found this exact thing to warrant damages.

But honestly, that is irrelevant. The situation here is that OpenAI is facing a TON of criticism for running roughshod over intellectual property rights. They are claiming that we should trust them, they are trying to do the right thing.

But in this case, they're dancing on the edge of right and wrong.

I don't mind when a sleazy company makes "MacDougals" to sell hamburgers. But it's not something to be proud of. And it's definitely not a company that I'd trust.