7 ms·

> 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 tha

> 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.
avarun 2y ago
> They clearly thought it was close enough that they asked for permission, twice. You seem to be misunderstanding the situation here. They wanted ScarJo to voice their voice assistant, and she refused twice. They also independently created a voice assistant which sounds very similar to her. That doesn't mean they thought they had to ask permission for the similar voice assistant.
- tomrod 2y ago
  And... No. That is what OpenAI will assert, and good discovery by Scar Jo reps may prove or disprove.
- chromakode 2y ago
  So, what would they have done if she accepted? Claimed that the existing training of the Sky voice was voiced by her?
  - blackoil 2y ago
    Maybe they have second trained on her voice.
  - famouswaffles 2y ago
    Voice cloning could be as simple as a few seconds of audio in the context window since GPT-4o is a speech to speech transformer. They wouldn't need to claim anything, just switch samples. They haven't launched the new voice mode yet, just demos.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    > Claimed that the existing training of the Sky voice was voiced by her? That claim could very well be true. The letter requested information on how the voice was trained - OpenAI may not want that can of worms opened lest other celebrities start paying closer attention to the other voices.
  - consf 2y ago
    [dead]
ants_everywhere 2y ago
Yes, totally ethically bankrupt. But what bewilders me is that they yanked it as soon as they heard from their lawyers. I would have thought that if they made the decision to go ahead despite getting two "no"s, that they at least had a legal position they thought was defensible and worth defending. But it kind of looks like they released it knowing they couldn't defend it in court which must seem pretty bonkers to investors.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > I would have thought that if they made the decision to go ahead despite getting two "no"s, that they at least had a legal position they thought was defensible and worth defending. They likely have a legal position which is defensible. They're much more worried that they don't have a PR position which is defensible. What's the point of winning the (legal) battle if you lose the war (of public opinion)? Given the rest of their product is built on apathy to copyright, they're actively being sued by creators, and the general public is sympathetic to GenAI taking human jobs... ... this isn't a great moment for OpenAI to initiate a long legal battle, against a female movie actress / celebrity, in which they're arguing how her likeness isn't actually controlled by her. Talk about optics! (And I'd expect they quietly care much more about their continued ability to push creative output through their copyright launderer, than get into a battle over likeness)
  - justinclift 2y ago
    > They likely have a legal position which is defensible. Doesn't sound like they have that either.
    - bonton89 2y ago
      Copilot still tells me I've commit a content policy violation of I ask it to generate an image "in Tim Burton's style". Tim Burton has been openly critical of generative AI.
  - XorNot 2y ago
    How is the PR position not defensible? One of the worst things you can generally do is admit fault, particularly if you have a complete defense. Buckle in, go to court, and double-down on the fact that the public's opinion of actors is pretty damn fickle at the best of times - particularly if what you released was in fact based on someone you signed a valid contract with who just sounds similar. Of course, this is all dependent on actually having a complete defense of course - you absolutely would not want to find Scarlett Johannsen voice samples in file folders associated with the Sky model if it went to court.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
Effective altruism would posit that it is worth one voice theft to help speed the rate of life saving ai technology in the hands of everyone.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ehnto 2y ago
  It didn't require voice theft, they could have easily found a volunteer or paid for someone else.
  - consf 2y ago
    [dead]
- ncallaway 2y ago
  Effective Altruists are just shitty utilitarians that never take into account all the myriad ways that unmoderated utilitarianism has horrific failure modes. Their hubris will walk them right into federal prison for fraud if they’re not careful. If Effective Altruists want to speed the adoption of AI with the general public, they’d do well to avoid talking about it, lest the general public make a connection between EA and AI I will say, when EA are talking about where they want to donate their money with the most efficacy, I have no problem with it. When they start talking about the utility of committing crimes or other moral wrongs because the ends justify the means, I tend to start assuming they’re bad at morality and ethics.
  - parineum 2y ago
    This is like attributing the crimes of a few fundamentalists to an entire religion.
    - ncallaway 2y ago
      I don’t think so. I’ve narrowed my comments specifically to Effective Altruists who are making utilitarian trade-offs to justify known moral wrongs. > I will say, when EA are talking about where they want to donate their money with the most efficacy, I have no problem with it. When they start talking about the utility of committing crimes or other moral wrongs because the ends justify the means, I tend to start assuming they’re bad at morality and ethics. Frankly, if you’re going to make an “ends justify the means” moral argument, you need to do a lot of work to address how those arguments have gone horrifically wrong in the past, and why the moral framework you’re using isn’t susceptible to those issues. I haven’t seen much of that from Effective Altruists. I was responding to someone who was specifically saying an EA might argue why it’s acceptable to commit a moral wrong, because the ends justify it. So, again, if someone is using EA to decide how to direct their charitable donations, volunteer their time, or otherwise decide between mora goods, I have no problem with it. That specifically wasn’t context I was responding to.
gibbitz 2y ago
Are we surprised by this bankruptcy. As neat as AI is, it is only a thing because the corporate class see it as a way to reduce margins by replacing people with it. The whole concept is bankrupt.
- ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
  100% this. It’s shocking to me how people cannot see this. The only surprise here is that they didn’t think she’d push back. That is what completes the multilayered cosmic and dramatic irony of this whole vignette. Honestly feels like Shakespeare or Arthur Miller might have written it.
- ncallaway 2y ago
  I don’t think any said anything about being surprised by it?
- emsign 2y ago
  Problem is they really believe we either can't tell the difference between a human and an AI model eventually, or they think we don't care. Don't they understand the meaning of art?
- Nasrudith 2y ago
  That is wrong on several levels. First off, it ignores the role of massive researchers. Should we start de-automating processes to employee more people at the cost of worsening margins?

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.

avarun 2y ago

> They clearly thought it was close enough that they asked for permission, twice. You seem to be misunderstanding the situation here. They wanted ScarJo to voice their voice assistant, and she refused twice. They also independently created a voice assistant which sounds very similar to her. That doesn't mean they thought they had to ask permission for the similar voice assistant.

tomrod 2y ago
And... No. That is what OpenAI will assert, and good discovery by Scar Jo reps may prove or disprove.
chromakode 2y ago
So, what would they have done if she accepted? Claimed that the existing training of the Sky voice was voiced by her?
- blackoil 2y ago
  Maybe they have second trained on her voice.
- famouswaffles 2y ago
  Voice cloning could be as simple as a few seconds of audio in the context window since GPT-4o is a speech to speech transformer. They wouldn't need to claim anything, just switch samples. They haven't launched the new voice mode yet, just demos.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > Claimed that the existing training of the Sky voice was voiced by her? That claim could very well be true. The letter requested information on how the voice was trained - OpenAI may not want that can of worms opened lest other celebrities start paying closer attention to the other voices.
- consf 2y ago
  [dead]

ants_everywhere 2y ago

Yes, totally ethically bankrupt. But what bewilders me is that they yanked it as soon as they heard from their lawyers. I would have thought that if they made the decision to go ahead despite getting two "no"s, that they at least had a legal position they thought was defensible and worth defending. But it kind of looks like they released it knowing they couldn't defend it in court which must seem pretty bonkers to investors.

ethbr1 2y ago
> I would have thought that if they made the decision to go ahead despite getting two "no"s, that they at least had a legal position they thought was defensible and worth defending. They likely have a legal position which is defensible. They're much more worried that they don't have a PR position which is defensible. What's the point of winning the (legal) battle if you lose the war (of public opinion)? Given the rest of their product is built on apathy to copyright, they're actively being sued by creators, and the general public is sympathetic to GenAI taking human jobs... ... this isn't a great moment for OpenAI to initiate a long legal battle, against a female movie actress / celebrity, in which they're arguing how her likeness isn't actually controlled by her. Talk about optics! (And I'd expect they quietly care much more about their continued ability to push creative output through their copyright launderer, than get into a battle over likeness)
- justinclift 2y ago
  > They likely have a legal position which is defensible. Doesn't sound like they have that either.
  - bonton89 2y ago
    Copilot still tells me I've commit a content policy violation of I ask it to generate an image "in Tim Burton's style". Tim Burton has been openly critical of generative AI.
- XorNot 2y ago
  How is the PR position not defensible? One of the worst things you can generally do is admit fault, particularly if you have a complete defense. Buckle in, go to court, and double-down on the fact that the public's opinion of actors is pretty damn fickle at the best of times - particularly if what you released was in fact based on someone you signed a valid contract with who just sounds similar. Of course, this is all dependent on actually having a complete defense of course - you absolutely would not want to find Scarlett Johannsen voice samples in file folders associated with the Sky model if it went to court.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Effective altruism would posit that it is worth one voice theft to help speed the rate of life saving ai technology in the hands of everyone.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ehnto 2y ago
It didn't require voice theft, they could have easily found a volunteer or paid for someone else.
- consf 2y ago
  [dead]
ncallaway 2y ago
Effective Altruists are just shitty utilitarians that never take into account all the myriad ways that unmoderated utilitarianism has horrific failure modes. Their hubris will walk them right into federal prison for fraud if they’re not careful. If Effective Altruists want to speed the adoption of AI with the general public, they’d do well to avoid talking about it, lest the general public make a connection between EA and AI I will say, when EA are talking about where they want to donate their money with the most efficacy, I have no problem with it. When they start talking about the utility of committing crimes or other moral wrongs because the ends justify the means, I tend to start assuming they’re bad at morality and ethics.
- parineum 2y ago
  This is like attributing the crimes of a few fundamentalists to an entire religion.
  - ncallaway 2y ago
    I don’t think so. I’ve narrowed my comments specifically to Effective Altruists who are making utilitarian trade-offs to justify known moral wrongs. > I will say, when EA are talking about where they want to donate their money with the most efficacy, I have no problem with it. When they start talking about the utility of committing crimes or other moral wrongs because the ends justify the means, I tend to start assuming they’re bad at morality and ethics. Frankly, if you’re going to make an “ends justify the means” moral argument, you need to do a lot of work to address how those arguments have gone horrifically wrong in the past, and why the moral framework you’re using isn’t susceptible to those issues. I haven’t seen much of that from Effective Altruists. I was responding to someone who was specifically saying an EA might argue why it’s acceptable to commit a moral wrong, because the ends justify it. So, again, if someone is using EA to decide how to direct their charitable donations, volunteer their time, or otherwise decide between mora goods, I have no problem with it. That specifically wasn’t context I was responding to.

gibbitz 2y ago

Are we surprised by this bankruptcy. As neat as AI is, it is only a thing because the corporate class see it as a way to reduce margins by replacing people with it. The whole concept is bankrupt.

ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
100% this. It’s shocking to me how people cannot see this. The only surprise here is that they didn’t think she’d push back. That is what completes the multilayered cosmic and dramatic irony of this whole vignette. Honestly feels like Shakespeare or Arthur Miller might have written it.
ncallaway 2y ago
I don’t think any said anything about being surprised by it?
emsign 2y ago
Problem is they really believe we either can't tell the difference between a human and an AI model eventually, or they think we don't care. Don't they understand the meaning of art?
Nasrudith 2y ago
That is wrong on several levels. First off, it ignores the role of massive researchers. Should we start de-automating processes to employee more people at the cost of worsening margins?