zlacker

[parent] [thread] 31 comments
1. zemo+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-05-21 22:40:46
you have to be willfully missing the point when he said Her was his favorite movie, tweeted just “her” when the Sky voice was announced, and when they repeatedly tried to get the voice actor from Her. People who do underhanded things don’t just come out and say “look at me, doing the bad thing!”
replies(4): >>behnam+G >>rowanG+J >>comput+01 >>wvenab+M5
2. behnam+G[view] [source] 2024-05-21 22:44:29
>>zemo+(OP)
> you have to be willfully missing the point when he said Her was his favorite movie

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.

replies(1): >>startt+54
3. rowanG+J[view] [source] 2024-05-21 22:44:48
>>zemo+(OP)
Oke and they weren't able to get her and then did a fall back to a different voice actor. How is that problematic? That's like trying to cast a specific actor in a movie, they decline and then you find the next closest match. It's not acceptable that the originally wanted actor then throws a hissy fit. I don't see the reason for outrage here at all.
replies(2): >>verdve+Y1 >>comput+i2
4. comput+01[view] [source] 2024-05-21 22:46:45
>>zemo+(OP)
agree with this.
◧◩
5. verdve+Y1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-21 22:50:51
>>rowanG+J
The confusion (and that OAI attempted to recruit her) is sufficient grounds for a lawsuit to the effect that they impersonated her. Generally, celebrities have ownership and rights over their likeness for commercial or promotional purposes.

OpenAI tried to benefit by using "her" likeness without permission or a contract/license

replies(1): >>rowanG+Y2
◧◩
6. comput+i2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-21 22:52:01
>>rowanG+J
I don't know, but Sam seemed to think it necessary to try to get her permission first, so it must be at least somewhat problematic.

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).

replies(1): >>Walter+pb
◧◩◪
7. rowanG+Y2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-21 22:55:29
>>verdve+Y1
So If a director tries to cast Scarlett Johansson and she denies. Then instead casts Amber Heard in the movie. He is opening himself to lawsuits? Because Amber Heard looks very similar to Scarlet Johansson? I can't believe that. What gives Scarlett Johansson the right to block Amber Heard from playing in a movie she was considered for?

I think this is what this argument comes down to but just in terms of voices.

replies(1): >>verdve+79
◧◩
8. startt+54[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-21 23:01:30
>>behnam+G
I'm not sure you're aware of the ramifications of all of this, or else you just don't care. The voice acting industry is now entirely dead thanks to your opinions on this matter. Nobody is going to reach out to Liam Neeson for his voice, they'll just have some voice tool recreate it and read the script as long as the tool can recreate the same emotional tones they're looking for, and it's cheaper than hiring the actual actor. There's tangible damages here. But I guess you don't mind because you're not a voice actor and this doesn't directly affect you.

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.

replies(1): >>Walter+ab
9. wvenab+M5[view] [source] 2024-05-21 23:11:34
>>zemo+(OP)
I don't think any of this translates to anything bad. He loves the movie. OpenAI invented similar technology. They wanted to use Scarlett's voice to market it. She said no. They used a different voice.

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.

replies(1): >>zemo+W6
◧◩
10. zemo+W6[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-21 23:16:32
>>wvenab+M5
what do you think Her is about?
replies(1): >>wvenab+Ya
◧◩◪◨
11. verdve+79[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-21 23:26:45
>>rowanG+Y2
This is different and there is existing case law, see this other comment on this post

>>40435274

◧◩◪
12. wvenab+Ya[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-21 23:38:45
>>zemo+W6
What is relevance of that to this discussion on whether OpenAI stole Scarlett Johansson's voice?
replies(1): >>zemo+Ei
◧◩◪
13. Walter+ab[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-21 23:40:35
>>startt+54
Getting rid of AI so people can do the work instead is another incarnation of the fallacy of the broken window.
replies(1): >>startt+Uo
◧◩◪
14. Walter+pb[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-21 23:42:05
>>comput+i2
> Sam seemed to think it necessary to try to get her permission first

Weird Al also gets permission to do a parody even though it is not legally required.

replies(1): >>comput+Yj
◧◩◪◨
15. zemo+Ei[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-22 00:40:05
>>wvenab+Ya
you’re using “he loves the movie” as some sort of defense, when the movie is a pretty standard sci fi cautionary tale. You know the saying:

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.

replies(1): >>wvenab+Nm
◧◩◪◨
16. comput+Yj[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-22 00:52:18
>>Walter+pb
Well, Weird Al is singing funny songs to a niche group of people, while Sam Altman is creating cutting-edge AI known and used throughout the world. Very different audiences.

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)

◧◩◪◨⬒
17. wvenab+Nm[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-22 01:19:06
>>zemo+Ei
This is real life not fiction. Perhaps we shouldn't crucify people for this sort of vague association.
replies(1): >>zemo+dF
◧◩◪◨
18. startt+Uo[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-22 01:37:09
>>Walter+ab
All depends what lens you're looking through. From the perspective of advancement of the human race, AI is almost definitely a good thing. From the perspective of humans being employed at least in the short term, it's going to be very, very bad before anyone thinks to say, "maybe it's not necessary that all humans need to work if we don't have enough jobs to give them all. Maybe we need systems for allowing humans without a job function to continue to survive." But you don't need to listen to me, we'll all just see for ourselves because cat's already out of the bag and I don't think it's going to go back in. And the people that don't think it's going to happen won't willfully notice it's already happening to others until it also happens to them.
replies(1): >>Walter+gA
◧◩◪◨⬒
19. Walter+gA[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-22 03:56:11
>>startt+Uo
The Luddites said the same thing about textile machinery.
replies(1): >>startt+fC
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
20. startt+fC[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-22 04:16:52
>>Walter+gA
I already kind of replied to this rebuttal in advance in my first comment that you replied to. But I’ll refute it again a second way. Textile machinery impacted a very specific sector of work. We’re talking here about an advancement in technology threatening to substitute the creativity of humans one day. With textile machinery, other technological advancements eventually created new jobs which helped to displace the jobs that were lost. Will we manage to displace all of the creative roles we may lose to artificial intelligence at the same rate that the human workers are becoming obsolete? Time will tell. You seem very confident we will, and I wish I shared that confidence. But I’ll grant that I consider it’s possible we succeed in this. I find it wild that other people don’t consider it’s possible we fail though. All I’m saying is that we need to be mindful of it, mindful enough to notice it if it happens, as I’d argue is happening with ScarJo here, and the greater voice acting industry. Because in my opinion the overconfidence displayed to the contrary in this thread is exactly how I expect most of humanity will be blindsided by it happening instead.
replies(1): >>Walter+YJ
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
21. zemo+dF[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-22 04:55:02
>>wvenab+Nm
there’s a huge gulf between saying “I think that guy is wrong” on a web forum and sentencing them to death in an extremely public and slow and painful manner. Nobody is being crucified here. It is intellectually dishonest to see criticism as crucifixion.
replies(1): >>wvenab+OQ1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
22. Walter+YJ[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-22 05:56:16
>>startt+fC
The US cannot suppress AI. There's a lot of other countries which would love to pick up the AI flag if we drop it, and then they'll bury us.

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.

replies(2): >>startt+tW >>tallda+b82
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
23. startt+tW[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-22 08:12:09
>>Walter+YJ
In order by paragraph:

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.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
24. wvenab+OQ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-22 15:15:20
>>zemo+dF
This isn't criticism, it's a witch hunt. Your argument here boils down to "he's evil" because of his movie preferences.
replies(2): >>CRConr+Bn5 >>tallda+616
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
25. tallda+b82[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-22 16:48:37
>>Walter+YJ
> What I fear about AI is not their economic uses, but their use in warfare.

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.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
26. CRConr+Bn5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-23 15:02:32
>>wvenab+OQ1
No, that's long been established. His movie preferences just illustrate it further.
replies(1): >>wvenab+7E5
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
27. wvenab+7E5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-23 16:20:29
>>CRConr+Bn5
What's been "long established"?
replies(1): >>CRConr+bx7
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
28. tallda+616[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-23 18:21:35
>>wvenab+OQ1
1. It stands to reason Sam could be held criminally liable over using someone else's likeness to promote his product. CEOs have been lost in federal court over sillier Tweets, and assuming Sam is in the right here is a silly move for any of us since nobody in this comment section has meaningful oversight of the OpenAI board.

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

replies(1): >>wvenab+v46
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
29. wvenab+v46[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-23 18:40:10
>>tallda+616
#1 is fine assuming such a crime was committed. But for as much as people assume this to be true, actually looking at the evidence it doesn't seem like it. OpenAI would have to be explicit in copying the likeness. Something may still come out in discovery but anything discussed here is just vague supposition.

#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.

replies(1): >>tallda+Y66
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
30. tallda+Y66[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-23 18:51:08
>>wvenab+v46
> OpenAI would have to be explicit in copying the likeness.

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.

replies(1): >>wvenab+Ea6
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
31. wvenab+Ea6[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-23 19:07:06
>>tallda+Y66
Did I explicitly deny this? By the same token, unless you are privy to the last 10 months of OpenAI's closed-door meeting notes you have no authority to assert it. But without those closed-door meeting notes, the evidence we do have isn't pretty unconvincing of any wrong doing. The time-frame is off and the voices actually don't sound alike if you compare them directly.

> 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.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
32. CRConr+bx7[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-24 07:41:52
>>wvenab+7E5
> > > "he's evil"
[go to top]