[0]: >>40421225
[1]: >>40414249
IANAL, but parody and criticism are covered under Fair Use doctrine for Copyright law in the United States [1]. The Simpsons generally falls into that category, which is why they rarely get into trouble.
That doesn't matter because it's an impersonation. Ford lost, even though they didn't use Bette Midler's voice either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
For something more general look at Midler vs Ford [1], and lots of other similar cases. Ford wanted to use get Midler to sing some of her songs (that Ford owned the copyright to) for a commercial. She refused, so they hired an impersonator. They never stated it was Midler in the commercial, but nonetheless were sued and lost for abuse of 'rights of personality' even for content they owned the copyright to! Uncopyrightable characteristics highly associated with a person are still legally protected. Similar stuff with fight refs. Various trademark lines like 'Let's get it on!' or 'Let's get readddy to rumble.' are literally trademarked, but it's probably not even strictly necessary since it would be implicitly protected by rights of personality.
1: https://github.com/RVC-Project/Retrieval-based-Voice-Convers...
What? Nobody is banning OpenAI from licensing voices. The censure is on, at the very least, using an unlicensed likeness to promote their new products without compensation. (Assuming Sky truly is a clean-room product.)
Likeness just became a tradeable product. That wasn't true before. The better analogy is in recognising mineral rights, including crude oil, after the utility of it was recognised and traded on [1].
> ultra wealthy celebrities
We have a hundred millionaire atop a multi-billion dollar industry fighting a billionaire atop a multi-billion dollar company. Nobody gets to cry poverty.
> can imagine in a decade some place like China which doesn't care about protecting celebrities
Would positively love to see Altman try to pull this stunt with Xi Jinping's voice.
[1] https://info.courthousedirect.com/blog/history-of-mineral-ri...
No, it's whoever's voice is famous. The voice per se isn't valuable, its fame is. Personality rights are precedented [1].
> voices being similar to each other is found to be grounds for a successful tort action then it'd establish a legal precedent
It's not about similarity. It's about property. Johansson developed her voice into a valuable asset. It's valuable because it's Scarlet Johansson's voice.
Tweeting Her explicitly tied it to Johansson, even if that wasn't the case up to that point.
deliver all discussions on Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era via an animated Pooh Bear with the voice from the movie.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/23/china_xi_jinping_chat...
> Mitch Glazier, the chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, said that Johansson may have a strong case against OpenAI if she brings forth a lawsuit.
> He compared Johansson’s case to one brought by the singer Bette Midler against the Ford Motor Co. in the 1980s. Ford asked Midler to use her voice in ads. After she declined, Ford hired an impersonator. A U.S. appellate court ruled in Midler’s favor, indicating her voice was protected against unauthorized use.
> But Mark Humphrey, a partner and intellectual property lawyer at Mitchell, Silberberg and Knupp, said any potential jury probably would have to assess whether Sky’s voice is identifiable as Johansson.
> Several factors go against OpenAI, he said, namely Altman’s tweet and his outreach to Johansson in September and May. “It just begs the question: It’s like, if you use a different person, there was no intent for it to sound like Scarlett Johansson. Why are you reaching out to her two days before?” he said. “That would have to be explained.”
* A.K.A. "Personality rights": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
Tom Waits is a singer known for his raspy singing voice. Back in the late 1980s, Frito-Lay, Inc., the makes of Doritos, thought it was a great idea to run an ad in which the music had the atmosphere and feel of a Tom Waits song. Except the professional singer they hired for that got the job done a bit too well: the sounds of his voice in the commercial was so close to Tom Waits' work (he had for ten years sang in a band covering Tom Waits songs) that in November 1988, Waits successfully sued Frito-Lay and the advertising company Tracy-Locke Inc., for voice misappropriation under California law and false endorsement under the Lanham Act [1].
Now, when you hear Tom Waits speak in interviews, I find that his voice does not sound nearly as raspy as in his performances. But the point is that it does not matter so much whether OpenAI used the actual voice of Johansson or hired someone to imitate her performance.
Given the fact that Johansson was initially contacted by OpenAI to provide her voice and declined, we can surely assume that the selection of the particular voice actress they ended up using was no coincidence.
[1] http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications...
> Ford Motor created an ad campaign for the Mercury Sable that specifically was meant to inspire nostalgic sentiments through the use of famous songs from the 1970s sung by their original artists. When the original artists refused to accept, impersonators were used to sing the original songs for the commercials. Midler was asked to sing a famous song of hers for the commercial and refused. Subsequently, the company hired a voice-impersonator of Midler and carried on with using the song for the commercial, since it had been approved by the copyright-holder. [1]
If you ask an artist to sing a famous song of hers, she says no, and you get someone else to impersonate her, that gets you in hot water.
If you (perhaps because you are savvy) go to some unknown voice actress, have her record a voice for your chatbot, later go to a famous actress known for one time playing a chatbot in a movie, and are declined, you are in a much better position. The tweet is still a thorn in OA's side, of course, but that's not likely to be determinative IMO (IAAL).
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cwy6wz/vocal_comp...
And here is voice of another actress ( Rashida Jones ):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385414AVZcA
If you click through and listen please reply and answer these questions: which actress do you think is similar to the openAI sky voice? And what does that tell you about likely court result for Johansson? And having reached this conclusion yourself would you now think the other actress Rashida Jones is entitled to compensation based on this similarly test?
I think there's a pretty reasonable answer here in that the similarities to Her are quite obvious, and would be regardless of whose voice it was. If you wanted it to be SJ, reaching out right at the last minute seems rather odd, surely you'd reach out at the start?
There are three timelines that seem to be suggested here
* OAI want the voice to sound like SJ
* They don't ask her, they go and hire someone else specifically to sound like her
* They work on, train and release the voice
* OAI, too late to release a new voice as part of the demo, ask SJ if they can use her voice
This requires multiple people interviewed to be lying
Or
* OAI hire someone for a voice
* They train and release the voice
* People talking to a computer that reacts in this way is reminiscent of Her
* "We should get SJ as an actual voice, that would be huge" * Asks SJ
One third one, probably more middle of the road?
* OAI hire someone for a voice
* They train and release the voice
* People talking to a computer that reacts in this way is reminiscent of Her
* "Is this too similar to SJ? Should we ask them?"
* Asks SJ
> He compared Johansson’s case to one brought by the singer Bette Midler against the Ford Motor Co. in the 1980s. Ford asked Midler to use her voice in ads. After she declined, Ford hired an impersonator. A U.S. appellate court ruled in Midler’s favor, indicating her voice was protected against unauthorized use.
Sure, though worth noting that they hired a Bette Midler impersonator to sing a cover of a Better Midler song (edit - after asking and getting a "no")
To be honest, I'm not really that convinced it sounds like her
people are allowed to sound like other people. But if you go to actor 1 and say we want to use your voice for our product, and then they say no, and then you go to actor 2 and tell them I want you to sound like actor 1 for our product, and then you release a statement hey you know that popular movie by actor 1 that just used their voice in a context extremely reminiscent of our product?!? Well, listen to what we got: (actor 2 voice presented)
Then you may run into legal problems.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
on edit: assuming that reports I am reading that the actress used for the voicework claimed not to have been instructed to sound like Her vocal work it sounds like it is probably not likely that a suit would be successful.
I'm not sure. Precedented personality rights would be a good place to start [1].
I'd argue for a higher standard of evidence for human-produced voices, Middler v. Ford Motor Co. seems good as any [2]. But a lower burden for synthesised voices, given the difficulty in proving intent and mass producibility of them.
> A claim that the voice originates from a certain person? Then you don't need any licensing in this case
Altman basically claimed as much by tweeting about Her in its context. At that point, he is using her fame to market his products without her permission.
"The pitch is kiiiiiind of close, but that's about it. Different cadence, different levels of vocal fry, slightly different accent if you pay close attention. Johansson drops Ts for Ds pretty frequently, Sky pronounces Ts pretty sharply. A linguist could probably break it down better than me and identify the different regions involved."
https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1cx24sy/vocal_...
There is also a faction claiming that Sky's voice is more similar to Rashida Jones's than Scarlett Johansson's:
https://old.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cx9t8b/vocal_comp...
AIs and automated systems, real and fictional, traditionally use women more than men to voice them. Apparently there was some research among all-male bomber crews that this "stood out", the B-58 was issued with some recordings of Joan Elms (https://archive.org/details/b58alertaudio ) and this was widely copied.
(obvious media exception: HAL)
If it sounds nothing like her, and there was no intent to make it sound like her, why would he tweet "The killer app of LLMs is Scarlett Johansson"?
Many people made the comparison right after it was released https://x.com/search?q=scarjo%20until%3A2024-05-14&src=typed... and https://x.com/search?q=johansson%20until%3A2024-05-14&src=ty...
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cwy6wz/vocal_comp...
And here is voice of another actress ( Rashida Jones ):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385414AVZcA
which actress do you think is similar to the openAI sky voice?
Where did you get this? I'm seeing "to officially accuse someone of committing a crime" [1]. Criminality is esssential to the term. (EDIT: Found it. Cambridge Academic Content dictionary. It seems to be a simplified text [2]. I'm surprised they summarised the legal definition that way versus going for the colloquial one.)
You have to go back to the 18th century to find the term used to refer to initiating any legal action [3][4].
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecut...
[2] https://www.cambridge.org/us/cambridgeenglish/catalog/dictio...
[3] https://verejnazaloba.cz/en/more-about-public-prosecution/hi...
I lack the knowledge to make a judgment one way or another about whether this will go anywhere, because I know very little about this area of law, more so in the US. However, this idea that tweeting the title of that specific movie in the context of such a product release couldn't possibly be connected to one of those voices having a similar cadence and sound of a specific actor in that same movie they approched beforehand, couldn't have no legal bearing seems naive. Is it that doubtful that a high-priced legal team couldn't bring a solid case, leading to a severe settlement, or more if she wants to create a precedent?
Clichéd Mafia talk is not a foolproof way to prevent conviction in most jurisdictions.
Her statement says otherwise:
"Last September, I received an offer from Sam Altman, who wanted to hire me to voice the current ChatGPT 4.0 system. He told me that he felt that by my voicing the system, I could bridge the gap between tech companies and creatives and help consumers to feel comfortable with the seismic shift concerning humans and Al. He said he felt that my voice would be comforting to people.
Sure, those are other definitions [1], e.g. to prosecute an argument. Within a legal context, however, it is black and white.
> in the UK where you can bring a literal private prosecution
For crimes. One wouldn't say one is prosecuting a defendant for e.g. libel. (Some states have private prosecution [2].)
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_Sta...
But they asked her first!:
"Last September, I received an offer from Sam Altman, who wanted to hire me to voice the current ChatGPT 4.0 system. He told me that he felt that by my voicing the system, I could bridge the gap between tech companies and creatives and help consumers to feel comfortable with the seismic shift concerning humans and Al. He said he felt that my voice would be comforting to people....
https://twitter.com/BobbyAllyn/status/1792679435701014908
So its: ask Johansson, get declined, ask casting directors for the type of voice actors they are interested in, listened to 400 voices, choose one that sounds like the actor, ask Johansson again, get declined again, publish with a reference to Johansson film, claim the voice has nothing todo with Johansson.
[EDIT] Actually it looks like they selected the Sky actor before they asked Johansson and claim that she would have been the 6th voice, its still hard to believe they didn't intend it to sound like the voice in her though:
https://openai.com/index/how-the-voices-for-chatgpt-were-cho...
[1] https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/the-dif...
Many people here, including you, seem to be under the impression that a person who sounds like a celebrity can, because they are not that celebrity, do whatever they want with their voice regardless of whether or not they seem to be passing off as or profiting from the persona of that celebrity. This is not the case.
When others point this out many people, again including you, then go "so you're saying the fact that someone sounds like a celebrity means they can't do anything with their voice - how absurd!", and that isn't the case either, and nobody is saying it.
This binary view is what I'm calling obtuse. The intent matters, and that is not clear-cut. There are some things here that seem to point to intent on OpenAI's part to replicate Her. There are other things that seem to point away from this. If this comes to a court case, a judge or jury will have to weigh these things up. It's not straightforward, and there are people far more knowledeable in these matters than me saying that she could have a strong case here.
People have now said this an absurd number of times and yet you seem to be insisting on this binary view that completely ignores intent. This is why I am calling it willfully obtuse.
If the above are misrepresentations of your argument then please clarify, but both seemed pretty clear from your posts. If instead you take the view that what matters here is whether there was intent to profit from Scarlett Johannson's public persona then we don't disagree. I have no opinions on whether they had intent or not, but I think it very much looks like they did, and whether they did would be a question for a court (alongside many others, such as whether it really does sound like her) if she were to sue, not that there is any indication she will.
Edit: And I should say IANAL of course, and these legal questions are complex and dependent on jurisdiction. California has both a statutory right and a common law one. Both, I think, require intent, but only the common law one would apply in this case as the statutory one explicity only applies to use of the person's actual voice. (That seems a bit outdated in today's deepfake ridden world, but given the common law right protected Midler from the use of an impersonator perhaps that is considered sufficient.)
https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-...
Here's a video that someone posted in October talking to the same Sky voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SamGnUqaOfU
See my comment from yesterday re him being a known conman: >>40435120
You were conditioned to give that response.
If I ask an AI about the book Walden Two, for example, it can reproduce and/or remix that. Knowing is copying.
[Why Walden Two? BF Skinner. And an excellent book about how the book was lived: https://www.amazon.com/Living-Walden-Two-Behaviorist-Experim... ]
If you listen to the imitation version linked from that Wikipedia article and the original 1958 you'll hear that they didn't only find a singer that sounded like her, but copied the music and cadence from Bette's version.
I think that's way past what whatever OpenAI did in this case. It would be analogous if they were publishing something that only regurgitated lines Scarlett Johansson is famous for having said in her movies.
But they're not doing that, they just found a person who sounds like Scarlett Johansson.
This would only be analogous to the Ford case if the cover artist in that case was forbidden from releasing any music, including original works, because her singing voice could be confused with Bette Midler's.
Now, would they have done this if Scarlett Johansson wasn't famous? No, but we also wouldn't have had a hundred grunge bands with singers playing up their resemblance to Kurt Cobain if Nirvana had never existed.
So wherever this case lands (likely in a boring private settlement) it's clearly in more of a gray area than the Ford case.
I guarantee you that nobody who's ever heard her voice actually thinks that, go on:
https://x.com/chriswiles87/status/1792909936189378653
> Worse, evidence points to Altman wanting you to make that connection. It’s trying to sound like her performance in one specific movie.
There is no such evidence.
Not to over-analyze your use of language, but using the possessive here makes it seem like she personally owned that phrase or its use was associated with her. First, I don't know if that's true. Did she say, "Ooh la la," constantly, or is it just something she said at the beginning of the music video (and possibly studio recording) of the one hit from Deee-Lite, Groove Is In The Heart? Moreover, that phrase is a fairly well-known and widely-used one, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ooh_La_La. It certainly was not original to her nor would its use indicate an association to her. To your point, its use plus the aesthetic of the character does seem like a reference to Lady Miss Kier's appearance in that music video (if not also her style and appearance more generally, I don't know if that is how she always looks). But she didn't sue everyone else on this list for the use of her supposed catch phrase, ooh la la.
I hate to say one person's fame is so great that they get special or different treatment in court, but I think "Lady Miss Kier" was punching above her weight in trying to sue over use of her image. Her fame was a flash-in-the-pan one-hit-wonder in the early 90s, no offense to any Deee-Lite fans. It was certainly a great song (with some help from Herbie Hancock, Bootsy Collins, and Q-Tip).
Personally I think it's dilluted the hackers from other sites (like me). But your theory sounds much stronger. A lot of new sites and ideas are not pay to win, they are buy to belong. Crypto, 3D printers, gaming forums, PC hardware forums, AI. These communities manifest free marketing and updates in products to convince you they're good for you to buy them.
I found HN great for some things but you did click this link too. This is a celebrity gossip thread and you joined. I found John walkers site from here didn't know about it. https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/
'Real hackers' are live on git, maybe twitch. Chill out and listen to what your general peer has to say here and imagine non hackers discussing it. Nobody outside here cares about this drama except Twitter bots. Check out Google trends. https://trends.google.com/trends/trendingsearches/daily?geo=...
Especially when you have ex-OAers, who had been working there at the time on 'J.A.R.V.I.S.', tweeting things like https://x.com/karpathy/status/1790373216537502106 "The killer app of LLMs is Scarlett Johansson."
Completely false. Even the journalists at the launch of "Sky" last year were singling it out of the batch of voices, and specifically asking OA about how it sounded like Johansson: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/25/chatgpt...
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0yL2GezneU
2. https://accent.gmu.edu/browse_language.php?function=find&lan...
https://x.com/search?q=scarjo+until%3A2024-05-14&src=typed_q...
https://x.com/search?q=johansson+until%3A2024-05-14&src=type...
And yet Kaparthy (a co-founder of OpenAI) did mention her by name as "the killer app of LLMs", less than 24 hours from the announcement.
> The killer app of LLMs is Scarlett Johansson.
2. Look at these images and tell me they didn't intend to replicate "Her": https://x.com/michalwols/status/1792709377528647995
e.g.
Vanna White vs Samsung - https://w.wiki/AAUR
Crispin Glover Back to the Future 2 lawsuit - https://w.wiki/AAUT#Back_to_the_Future_Part_II_lawsuit
That the voice is called Sky is actually part of what's suspicious about this to me. They had all the world of female names to choose from for the voice that would recreate "Her" (and there's plenty of evidence that suggests that the movie was used as inspiration), and they chose one that started with the same rare consonant cluster as this actress. The only other names that Wikipedia lists with that consonant cluster are Skyler and Scarlett [0]. If they truly were trying to separate themselves from her rather than subtly cue the likeness, why Sky?
> She isn't that well known, I didn't even know she was in Her.
She's the second-highest-grossing actor (and the highest-grossing actress) of all time [1]. You might not know her (and neither do I), but that says more about you and me than it does about her.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Englis...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_act...
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/scarlett-johansson-tops-l...
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-st...
Partly why I used that citation. It’s one of the few (adult) dictionaries that acknowledges as much.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Webster 3b usage is incorrect—it’s in some dictionaries and was historically unambiguously correct. But it’s non-standard to a high degree, to the extent that Black’s Law Dictionary only contains the criminal variant. (I’ll leave it open whether publicly referring to someone who has only been sued as someone who has been prosecuted, when intended as an attack, qualifies as defamation.)
More to the point of clear communication, I’d put it in a similar category as claiming one’s usage of terrific or silly was intended in its historic sense [1]. (Though I’ll admit my use of “nice” falls in that category.)
All that said, I’m very willing to entertain there being a dialect, probably in America, where the historic use is still common.
[1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/84307/7-words-mean-oppos...
In what way?
That in no way contradicts the fact that the Sky voice was created first, although it does seem to suggest a misunderstanding by Johansson that this was to be an exclusive deal to be "the" voice, leading to the incorrect conclusion that the Sky voice was created after she declined, and must therefore be an impersonation (despite sounding nothing like her/Her, as she herself must know better than anyone). Stretch after stretch after stretch. (Being kind.)
In fact the recordings used for training were made in June/July 2023, which is before Johansson was contact as a possible "also-ran": https://openai.com/index/how-the-voices-for-chatgpt-were-cho...
[0]: Though not necessarily "copyrights"?
[1]: https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-o...
Is my my google-fu failing me and I'm not looking in the right place?
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_Stat...
Not necessarily, when you're hiring them because they like someone else—especially someone else who has said that they don't want to work with you. OpenAI took enough steps to show they wanted someone who sounded like SJ.
> Surely it's OK to hire an English actor who sounds a lot like him, so long as I don't use Sir Patrick's name in the advertising.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. and also Tom Waits vs. Frito-Lay.
> as long as they didn't mention SJ
Or tried to hire SJ repeatedly, even as late as 2 days before the launch.
Be that as it may, but it's clear that OpenAI had early on considered a her-like voice for their product. According to OpenAI, they started with over 400 candidate voices and narrowed them down to [1]. I find it would be quite the amazing if the one that sounded very close to the her voice was chosen purely by coincidence - and then they went:
- Wait a minute, you know what she sounds like? Have you ever seen that movie Her?
- Man, you're right, it does sound quite like that voice. Wasn't that Scarlett Johansson in the movie?
- Yeah, I think so.
- Whoa, whoa, tell you what: why don't we hire Scarlett Johansson directly?
- After we just went through 400 voices to select these five?
- So what? She's a star! Think of the marketing impact! "OpenAI has developed real-life her"
- Cool, dude! But what are the odds that Johansson would do that?
- I guess there's only one way to find out...
> Yeah, man, you're right. Let's do it!
I wonder if that was how it happened...
> It would suck to be blacklisted from your career
That's true. Is that's what's happening?
[1] https://openai.com/index/how-the-voices-for-chatgpt-were-cho...
Those aren't mutually exclusive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. Also, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/05/sky-voice-actor-...:
> The timeline may not matter as much as OpenAI may think, though. In the 1990s, Tom Waits cited Midler's case when he won a $2.6 million lawsuit after Frito-Lay hired a Waits impersonator to perform a song that "echoed the rhyming word play" of a Waits song in a Doritos commercial. Waits won his suit even though Frito-Lay never attempted to hire the singer before casting the soundalike.
----
> The only claim she has is that someone who sounds like her will add value to their product more than if the person didn't sound like her. At which point the question is: how much value?
That may be relevant when damages are calculated, but I don't think that's relevant to the question of if OpenAI can impersonate her or not.
You can, as they say, look it up.
You can hear them here:
Midler version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFVhL0jbutU&t=22s
Car ad https://youtu.be/hxShNrpdVRs
Your opinion may vary, but they don't sound alike to me: >>40435695
These don't have to be related. Maybe they are, but the confidence that they are is silly, since having a big celebrity name as the voice is a desirable thing, great marketing, especially one that did the voice acting for a movie about AI. My mind was completely changed when I actually listened to the voice comparison for myself [1].
[1] >>40435695
Horray! You agree with me that everyone in the situation is completely in the clear because she isn't saying that her voice is that, and she isn't going around repeating movie lines, or dressing up as her.
Also, here is an opinion from some who actually seems to know what they are talking about, and has legal experience:
"After all, you have to balance Scarlett's rights against the rights of someone who happens to have a voice that sounds like Scarlett's"
They straight up said this. So yes, according to someone who actually has legal experience, it is about her rights. Even if someone isn't directly being sued, according to them, who used to be a lawyer, this matters. And you, the not lawyer are not in agreement with an actual expert on the matter.
But whatever. I am more than happy to come back to you and your comments later, when either a lawsuit doesn't happen, or openAI wins. (They haven't even been sued yet!). That way I can have proof that you were wrong on this. I will let you know.
https://www.inta.org/topics/right-of-publicity/#:~:text=In%2....
I was just reading the comments after reading the article to see if anything new came up, and was pretty appalled at the quality of commentary here. I'm not participating in the thread more because it's not worth it.
> But the tiny sliver of disagreement I have with "this is a bad thing to discuss here and we should all feel bad" is that some people who frequent this site are sometimes some of the people involved in making decisions that might lead to threads like this. And it might be nice for those people to have read some comments here that push back on the narrative that it's actually fine to do stuff like this, especially if it's legal (but maybe also if it isn't, sometimes?).
I've been involved in big decisions in other Big Tech companies. I'm proud of having fought to preserve Tor access to our offerings because I believe in Tor despite the spam and attacks it brings. I don't know about other folks in these positions, but if I were to read discussion like this, I'd roll my eyes and close the thread. If a random incoherent drunk ranter told me something was wrong with my ideas, I'd dismiss them without much hesitation.
> The way I see this particular discussion is: outside the tech bubble, regardless of the new facts in this article, people see yet another big name tech leader doing yet another unrelatable and clearly sleazy thing.
Because journalists know there is anti-tech sentiment among a segment of the population and so they stoke it. I don't know that much about this case, but a different story I've been following for a while now is the California Forever creation of a new city adjacent to the Bay Area. Pretty much every article written about it calls the city a "libertarian city" or "libertarian, billionaire dream". I'm involved in local planning conversations. I've read over their proposals and communications. They never, ever, mention anything about libertarianism. They're not proposing anything libertarian. They're working with existing incorporation laws; they're literally acting as a real-estate developer the same as any other suburban tract developer anywhere else in the US. But the press, desperate to get clicks on the story, bills it as some "libertarian city".
This "bubble" that you speak of is literally just a bubble created by journalists. I'm not saying that tech hasn't created some new, big, real problems nor that we shouldn't discuss these problems, but we need to recognize low-effort clickbait where we see it. This [1,2] article and thread talks about the reasons why, and it's not simple or straightforward, but at this point I consider most (not all) tech journalism to basically be tabloid journalism. It's meant specifically to drive clicks.
The only silly thing is some folks on HN think this site is somehow more high-brow than some general social media conversation on the news. It's the same social media as everywhere else, it's just more likely that the person talking is a software nerd, so the clickbait they fall for is different. My comment is my attempt as a community member to remind us to strive for something better. If we want to be more than just another social media site then we need to act like it. That means reading articles and not reacting to headlines, having good-faith conversations and not bringing strong priors into the conversation, and actually responding to the best interpretations of our peers' comments not just dunking on them.
[1]: https://asteriskmag.com/issues/06/debugging-tech-journalism
[2]: >>40201818
> Of course, this explanation only goes so far. We don’t know whether anyone involved in choosing Sky’s voice noted the similarity to Johansson’s, for example. And given how close the two voices sound to most ears, it might have seemed strange for the company to offer both the Sky voice and the Johansson voice, should the latter actor have chosen to participate in the project. [...] And I still don’t understand why Altman reportedly reached out to Johansson just two days before the demonstration to ask her to reconsider.
They absolutely have not earned the benefit of the doubt. Just look at their reaction to the NDA / equity clawback fiasco [2], and their focus on lifelong non-disparagement clauses. There's a lot of smoke there...
[1] https://www.platformer.news/openai-scarlett-johansson-chatgp...
[2] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/351132/openai-vested-equi...
He can set all the goals he wants. Setting a goal is not the same as telling people the company that you are dictator of is going to do something.
He's not setting goals, he is marketing, and he does it very well.
As far as how he's a conman >>40462194 although you already know that full well so you'll continue thinking he's some sort of hero.
https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2024/05/22/do-not-mess-with-sca...
> The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without express consent and approval. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision and ruled in favor of Midler, indicating her voice was protected against unauthorized use.
That's what I've been taking issue to from the beginning of this chain[0]. In all but one comment since then I've explicitly specified "[un|sub]conscious bias".
On that topic, would you agree with me that it is not "obvious" that they would predict a group would take issue in this very particular way such that it would necessitate setting up and documenting auditions to prove they have eliminated such bias, and then additionally determine it worthwhile to actually do so?
