zlacker

When people cheat on (relatively) small things, it's usually an indication they'll cheat on big things too

>>npunt+(OP)
I would love to see the providence of their training data.

>>iosjun+j3
I think you want the word “provenance.”

>>npunt+(OP)
OpenAI only hires and is built on the culture that data and copyright is somehow free for the taking, otherwise they would have zero ways to make a profit or “build agi”

>>npunt+(OP)
Which is what makes me wonder if this might grow into a galvanizing event for the pro-creator protests against these AI models and companies. What happened here isn't particularly unique to voices or even Scarlett Johansson, it is just how these companies and their products operate in general.

>>npunt+(OP)
Stealing someone's identity is indeed one of those "big things".

>>iosjun+j3
We need laws where companies are forced to reveal source of personal data. Like how did XYZ company get my contact info to spam me?

>>npunt+(OP)
How did they even cheat here?

OpenAI did nothing wrong.

The movie industry does the same thing all the time. If an actor/actress says no they you find someone else who can play the same role.

>>LewisV+fc
Nothing? If you're acting like the sea witch in "The Little Mermaid" you're probably doing something wrong.

>>npunt+(OP)
Who cheated whom? Out of what?

>>ncr100+78
Impersonating someone’s voice isn’t stealing anything, and certainly not their identity.

>>sneak+nh
30+ year old established case precedent disagrees with you:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications...

https://casetext.com/case/waits-v-frito-lay-inc

>>sneak+nh
If they are a celebrity actor it sure is.

>>tjmc+tg
Key difference here is that Scarlett still has her voice.

>>LewisV+fc
I don't think that's quite the same. Are they going out and hiring impersonators of the actors who declined the role or digitally enhancing the substitute to look like them? That seems closer to what happened here.

>>slg+Z5
I think the only way for these protests to get really tangible results is in case we reach a ceiling in LLM capabilities. The technology in its current trajectory is simply too valuable both in economic and military applications to pull out of, and "overregulation" can be easily swatted citing national security concerns in regards to China. As far as I know, China has significantly stricter data and privacy regulations than the US when it comes to the private sector, but these probably count for little when it comes to the PLA.

>>bakuni+AM
We have almost run out of training data already so I’m not convinced they will get massively more generalised suddenly. If you give them reasoning tasks they haven’t seen before LLMs absolutely fall apart and produce essentially gibberish. They are currently search engines that give you one extremely good result that you can refine up to a point, they are not thinking even though there’s a little bit more understanding than search engines of the past.

>>LewisV+fc
If they are so "Open" they should reveal their training data which created this voice. I am sure it is just movie audio from S. Johansson's movies.

>>iainct+ur
Voice actors especially. Voice acting isn't what ScarJo is really "known for" but she's done a ton of work for animated films so her distinct voice really is a part of her livelihood.

>>ramenb+3t
Ah, violating copyright is not a crime, I see.

>>ddalex+Ow4
The comment I responded to made the statement that OAI behaved like the sea witch who literally stole someone's voice. That is not the case here, since Scarlett still has her voice and OAI only (allegedly?) copied it. Whether OAI violated copyright law is a different matter, but steal her voice they did not.