zlacker

I don’t know why you’re asking me those last three questions. First, I’m not a lawyer. Second, I didn’t make any claims that could make those questions relevant.

Instead, I’ll repeat my earlier claim - this was reckless. If they were trying to avoid a strong negative perception, they failed. And they failed with an actor who sued Disney shortly after they paid her $20 million to make a movie.

>>hluska+(OP)
You asked the good question about why they may have acted as they did and I attempted to answer it. In hindsight based on results it may look reckless but decisions need to be judged based on that is known at the time they are made and the public reaction was not a foregone outcome. The openAI sky voice has been available since last September why was there no outrage about it back then?

You can listen to the voices side by side:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cwy6wz/comment/l4...

And here is voice of another actress ( Rashida Jones ):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385414AVZcA

This test is not blind but YOU tell me which you think is similar to the openAI sky voice?

> And they failed with an actor who sued Disney shortly after they paid her $20 million to make a movie.

OpenAI did not fail. They suspended the sky voice and backed down not to further anger a segment of the public who views much of what OpenAI does in a negative light. Given the voice test above do you seriously think OpenAI would lose in court? Would that matter to the segment of population that is already outraged by AI? How are journalists and news companies affected by AI? How might their reporting be biased?

>>czl+uJ1
> OpenAI did not fail. They suspended the sky voice and backed down

Yeah, that's failing.