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
This shows how bad it is. If you're proactively sharing a package of docs with the Washingington Post, you're toast.

Altman's outreach, his tweet, and the thousands of tweets and comments talking about how similar Sky is to ScarJo is enough to win the case in California.

>>dbreun+pM1
Then we can add this to the long list of insane lawsuits going the wrong way in California.

They asked SJ, she said no. So they went to a voice actor and used her. Case closed, they didn't use SJ's voice without her permission. That doesn't violate any law to any reasonable person.

>>pc86+sQ1
"Reasonable" is doing a ton of work here.

>>freeja+yS1
"Reasonable" does a lot of work throughout the entire legal system.

If there's one constant that can be relied upon, it's that "things that are reasonable to a lawyer" and "things that are reasonable to a normal human being" are essentially disjoint sets.

>>Turing+C42
> “Reasonable” does a lot of work throughout the entire legal system.

Yes, but here it’s not being invoked in the sense of “would a reasonable person believe based on this evidence that the facts which would violate the actual law exist” but “would a ‘reasonable’ person believe the law is what the law, indisputably, actually is”.

It’s being invoked to question the reality of the law itself, based on its subjective undesirability to the speaker.