zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. gwern+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-05-23 13:40:42
> and somehow trained another voice within the few weeks after she said no.

Er, that is totally possible? You act like it's not a machine learning system. You train new stuff in hours or days easily, especially if you have good tooling. Imagine saying this of, say, Stable Diffusion image LoRAs: "this X artist LoRA couldn't be based on X because it was somehow trained within the few weeks after X said no!"

All the timing means is that, in good management & startup fashion, because they needed multiple voices, they had a voice pipeline going, and so could have a bunch of female voices in the pipeline for optionality. And if licensing Johansson didn't work out, you have a plan B (and C, and preferably D). This is big business, you don't do things serially or not have backups: "'hope' is not a plan".

replies(1): >>s-lamb+d3
2. s-lamb+d3[view] [source] 2024-05-23 13:57:32
>>gwern+(OP)
They could do it but my point is that people are using the September rejection date as evidence for them copying her voice afterwards because it was 7 months before GPT-4o and they aren't aware that the voice has been in the app for 7 months already.
[go to top]