16 ms·

This statement from scarlet really changed my perspective. I use and loved the Sky voice and I did feel it sounded a little like her, but moreover it was the be

• ekam 2y ago
  Same here and that voice really was the only good one. I don't know why they don't bring the voices from their API over, which are all much better, like Nova or Shimmer (https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/text-to-speech https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/text-to-speech)
  • sanxiyn 2y ago
    I think because it is not text-to-speech. It probably isn't simple to transfer.
    • zwily 2y ago
      The previous chatgpt voice mode uses text to speech, and has different voices than the OpenAI API. Seemed weird to me too.
• crimsoneer 2y ago
  But it's clearly not her voice right? The version that's been on the app for a year just isn't. Like, it clearly intending to be slightly reminiscent of her, but it's also very clearly not. Are we seriously saying we can't make voices that are similar to celebrities, when not using their actual voice?
  • gedy 2y ago
    Normally I'd agree if this were some vague "artist style", but this was clearly an attempt to duplicate a living person, a media celebrity no less.
    • __loam 2y ago
      Why do you have an issue with them taking someone's likeness to use in their product but not with them taking someone's work to use in their product?
      • gedy 2y ago
        Because this isn't training an audio model along with a million other voices to understand English, etc. It's clearly meant to sound exactly like that one celebrity. I suspect a video avatar service that looked exactly like her would fall afoul of fair use as well. Though an image gen that used some images of her (and many others) to train and spit out generic "attractive blonde woman" is fair use in my opinion.
        • numpad0 2y ago
          Chances are this is. Basically same as LoRA. One of go-to tools for these literally uses Diffusion model and work on spectrograms as images.
        • __loam 2y ago
          Okay so as long as we steal enough stuff then it's legal.
    • threatofrain 2y ago
      Is this different from the various videos of the Harry Potter actors doing comedic high fashion ads? Because those were very well received. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipuqLy87-3A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipuqLy87-3A
      • BadHumans 2y ago
  • bigfishrunning 2y ago
    It could be trained on Scarlett's voice though, there's plenty of recorded samples for OpenAI to use. It's pretty damning for them to take down the voice right away like that
    • brandall10 2y ago
      Her statement claims the voice was taken down at her attorney's insistence.
  • bobthepanda 2y ago
    this is correct. in fact the fcc has already clarified this for the case of robocalls. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-makes-ai-generated-voices-robocalls-illegal https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-makes-ai-generated-voices-r...
  • emmp 2y ago
    We can seriously say that, yes. The courts have been saying this in the US for over 30 years. See Midler v. Ford Motor Co.
    • Avshalom 2y ago
      Tom Waits won a lawsuit against Doritos too.
  • dragonwriter 2y ago
    If the purpose is to trade on the celebrity voice and perceived association, and its subject to California right of personality law, then, yes, we're saying that that has been established law for decades.
    • Last5Digits 2y ago
      That's not the purpose though, clearly. If anything, you could make the argument that they're trading in on the association to the movie "Her", that's it. Neither Sky nor the new voice model sound particularly like ScarJo, unless you want to imply that her identity rights extend over 40% of all female voice types. People made the association because her voice was used in a movie that features a highly emotive voice assistant reminiscent of GPT-4o, which sama and others joked about. I mean, why not actually compare the voices before forming an opinion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SamGnUqaOfU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SamGnUqaOfU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYi3Wr7v_g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYi3Wr7v_g ----- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF9mrI9yoBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF9mrI9yoBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV01B5kVsC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV01B5kVsC0
      • cowsup 2y ago
        > People made the association because her voice was used in a movie that features a highly emotive voice assistant reminiscent of GPT-4o, which sama and others joked about. Whether you think it sounds like her or not is a matter of opinion, I guess. I can see the resemblance, and I can also see the resemblance to Jennifer Lawrence and others. What Johannson is alleging goes beyond this, though. She is alleging that Altman (or his team) reached out to her (or her team) to lend her voice, she was not interested, and then she was asked again just two days before GPT-4o's announcement, and she rejected again. Now there's a voice that, in her opinion, sounds a lot like her. Luckily, the legal system is far more nuanced than just listening to a few voices and comparing it mentally to other voices individuals have heard over the years. They'll be able to figure out, as part of discovery, what lead to the Sky voice sounding the way it does (intentionally using Johannson's likeness? coincidence? directly trained off her interviews/movies?), whether OpenAI were willing to slap Johannson's name onto the existing Sky during the presentation, whether the "her" tweet and the combination of the Sky voice was supposed to draw the subtle connection... This allegation is just the beginning.
  • ncallaway 2y ago
    > Are we seriously saying we can't make voices that are similar to celebrities, when not using their actual voice? They clearly thought it was close enough that they asked for permission, twice. And got two no’s. Going forward with it at that point was super fucked up. It’s very bad to not ask permission when you should. It’s far worse to ask for permission and then ignore the response. Totally ethically bankrupt.
    • nicce 2y ago
      And they could have totally get away with it by never mentioning the name of Scarlett. But of course, that is not what they wanted. Edit: to clarify, since it is not exactly identical voice, or even not that close, they can plausibly deny it, and we never new what their intention was. But in this case, they have clearly created the voice to represent Scarlett's voice to demonstrate the capabilities of their product in order to get marketing power.
      • visarga 2y ago
        > since it is not exactly identical voice, or even not that close, they can plausibly deny it When studios approach an actress A and she refuses, then another actress B takes the role, is that infringing on A's rights? Or should they just scrap the movie? Maybe if they replicated a scene from the A's movies or there was striking likeness between the voices... but not generally.
        • nicce 2y ago
          > When studios approach an actress A and she refuses, then another actress B takes the role, is that infringing on A's rights? Or should they just scrap the movie? The scenario would have been that they approach none.
          • r2_pilot 2y ago
            Your scenario leads to the disenfranchisement of lesser-known voice talent, since they cannot take on work that Top Talent has rejected if they happen to resemble(nobody here has seen their doppelganger before? How unique is a person? 1 in 5 million? Then there are 36 million of that type in just the United States alone). Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate some of the rules in society. It's a healthy thing to do periodically.
  • EasyMark 2y ago
    Sure they could have taken her to court but right now they don't want the bad publicity, especially since it would put everything else in the shadow of such a scandalous "story". Better to just back off, let S.J. win and move on and start planning on they're gonna spend all that paper money they got with announcement of a new, more advanced model. It's a financial decision and a fairly predictable one. I'm glad she won this time.
    • __loam 2y ago
      Paper money from the model they're giving away for free?
      • EasyMark 2y ago
        I mean if you don't think these kinds of positive announcements don't increase the value of the company or parent company then I don't really know how to convince you as it's a standard business principle.
        • ml-anon 2y ago
          There isn’t a positive announcement here, what is wrong with you? This reads like “we got caught red handed” and doing the bare minimum for it to not appear malicious and deliberate when the timeline is read out in court.
          • EasyMark 2y ago
            They announced a whole new model, that's a positive announcement.
        • __loam 2y ago
          I believe there's a difference between building a sustainable and profitable business and pumping the stock.
    • smugma 2y ago
      She also won big against Disney. They backed down even though it appeared the contract was on their side. Iger apologized. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58757748.amp https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58757748.amp
  • callalex 2y ago
    I think we should all be held to the standard of “Weird” Al Yankovic. In personal matters consent is important.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • visarga 2y ago
    > Are we seriously saying we can't make voices that are similar to celebrities, when not using their actual voice? I think the copyright industry wants to grab new powers to counter the infinite capacity of AI to create variations. But that move would knee cap the creative industry first, newcomers have no place in a fully copyrighted space. It reminds me of how NIMBY blocks construction to keep up the prices. Will all copyright space become operated on NIMBY logic?
• kapildev 2y ago
  I can still access the sky voice even though it is supposed to be "yanked".
  • thorum 2y ago
    There’s still a Sky option but the actual voice has been changed.
• andrewinardeer 2y ago
  I thought it sounded like Jodie Foster.
  • ncr100 2y ago
    Scar Jo thought it sounded like herself, and so did people who knew her personally. That is what matters. OWNERSHIP over her contributions to the world.
    • mcphage 2y ago
      Clearly Sam Altman though it sounded like ScarJo as well :-(
    • smt88 2y ago
      I mostly agree with you, but I actually don't think it matters if it sounded exactly like her or not. The crime is in the training: did they use her voice or not? If someone licenses an impersonator's voice and it gets very close to the real thing, that feels like an impossible situation for a court to settle and it should probably just be legal (if repugnant).
      • toomuchtodo 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
      • sangnoir 2y ago
        > The crime is in the training: did they use her voice or not? This is a civil issue, and actors get broad rights to their likeliness. Kim Kardashian sued Old Navy for using a look-alike actress in an ad; old Navy chose to settle, which makes it appear like "the real actress wasn't involved in any way" may not be a perfect defense. The timeline makes it clear they wanted it to sound like Scarlett's voice, the actual mechanics on how they got the AI to sound like that is only part of the story.
      • randoglando 2y ago
• KennyBlanken 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • ncr100 2y ago
    > has a history of not treating people fairly and ethically Grandpa used to say, fallacy often exhibited by powerful people is when they transitively believe their wealth also signifies that the rules don't apply to them.
    • selcuka 2y ago
      Your grandpa is/was wise: > The experience of power has been related to several positive consequences but also to negative aspects, such as illusory thinking. The present research supports the notion that power is associated with overconfidence. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38625848/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38625848/
  • brosciencecode 2y ago
    Sam is very clearly in the wrong here, but is your argument for why he sucks seriously that he said “we should not brand people as heretics for disagreeing with my point of view?”
    • ethbr1 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • Barrin92 2y ago
      we should not brand people who make qualified and substantive points as heretics, but his framing is wrong and a common abuse of the notion of the 'marketplace of ideas'. Inherent to the functioning of debate is that debates are settled, just like exchanges in a market. That's their only function. Constant debate of an ever-increasing number of talking points, by definition, renders any notion of progress impossible. So when Sam draws on Galileo as a figure, the conclusion is not, we need to listen to him because he's a human being but, we needed to listen to him because he made a substantiated point. The reverse is obviously silly, nobody in physics argues that we need to debate geocentrism in the year 2024 to advance modern physics. Likewise not debating someone who just makes random homophobic remarks doesn't impede the progress of the sciences, it doesn't even impede the progress in ethics. Even the reverse is true, horrible regimes with no free exchange whatsoever still produced a lot of novel physics.
• wkat4242 2y ago
  > maybe not even a hiring of an impressionist If they really hired someone who sounds just like her it's fair game IMO. Johanssen can't own the right to a similar voice just like many people can have the same name. I think if there really was another actress and she just happens to sound like her, then it's really ok. And no I'm not a fan of Altman (especially his worldcoin which I view as a privacy disaster) I mean, imagine if I happened to have a similar voice to a famous actor, would that mean that I couldn't work as a voice actor without getting their OK just because they happen to be more famous? That would be ridiculous. Pretending to be them would be wrong, yes. If they hired someone to change their voice to match hers, that'd be bad. Yeah. If they actually just AI-cloned her voice that's totally not OK. Also any references to the movies. Bad.
  • confused_boner 2y ago
    Discovery process will be interesting
  • 101008 2y ago
    But clearly they are advertising as her (no pun intended), which is a gray area.
    • wkat4242 2y ago
      Yeah that was the bad part. Agreed there. I wonder if they deliberately steered towards this for more marketing buzz?
• sneak 2y ago
  Why are you mad? We have no rights to the sound of our voice. There is nothing wrong with someone or something else making sounds that sound like us, even if we don’t want it to happen. No one is harmed.
  • mkehrt 2y ago
    Are you sure? You certainly have rights to your likeness--it can't be used commercially without permission. Di you know this doesn't cover your voice?
  • elicash 2y ago
    The law can actually be interesting and nuanced on this: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/waits.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications...
    • ethbr1 2y ago
      I think it's a different argument with respect to famous media celebrities* too. If someone clones a random person's voice for commercial purposes, the public likely has no idea who the voice's identity is. Consequently, it's just the acoustic voice. If someone clones a famous media celebrity's voice, the public has a much greater chance of recognizing the voice and associating it with a specific person. Which then opens a different question of 'Is the commercial use of the voice appropriating the real person's fame for their own gain?' Add in the facts that media celebrities' values are partially defined by how people see them, and that they are often paid for their endorsements, and it's a much clearer case that (a) the use potentially influenced the value of their public image & (b) the use was theft, because it was taking something which otherwise would have had value. Neither consideration exists with 'random person's voice' (with deference to voice actors). * Defined as 'someone for whom there is an expectation that the general public would recognize their voice or image'
• thatoneguy 2y ago
  At least in past court cases I’m familiar, you can’t use an impersonator and get people to think it’s the real thing. It’s not like Tom Waits ever wanted to hock chips https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-st...
  • chii 2y ago
    > get people to think it’s the real thing. but did openAI make any claims about whose voice this is? Just because a voice sounds similar or familiar, doesn't mean it's fraudulent.
    • tedivm 2y ago
      Just read the top post of the thread you're responding to- > - Not receiving a response, OpenAI demos the product anyway, with Sam tweeting “her” in reference to Scarlett’s film.
      • dzhiurgis 2y ago
        To me reference sounds more to towards omni than her voice
        • nickthegreek 2y ago
          That’s not a gamble they are willing to take to court of law or public opinion.
        • altairprime 2y ago
          What’s “omni”?
          • nickthegreek 2y ago
            GTP-4o is the new model, the o stands for Omni.
  • 2y ago
• windexh8er 2y ago
  The thing about the situation is that Altman is willing to lie and steal a celebrity's voice for use in ChatGPT. What he did, the timeline, everything - is sleazy if, in fact, that's the story. The really concerning part here is that Altman is, and wants to be, a large part of AI regulation [0]. Quite the public contradiction. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-openai-artificial-intelligence-regulation-international-agency-2024-5?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-openai-artificial...
  • dvhh 2y ago
    Some people might see some parallel with SBF and see how Altman would try to regulate competition without impeding OpenAI progress
    • viking123 2y ago
      I always mix up those two in my head and have to think which one is which
      • ocodo 2y ago
        One is in jail, when it should be two are in jail
        • garbthetill 2y ago
          I dont like sam, but he moves way smarter than ppl like sbf or Elizabeth holmes. He actual has a product close to the reported specs, albeit still far away from the ultimate goal of AGI i dont see why he should be in jail
          • choppaface 2y ago
            Should be in jail for Worldcoin which has pilfered people of their biological identity. I guess you could literally delete Worldcoin and in theory make people whole, but that company treats humans like vegetables that have no rights.
• barbariangrunge 2y ago
  Everyone is so mad about them stealing a beloved celebrity’s voice. What about the millions of authors and other creators whose copyrighted works they stole to create works that resemble and replace those people? Not famous enough to generate the same outrage?
  • surfingdino 2y ago
    Welcome to the world where the "fuck the creatives" brigade wants everything for free.
    • consf 2y ago
      [dead]
  • creato 2y ago
    I think the unique thing about this case is not specifically the "voice theft", but that OpenAI specifically asked for permission and were denied, which eliminates most of the usual plausible deniability that gets trotted out in these cases.
    • Lia_the_nun 2y ago
      Is it really better to take something without asking than to ask and then take it anyway if denied? In my mind these are close to being equally shitty, but not asking is a shittier because the victim won't necessarily know they've been exploited, which limits the actions they will be able to take to rectify matters.
  • QuantumGood 2y ago
    Lots of posts about that. This is new ("news") and celebrity, so it's getting traction at the moment.
• al_borland 2y ago
  I had to go look at what voice I picked once I heard the news, it was Sky. I listened to them all and thought it sounded the best. I didn’t make any connection to her (Scar Jo or the movie) when going through the voices, but I wasn’t listening for either. I don’t think I know her voice well enough to pick it out of a group like that. Maybe I liked it best because it felt familiar, even if I didn’t know why. I’m a bit disappointed now that she didn’t sign on officially, but my guess is that Altman just burned his bridge to half of Hollywood if he is looking for a plan B.
• belter 2y ago
  https://x.com/jam3scampbell/status/1791338109709287511 https://x.com/jam3scampbell/status/1791338109709287511