At first, they denied it—“OpenAI chief technology officer Mira Murati said the company did not pattern any ChatGPT voices on Johansson’s sultry computer voice in the movie,” but Altman and other OpenAI guys had let the cat out the bag on Twitter
They’re not just deliberately using her voice; they’re deliberately lying about it and bragging about what really happened in public. They’ll pay some nuisance settlement that’s a small fraction of their profit.
That’s how they treat an a list actress. Imagine how they treat everyone else. You don’t get a settlement. You just get fucked.
According to her statement, they were still trying to strike a deal with her within days of the release.
I can’t imagine anything more shady than trying to strike a deal with someone for their likeness, all the while preparing to use it anyway and later denying it had anything to do with them
They “let the cat out of the bag” by referencing the movie “Her” if I understand correctly. Not really an admition of guilt like the article makes it seem.
They also clearly state on their website that they used an other voice actor. If you actually compare both voices, they aren’t the same just similar. They probably went with someone that sounds like her on purpose specifically because of the movie but that’s fine really.
This article is emotional and manipulative. I don’t think scar jo deserves to own the whole spectrum her voice belongs to just because she voiced an AI in one movie. This is how you end up with corporations owning all voices like they tried with music.
In Scarlett Johansson‘s statement, she says that OpenAI approached her to voice the Sky voice.
Whether or not OpenAI hired another actress that sounded very similar to her (hah.) and they are weirdly cagey about naming or they just ripped off the audio from her movies and are lying about hiring a voice actress, is not the extent of the issue.
People sounding alike just happens. But that we know they asked to use Johansson’s voice for this. After being rebuffed, they created Sky, which sounds a lot like Sam, and made several references to the Her movie. Sky is even presented with the same ‘personality’ as Sam. They aren’t just ripping off Scarlett Johansson’s voice acting, they’re ripping off the character as a whole, and trying to associate themselves with the movie. That’s shameful and rips off Spike Jonze as well as all the other creatives who created that movie.
And for what? Because tech bros didn’t get what they wanted, so they decided to try to rip off the characters anyway? Because Her is sort of a cultural touchstone, and their product is merely well-positioned, but GPT-4o will be in a crowded market space within 6 months?It’s sort of pathetic - pretending to lean on the relevance of a movie because your product is destined to become irrelevant.
Also - highly ironic to me that Her is (somewhat) about how you can’t own something that doesn’t consent to be owned. And those dumb bitches went and ripped it off when they didn’t get consent. Well, now Sky’s gone to join Sam in some non-corporeal reality.Sorry for the novel. I didn’t sleep well and I get weird when I’m sleep deprived.
No, you don’t understand, these guys are tech bros, they’re special, for reasons.
From the article:
they don’t just think they’re the smartest people in the world, they think that everyone else is stupid.
And that sums up techbros in one sentence.
You see this in action anytime people go “no no you just don’t understand how this works” as a way of sidestepping the overall issue. They try to bury you in the minutiae of it, and what’s “technically” possible without acknowledging that A) what’s possible will increase over time and B) the issue is not technology, it’s the intention of it and the motivations of the people behind it.
It’s like trying to deconstruct the concept of a gun, talking about all its potential mechanical malfunctions, its capacity limits, the fact you have to aim it, and so on, all as a way of trying to downplay the danger of it being pointed directly at you.
Most of AI just seems to be blatant theft and copyright issues.
No, it’s only theft when it’s poor people doing it.
When it’s rich people, it’s fair use of a publicly available resource.
That’s pretty much the whole point.
Making use of other people’s work and likeness in a way that removes any obligations you would normally have to those people.
Just clearly define “copyright violation” for them, and they’ll craft a method that technically eludes your definition.
The precedent in this case already exists in Midler v. Ford Motor Co., in which when Academy Award nominated actress and singer Bette Midler sued Ford after Ford hired musical impersonators to sing famous songs for their commercials.
The court ultimately ruled in favor of Midler, because it was found that Ford gave clear instructions to the impersonating actress to sound as much like Midler as possible, and the ruling was voices, although not copyrightable, still constitutes their distinct identity and is protected against unauthorized use without permission. (Outside of satire, of course, since I doubt someone like Trump would be above suing people for making fun of him.)
I think Scarlett Johansson has a case here, but it really hinges on whether or not OpenAI actively gave the instruction specifically to impersonate Scarlett’s voice in “Her”, or if they used her voice inside the training data at all, since there is a difference in the “Sky” voice and the voice of Scarlett Johansson.
But then again, what do I know, I’m just here to shitpost and promote “Barbie”.
I think Altman’s “Her” post could really bite him in the ass. He’ll have to convince the court (assuming this escalates to that point) that yes he was talking about the movie but no it never his intention to have something mimic SJ’s character…despite attempting to make functionally the very thing from the movie.
Tough needle to thread IMO but IANAL and I don’t have another good acronym up my sleeve to drop here so have a good one!
I think it’s more fun and productive to abolish intellectual property instead
Not before abolishing capitalism or you’re just making things worse.
I think abolishing intellectual property would hurt capitalism more than it would benefit it. Already it is strongly in favor of the rich and the big corporations. Getting rid of those limitations even without abolishing capitalism first, would, I think, be more to everyone’s benefit than detriment.
Disagree, without IP laws whoever has the most money can crush all competition. An example of this is how the first pump hand soap softsoap couldn’t patent the hand pump design because it already existed so they just bought all the existing stock to prevent anyone from releasing a competing product.
If you get rid of IP laws you’ll just further entrench the existing winners.
Write a good book? Without copyright, Penguin random house publishes an exact copy at a higher quality and sells a million copies while you sell a handful to discerning fans.
Build a quality product? Without trademark, proctor and gamble flood the market using your brand name and nobody can distinguish their products from yours even though their quality is much worse.
Invent something revolutionary? Without patents you have to keep your process a secret so you don’t get copied. If you get hit by a bus your invention is now lost to society forever unless someone manages to reverse-engineee it.
