3 ms·

> 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 voi

by 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]
- avarun 2y ago
  They would create a voice in partnership with her? Not sure why you’re assuming it’s some insanely laborious process. It would obviously have been incredible marketing for them to actually get her on board.
voltaireodactyl 2y ago
You seem to be misunderstanding the legalities at work here: reaching out to her multiple times beforehand, along with tweets intended to underline the similarity to her work on Her, demonstrates intention. If they didn’t think they needed permission, why ask for permission multiple times and then yank it when she noticed? Answer: because they knew they needed permission, after working so hard to associate with Her, and they hoped that in traditional tech fashion that if they moved fast and broke things enough, everyone would have to reshape around OAs wants, rather than around the preexisting rights of the humans involved.
- KHRZ 2y ago
  You could also ask: If Scarlett has a legal case already, why does she want legislation passed?
  - minimaxir 2y ago
    To prevent it from happening again, with more legal authority than a legal precedent.
  - ncallaway 2y ago
    Because a legal case under the current justice system and legislative framework would probably take hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to bring a case that requires discovery and a trial to accomplish. Maybe (maybe!) it’s worth it for someone like Johansson to take on the cost of that to vindicate her rights—but it’s certainly not the case for most people. If your rights can only be defended from massive corporations by bringing lawsuits that cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, then only the wealthy will have those rights. So maybe she wants new legislative frameworks around these kind of issues to allow people to realistically enforce these rights that nominally exist. For an example of updating a legislative framework to allow more easily vindicating existing rights, look up “anti-SLAPP legislation”, which many states have passed to make it easier for a defendant of a meritless lawsuit seeking to chill speech to have the lawsuit dismissed. Anti-SLAPP legislation does almost nothing to change the actual rights that a defendant has to speak, but it makes it much more practical for a defendant to actually excercise those rights. So, the assumption that a call for updated legislation implies that no legal protection currently exists is just a bad assumption that does not apply in this situation.
ncallaway 2y ago
> 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. And promoted it using a tweet naming the movie that Johansson performed in, for the role that prompted them to ask her in the first place. You have to be almost deliberately naive to not see that the were attempting to use her vocal likeness in this situation. There’s a reason they immediately walked it back after the situation was revealed. Neither a judge, nor a jury, would be so willingly naive.
- munksbeer 2y ago
  This is a genuine question. If it turns out they trained Sky on someone else's voice to similarly replicate the style of the voice in "Her", would you be ok with that? If it was proven that the voice was just similar, to SJ's would that be ok? My view is, of course it is ok. SJ doesn't own the right to a particular style of voice.

by avarun 2y ago

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]
avarun 2y ago
They would create a voice in partnership with her? Not sure why you’re assuming it’s some insanely laborious process. It would obviously have been incredible marketing for them to actually get her on board.

voltaireodactyl 2y ago

You seem to be misunderstanding the legalities at work here: reaching out to her multiple times beforehand, along with tweets intended to underline the similarity to her work on Her, demonstrates intention. If they didn’t think they needed permission, why ask for permission multiple times and then yank it when she noticed? Answer: because they knew they needed permission, after working so hard to associate with Her, and they hoped that in traditional tech fashion that if they moved fast and broke things enough, everyone would have to reshape around OAs wants, rather than around the preexisting rights of the humans involved.

KHRZ 2y ago
You could also ask: If Scarlett has a legal case already, why does she want legislation passed?
- minimaxir 2y ago
  To prevent it from happening again, with more legal authority than a legal precedent.
- ncallaway 2y ago
  Because a legal case under the current justice system and legislative framework would probably take hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to bring a case that requires discovery and a trial to accomplish. Maybe (maybe!) it’s worth it for someone like Johansson to take on the cost of that to vindicate her rights—but it’s certainly not the case for most people. If your rights can only be defended from massive corporations by bringing lawsuits that cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, then only the wealthy will have those rights. So maybe she wants new legislative frameworks around these kind of issues to allow people to realistically enforce these rights that nominally exist. For an example of updating a legislative framework to allow more easily vindicating existing rights, look up “anti-SLAPP legislation”, which many states have passed to make it easier for a defendant of a meritless lawsuit seeking to chill speech to have the lawsuit dismissed. Anti-SLAPP legislation does almost nothing to change the actual rights that a defendant has to speak, but it makes it much more practical for a defendant to actually excercise those rights. So, the assumption that a call for updated legislation implies that no legal protection currently exists is just a bad assumption that does not apply in this situation.

ncallaway 2y ago

> 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. And promoted it using a tweet naming the movie that Johansson performed in, for the role that prompted them to ask her in the first place. You have to be almost deliberately naive to not see that the were attempting to use her vocal likeness in this situation. There’s a reason they immediately walked it back after the situation was revealed. Neither a judge, nor a jury, would be so willingly naive.

munksbeer 2y ago
This is a genuine question. If it turns out they trained Sky on someone else's voice to similarly replicate the style of the voice in "Her", would you be ok with that? If it was proven that the voice was just similar, to SJ's would that be ok? My view is, of course it is ok. SJ doesn't own the right to a particular style of voice.