Edit: IMO OpenAI should just make their voice engine open source. Then we'll see if ScarJo or anyone else can stop the open-source community. I expected more from her.
Which exposes how empty this shit is, they tried to get Scarlett because even they know people care about her, a real person, and not a random voice with no cultural context.
So what? It's one of my fav movies too.
> they repeatedly tried to get the voice actor from Her.
She didn't do it. So they went ahead and made a voice that sounds like her. It's not like she contributed to making the voice and then decided not to have it used.
The fact that he pulled it down has me believing that he knew there was a real chance the company would get in trouble if he hadn't.
They should have just created a unique voice from the start. And they will likely do that moving forward.
OpenAI tried to benefit by using "her" likeness without permission or a contract/license
Yeah, "the major AI product in the world" to ask to use a famous actors voice, and then when she says no, create something similar anyways, is at least a little be slimy and really a bad idea on many different levels (legally for one thing).
I think this is what this argument comes down to but just in terms of voices.
And before you try this rebuttal, this is different from machinery taking the jobs away from manufacturing plant workers, it's much bigger than that. With manufacturing plant workers, at least humans were still needed for recognizing a fault in the machinery and stopping the line. Humans still needed to maintain the machines. Humans needed to design and build the machines. In this scenario, a couple of central parties are creating these tools, and then nobody is needed to ensure a quality product any further down the chain than that. There either needs to be a legal consequence to this, or a 4.4 billion dollar industry is now just closing their doors. That's all well and good until all of those peoples' families need to eat their next meal or sleep in a home. But I guess their lives aren't your problem.
It won't be anytime all that soon, in my opinion. But generative AI is coming for many (most? all?) sectors of work. And if history is any indicator, millions of people will have to suffer and/or die before governments step in to do much of anything about it. Probably especially-so in the US, since we tend to lean towards "free markets" that benefit the massive companies that have already made it, and allow them to chew through human resources (the people, not the department) mostly any way they see fit. So many people are going to lose their jobs and never find work in their field again, and they will all either die or retrain for all the same laborer positions and end up with a massive surplus of workers in those fields too. And that's only until we become skilled enough in robotics and generative AI to automate the trades too.
Cat's already out of the bag: https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-artificial-intel...
I'm responding more to the idea of "legitimate" businesses just cloning people's voice to associate their identity with a product by comparing it to something slimeballs do to the elderly, including my late grandmother.
People really want their to be a crime here with no evidence. You all have ears, you can listen to both clips back to back and discover, unsurprisingly, that they are actually different voices. Not even an imitation.
Midler v Ford: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/849...
Waits v Frito-Lay: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/90...
One interesting thing is that these cases are really deep in common law. They are quite far removed from statues, and statues are cited in the opinion only to argue how they don't apply.
In these cases, the voice was "distinct", and they intentionally copied it. It's possible these don't apply to ScarJo, although the fact that they negotiated with her is a bad sign, since that was also a common fact in the prior cases.
Weird Al also gets permission to do a parody even though it is not legally required.
sci-fi author: I wrote about the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale
tech bros: Finally we have built the Torment Nexus from beloved sci fi story “Do not build the Torment Nexus”
Enjoying a story is not justification for recreating any artifact that occurs within the story. Her is quite clearly a cautionary tale, not meant to be instructive. https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/why-is-sam-altman-so-obs...
so yes I do think it’s very relevant that when you say “he liked the film”, the contents of the film is an admissible area of inquiry.
Yeah, big business needs to be held to higher standard since they have so much power and affect so many people (and this higher standard is especially important since AI is uncharted territory and also since OpenAI already had a failed coup)
I've used AI in my programming work. After you get used to it, you see its limitations. It's not that clever, it's mostly mush. It's better than stackoverflow, though :-/
I've seen AI written articles, and they're pretty much drivel. Of course, most articles are drivel anyway, but the AI ones seem to have a peculiar drivelness about them that I recognize but cannot really describe.
I view it as simply removing some of the drudgery of my work, just like textile machines removed much of the drudgery of making cloth.
What I fear about AI is not their economic uses, but their use in warfare. Do you want a terminator drone hunting you? I sure don't.
Sure. This doesn’t seem like a direct response to anything I said, but it’s a valid point to why our government will be too slow to react in the situation I’m describing.
I’ve used it too. I think you’re still thinking on a much shorter timespan than I’m talking about. This is going to continue to advance. And I purposefully used the word “substitute” to describe its exact level of capability to replace human creativity.
Sure, same response as above.
Sure, same response as above.
Sure, that’s a much more reasonable short term fear for AI usage.
AI has been used in warfare in the form of computer vision for like 20 years now. That's the scariest application of AI you will ever have to worry about; putting ChatGPT in a GBU-12 isn't going to make it any more dangeorus.
2. If someone dedicated their life's work to building the Bioelectric Battery from The Matrix, I am going to call them evil. It's not because I hate The Matrix, it's because I consider the net worth of such a tool to be negative and object to it's creation entirely. If someone's vision is based on the wrong moral takeaways from a piece of media, then people will rightfully demonize them for it. That's society.
"The function of science fiction is not always to predict the future but sometimes to prevent it." - Frank Herbert
#2 Is begging the question. It starts with with the premise that AI is evil and therefore Sam Altman is committing evil by promoting it.
Unless you are privy to the last 10 months of OpenAI's closed-door meeting notes, I don't think you have the authority to explicitly deny this. Time will tell what comes of it, but the obsession with namedropping Her among OpenAI employees feels like the final nail in the coffin. If OpenAI fully complies with the discovery process I don't have faith that Sam Altman was as sneaky as he's made-out to be.
> but the obsession with namedropping Her among OpenAI employees feels like the final nail in the coffin.
I don't see why this the nail in the coffin. Why is this about the voice and not the technology involved in creating a natural voiced AI assistant just like was demonstrated popular movie?
Plenty of technologies have been inspired by science fiction including, most obviously, the cell phone. And comparing those technologies to the science fiction version is equally common.