I understand that it could be problematic if OpenAI did one of two things:
- imitated Scarlett Johansson's voice to impersonate her
- misled people into believing that GPT-4o is an official by-product of the film Her, like calling it “the official Her AI”
The first point is still unclear, and that's precisely the point of the article
For the second point, the tweets you posted clearly show that the AI from Her served as an inspiration for creating the GPT-4o model, but not a trademark infringement
Will Matt Damon receive royalties if a guy is ever stuck on Mars ?
Isn't that a suggestion that what they're doing is similar to "the Her AI"?
Would that be ethical?
EDIT: or even better, imagine how OpenAI would react if some company trained their own model by distilling from GPT4 outputs and then launched a product with it called “ChatGPC”. (They already go after products that have GPT in their name)
The thing is, there are several cases where a jury found this exact thing to warrant damages.
But honestly, that is irrelevant. The situation here is that OpenAI is facing a TON of criticism for running roughshod over intellectual property rights. They are claiming that we should trust them, they are trying to do the right thing.
But in this case, they're dancing on the edge of right and wrong.
I don't mind when a sleazy company makes "MacDougals" to sell hamburgers. But it's not something to be proud of. And it's definitely not a company that I'd trust.
It's a movie, not a patent on women voice AI assistants
The article shows the timeline would make this them already licensing a similar product to your more famous one, then you saying no, and them continuing to use the existing similar one.
> But while many hear an eerie resemblance between “Sky” and Johansson’s “Her” character, an actress was hired to create the Sky voice months before Altman contacted Johansson, according to documents, recordings, casting directors and the actress’s agent.