12 ms·

The OpenAI board was right

340 points by isaacfrond 2y ago

CatWChainsaw 2y ago
When it comes to the tech industry, assume malice unless proven otherwise - open source code, maximum transparency, proven history of ethical conduct. We're way past the point where anyone who achieves any level of fame in tech deserves the benefit of the doubt. They've optimized for maximum abuse of public trust.
sanxiyn 2y ago
Sam Altman is a grifter. We all should boycott Sam Altman. Repeat after me: Sam Altman is powerless if we all ignore him. Sam Altman is nothing without his people. He can't do anything himself. https://x.com/OpenAI/status/1727236805182026159 https://x.com/OpenAI/status/1727236805182026159
kunley 2y ago
Altman playing a wannabe god, geez...
- moffkalast 2y ago
  Always has been.
ChildOfChaos 2y ago
This article is terrible. There is a lot of nonsense and drama about all of this, but the voice is clearly not Scarlet, even though they were clearly trying to get someone to sound like her. So much drama over nothing.
- isaacfrond 2y ago
  On this one, it is OpenAI who are terrible and acting like spoiled kids. They approached Ms. Johansson, she said no, and they went ahead and did it anyways.
  - ChildOfChaos 2y ago
    No they didn't though. They hired a voice actor who had a similar voice profile to her, a similar voice to what they were looking for. If you just hear the voice they used, it sounds very similar, but if you actually play them side by side, you can hear they are very clearly different. How is that different from anything else? You ask someone to do something you want them to do, they say no, so you then go and find someone else that will do what you need which is what they did.
- DonHopkins 2y ago
  That's just your opinion that it's clearly not Scarlet, but you don't know her, and she and her family and friends who do think it is, and the fact that you say "even though they were clearly trying to get someone to sound like her" is kind of the whole point: even YOU admit they were "CLEARLY TRYING" to steal her voice after being told TWO TIMES not to. Trying to steal something and not quite stealing 100% of it perfectly is STILL THEFT. You're the one being dramatic trying to defend what even you admit is outright theft. And Sam Altman's lower case single word tweet "her" clinches it. Clearly he was not just announcing his new pronoun.
  - ChildOfChaos 2y ago
    Wow. Having something similar to someone else does not equal theft. What is wrong with people? Why are they acting so weird about this. What about the voice actor that did this? Is her voice 'theft'?
    - DonHopkins 2y ago
      Then explain Sam Atlman's tweet, "her": https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666?lang=en https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666?lang=en And you already admitted "they were clearly trying to get someone to sound like her". You pre-lost your own argument yourself, before I even replied, with your own words. Why are you acting so weird about this, like there's something wrong with you, and then trying to project it onto other people? Trying to emulate Trump's debating techniques and psychological disorders doesn't work any more, nor look very good on you.
      - ChildOfChaos 2y ago
        I don't need to explain anything. Why should I explain a tweet? The tweet is the tweet, they used it for marketing. It doesn't' change anything, they can make it seem similar to her if they want by hiring a voice actor with similar characteristics, the voice actor is paid for there work and they get something that is great marketing. There is no theft here. This is a completely normal situation, your massive overreaction is not normal. If they stole her voice outright, there is a problem, but it is extremely unlikely they did. So then there is no issue. It's common sense, i'm not sure what's wrong with you that you are trying to bring politics into it.
_3u10 2y ago
That’s how it works in Hollywood: The voice, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this AI are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
- drpossum 2y ago
  Glad you brought this up because that is, in fact, not how it works at all! With legal precedence even! It turns out you can't just say some magic words to make your legal problems go away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclaimer#Effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclai...
schmidt_fifty 2y ago
[dead]
SilverBirch 2y ago
It really is incredible how something as small and simple as this gives such incredible bad vibes. This is like early 2010s facebook vibes. It's just... if they're going to steal her voice, what would they do to yours? But it also points to a wider problem in OpenAI's existence. They're built on theft. If you wrote something on the internet in the last 20 years, they've stolen it. They've stolen it, they're put it into their little magic box and now they want to sell it back to you. OpenAI is amazing technology, and once the equity of the company is redistributed back to the content owners who actually provided the value, it'll be great to see what they can do from there.
- actuallyrizzn 2y ago
  It isn't theft. Nothing was removed from anyone to train the model. If I do a Christopher Walken impression, what have I taken away from the actor? Nothing. I stg it's so silly the contortions you anti-ai ppl go thru.
- xiwenc 2y ago
  Exactly. And the name “Open” in OpenAI implies it is open. Open to the world. Open to humanity. Nothing of that came to be. It should have remained non-profit; be good for humanity (yes i know this is up for interpretation).
  - sanxiyn 2y ago
    I think the board should fire Sam Altman again. If the board does not fire Sam Altman it is not doing its duty, so someone should sue the board, or convince attorney general to sue. Attorney general of Delaware is Kathy Jennings <attorney.general@delaware.gov>. Mail your argument now. Do your civic duty.
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 2y ago
      While I agree, somehow I doubt it'll happen. The board is probably stacked with people loyal to Sam now. And even if it isn't, they all witnessed the pending mass exodus to Microsoft before he was reinstated. They'll be reluctant to risk something like that happening.
Falkvinge 2y ago
It is reasonably common in the voicing part of the acting industry, when a famous name turns you down, that you instead turn to a voice imitator to give a performance that's reminiscent of a number of factors (kind of sounding like this other person, for example). This way, legally you're in the clear, because you didn't use the voice of X. Not on any occasion did you use the voice of X. You even paid a voicer to make your recordings, and it's their voice. Morally, it can be - and probably is - a different matter.
- twobitshifter 2y ago
  Why do people think they need an actor? You can recreate a voice from just a few seconds of audio today. Do that and then mix in some fair use modifiers to CYA.
- wokwokwok 2y ago
  I think, as with most things, it’s slightly more legally ambiguous if the person you’re copying/whatever is rich enough to have good lawyers and a strong media presence. You can argue about these morality of that, but I think it’s reasonably true, practically. Thus, it got taken down.
  - gizajob 2y ago
    Especially given the very clear cut case here of the AI company deliberately cloning the voice of the most recognisable and human-like AI voice from fiction. And also tweeting that they’d done exactly that. And then lying that it was a coincidence. It wouldn’t stand up in court which is why they got rid of it – I’m sure that if Sam Altman and his counsel believed that they could beat ScarJo in court then we’d still be listening to “Sky”.
    - kolinko 2y ago
      They didn’t clone her voice
    - throwawaymaths 2y ago
      > the most recognisable and human-like AI voice from fiction No, that would be either cortana or Majel Barrett Roddenberry.
AJRF 2y ago
Am I right in saying that this voice has existed in the app for the voice feature for ~6 months now? I remember hearing it and thinking "Sounds like Scarlett Johansson"
Havoc 2y ago
Unless she can prove that it’s directly derived somehow I don't see much of a case here. Questionable ethically perhaps but OpenAI doesn’t seem to care about that
- drpossum 2y ago
  This was posted up-thread, but there is a clear legal argument known as "passing off" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off. It turns out your "intuition" isn't actually a basis for a legal system nor a way to position yourself as a legal scholar.
  - Havoc 2y ago
    Where have they passed this off as her?
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
breck 2y ago
[flagged]
- was_a_dev 2y ago
  As a physicist- ChatGPT is no Einstein lmao
  - xanderlewis 2y ago
    As a humble mathematics student — ChatGPT makes me look clever.
- camillomiller 2y ago
  [flagged]
- sanxiyn 2y ago
  And all safety people are leaving, due to Sam Altman? And Sam Altman forced them to sign non-disparagement? And Sam Altman is lying about not clawing back equity, even if we know Daniel Kokotajlo gave up equity and has not made whole yet? This is not okay. We should not move on.
  - breck 2y ago
    I am all for keeping the heat on OpenAI for still calling themselves "OpenAI", when they are really closed/secretAI. I think they have a true position on secrets that they do not reveal, and that's a serious issue deserving of serious questioning--but is also a broader societal issue (corporations have legal protection on secrets. should they? I think we need to revisit that) I think a lot of other things like this one are nits.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- askl 2y ago
  A teacher that appears to be smart as Einstein. Unless you know about the topic.
camillomiller 2y ago
Sam Altman’s personality is another proof of the theory that startup/Silicon Valley hyperinnovation culture has a massive problem of incentivizing manipulative narcissists to rise to the top. The entire culture clearly has a set of filters in place that favor individuals with extreme manipulative god-complex-style traits, who are convinced their mission is so supreme and important that any other rule shouldn’t apply to them. The fact that the future of AI is in the hands of one of these individuals is an utter disaster.
- cromka 2y ago
  I couldn't but instantly thought of WeWork.
padjo 2y ago
For me this speaks to the arrogance and disconnect from reality that some people in tech operate under. It seems they never considered it possible that someone would say no to them and would protect their IP against them, because who wouldn’t want to be part of their glorious mission, right?
- mschuster91 2y ago
  In the end, it's business, it's purely about money. When you got untold billions in the bank account, or have someone backing you who has the billions, you can do whatever you want as long as it's not a violation of criminal codes. Hope that no one discovers what you did, and in the case they do and have the financial resources to fight back, drag the case along for as long as you can, and eventually settle for pennies. As long as you don't commit crimes, this strategy will always work out. Hell even if you do commit crimes, as long as you have willing "fixers", you got to piss off a lot of powerful people to face justice. Just look at the 45th - that guy has a history of decades of stiffing contractors, lenders and employees (including those who actually went behind bars for him), but it took a pretty flimsy constructed case to finally charge him with a crime and I'm not certain that the case is clear enough for a conviction.
- edflsafoiewq 2y ago
  Tech has a consent problem, no doubt. The popup which won't let you decline but instead asks you again and again forever is just the lowest manifestation of a deeper issue.
  - maeln 2y ago
    Eh, it's not just Tech, most company has a consent issue, and you could easily argue that capitalism as a consent issue (not saying that alternative also don't have one). Rarely do businesses have any incentive to care about consent. In many case they actually have a vested interest in not caring about your consent, as it can remove one big barrier to profit. It is easier to illustrate these days with all the IA company harvesting data with 0 consent, it is true, but you find the same behavior in most industry. Consent is seen as a customer service issue, something extra, not something that is due.
Y_Y 2y ago
sama is a chancer, no doubt, but I take issue with this article's angle. Clearly they wanted something reminiscend of the film "Her". Since Scarlett Johansson didn't want to do they voice they hired someone else. The voice they used is that of their voice actor, not Scarlett Johansson. She owns her own voice, but I don't think she has any rights to voices that merely sound like hers, when they're not being used to fraudently imply that she's involved. So movies are really influential on culture, and I think there should be broad scope for "taking inspiration" as long as it stops short of plagiarism. Think how many works you've seen that are obviously heavily inspired by e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey. I don't think the vibe of "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that" as belonging to the voice actor Douglas Rain, or Kubrick or Clark. And that's what a good thing! Producing cultural works must feed the production of future works and I'd like to permit all but the most blantant ripoffs.
- camillomiller 2y ago
  Why isn’t anyone stopping for a minute to think what happens in that darn movie? Why is it even ok to want your AI to sound like the AI from her? Why are the people leading AI and tech today so shallow when it comes to cultural depictions of their role? Unless they would actually like to be the villain.
  - gizajob 2y ago
    Because they’re not as creative as they think they are.
  - tidenly 2y ago
    I've seen this take quite a lot around Twitter recently, which is confusing to me. Do you read Her as a "AI assistants are bad" story? I thought it was a much more subtle exploration of what our world would be like if such things existed, rather than outright condemning it, but it seems like lots of people saw only horror start to finish.
    - CipherThrowaway 2y ago
      "AI assistants are bad" isn't the take. The thing making people feel icky/uncomfortable about Her - and about the 4o demos - is not the idea of Samantha but the idea of Theodore. It's about nerds' idealized AI versions of womanhood. Tirelessly flirty, giggly servants who they can interrupt and talk over as they please, that come without the inconvenient features of personhood.
tomthe 2y ago
I would love to play some board games with Sam Altman. He is smart, strategic and very persuasive (I heard). He would excel especially at games like Risk or Mafia, where you have to persuade your opponents to collaborate with you. But after a few rounds, no one would help him anymore and he would loose all the games.
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
  He seems to be winning all the games in real life
  - tomthe 2y ago
    Not all (look up how he got fired from ycombinator). But as long as there are enough new people who want to play with him, he might do fine (and there are a lot of willing VCs). Once the word starts to spread about him, through stories like this, he might experience some backslash.
    - 93po 2y ago
      Sam wasn't fired for doing a bad job at YC, he was fired because the compensation structure wasn't something he was happy with, which is why he was also "double dipping" with his own funds into startups - something that was common at the time across the whole org. Jessica Livingston even went on to put money into his next project (OpenAI) which is also counter to the characterization in your perspective. He has tons of friends in high places that continue to put a lot of their money into Sam's coffers, because Sam is really good at making money for himself and others
      - tomthe 2y ago
        Sorry, you are right and I stand corrected. I must have misremembered this. Here is a tweet from PG correcting this: https://x.com/paulg/status/1796107666265108940 https://x.com/paulg/status/1796107666265108940 via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40521657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40521657 I originally got this sentiment partly from this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38378216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38378216
cryptozeus 2y ago
I think the lies are catching up...feeling less conf. about Sam now..his statement to CNBC in response https://twitter.com/haydenfield/status/1792748249272795348 https://twitter.com/haydenfield/status/1792748249272795348
largbae 2y ago
The first order problem is how do we compensate those whose performances and art were unique and recognizable before computers could imitate them. However we solve for that will tell us if and how we can motivate people to make all the tradeoffs needed to stand out and bring new unique art into the world. I am hoping we land somewhere in between the extremes of "no copyright use" and "what's a copyright" and create a royalty system that can trace your content's influence on the weights used at inference and cut you in according to your contribution.
onhacker 2y ago
Extremely concerning. Think she is a prominent actress that's why this news is all over the internet but every individual has the right to their voice and face shouldn't be cloned, for them it's not concerning on internet but definitely in their family, relatives and society
IMTDb 2y ago
Does that mean that the voice actress that was hired to sample "sky" has to stop working since her voice is "too similar to another famous person" ? So Scarlett Johansson owns her voice, and every single one that is "too similar to hers" (by what metric) and gets to dictate what can and cannot be done. It's a slippery slope.
- jamil7 2y ago
  No, there is wider a context and nuance to the whole topic, as there always is. Jumping to hyperbolic "slippery slope" arguments doesn't add anything interesting to this discussion and instead tries to deflect it.
- gorbypark 2y ago
  Do we know that these voices are backed by real people? I kind of assumed that given AI tech in voice cloning, they could make a voice sound like anyone they want and don't need to go out and find someone that sounds like "the target" voice. I think it's more fair game if they actually found another human that could sound like someone famous, but if they just ran the audio of some of her movies through some AI and out popped a voice, that's a little bit less clear.
  - SiempreViernes 2y ago
    It's probably fair game if they got a similar voice by coincidence, but here they intentionally want to copy someone's voice as performed in a well known IP for pure business profit.
- h4kor 2y ago
  No. There is an interview/documentary about South Park where they talk about celebrity appearances in the show. They said that they never request celebrities to play themselves in the show. If the person declines the offer, they can get into legal trouble for imitating them. If they don't ask it is fine. The problem here is that they wanted Scarlett Johansson and imitated her when she said no. There is also a big market for "celebrity sound alikes" in voice acting.
kamaal 2y ago
Lets say this goes to the court. I wonder how would they prove if a 'voice' belongs to a person. This is such a grey area, how does some one own a 'voice'. Also similar doesn't mean same. Plus this opens the door for all kinds of things. Say tomorrow some one makes a AI that sings. And they make any lyrics, and make a AI sing it, say in a voice that's very close to their favorite singer. Would that qualify as illegal? Would be interesting to see how that legal side of things in this regards unfolds.
- kolinko 2y ago
  That is quite easy - you show the training data and provide the details of a person whose voice it was. With purely synthetic voices, it’s gray area just like with most of the other genai.
  - kamaal 2y ago
    How is this any different than text, photographs or anything for that matter. By this definition all AI is illegal. Besides, how does one prove a recording is of a particular person's voice? The AI might be generating voice similar to that of Scarlett Johnson, but its still not her voice. Similar != Same.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
KoolKat23 2y ago
If it was an exact copy fine, but it's not. This is ridiculous. Imagine Margot Robbie sued a film producer for using Jamie Presley when she turns down a role or Michael Cera for Jessie Eisenberg.
- consp 2y ago
  > If it was an exact copy fine, but it's not. This is not the point, as stated by Ms Johansson's statement, her own friends could not tell the difference which is the point. If a reasonable person cannot tell the difference, there is none. In combination with seeking a prior agreement to use her voice this sounds quite dubious at best, malicious at worst.
  - notalike23 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - KoolKat23 2y ago
    Of course she's going to say that, either that or her own friends don't know her very well. There's a nice comparison here. https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1cx1np4/voice_comparison_between_gpt4o_and_scarlett/ https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1cx1np4/voice_... I bet OpenAI took it down for the free PR, when life hands you lemons...
  - unraveller 2y ago
    Suddenly all the media companies and social media pundits have forgotten how to upload audio media samples alongside accusations in text, they might not want to reach reasonable people. The outrage is proof enough. ChatGPT using Sky voice (not 4o - original sept. release): https://youtu.be/JmxjluHaePw?t=129 https://youtu.be/JmxjluHaePw?t=129 Samantha from "Her" (voiced by ScarJo): https://youtu.be/GV01B5kVsC0?t=134 https://youtu.be/GV01B5kVsC0?t=134 Rashida Jones Talking about herself https://youtu.be/iP-sK9uAKkM https://youtu.be/iP-sK9uAKkM
- sigwinch28 2y ago
  There are clauses in many Hollywood contracts which prevent the use of an actor’s likeness. See what happened in Back to the Future Part 2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II#Replacement_of_Crispin_Glover_and_lawsuit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II#R...
futurecat 2y ago
Never forget sama is also behind the Worldcoin dystopian absurdity. It tells a lot.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lavezzi 2y ago
  https://x.com/anniealtman108 https://x.com/anniealtman108
ollysb 2y ago
Interested to see how this plays out. Given the level of mimicry that AI can now achieve how do actors, musicians and artists safeguard the likeness, sound or style that they've developed?
can16358p 2y ago
OpenAI wanted a tone in their demo, they contacted Scarlet, and she refused. If this is OK (and of course it is, no one has to accept any offer), how is OpenAI working with someone with a similar voice tone not OK? If Sam used someone's voice without consent, that's illegal and immoral, but I see nothing wrong with Sam paying someone with a similar voice and using that voice instead.
- eschaton 2y ago
  Because they are using her likeness without her permission. If they just wanted a “similar” voice they could have hired one from the start. They wanted her voice and when she said “no” they used it anyway. The “her” tweet makes it exceptionally clear that it was always intended to be Johanssen’s likeness, not some other voice actor’s that happens to sound similar; OpenAI is just betting they can get away with it. It seems like OpenAI were also betting on Johanssen not knowing her rights _de jure_in that area, which it appears they were quite wrong about. (And even if she didn’t, she would have quickly learned of them in this hyper-connected world, making the bet utterly incompetent…)
  - can16358p 2y ago
    It's clear that they wanted her voice (by contacting her first, and the "her" tweet), and they aren't denying it. What's wrong with using a similar voice to the one in your vision of the demo/service, as it's the closest voice that you can (legally) use it?
    - omnicognate 2y ago
      As mentioned in my other comment, you can't legally use a similar voice. There are "right of publicity" laws against that: https://rightofpublicity.com/brief-history-of-rop https://rightofpublicity.com/brief-history-of-rop
      - can16358p 2y ago
        So if I'm a celebrity and I have my voice known, anyone who wants to be a voice actor who has a similar voice to mine... can't?
WrockBro 2y ago
Maybe Sama tweeted/ex-posted "her" because that was a trending topic related to the demo? I guess everything has to be some grand conspiracy nowadays.
fsniper 2y ago
I don't condone using a replacement voice with bad intentions,And this is clearly what it is. However! With this mentality, the mentioned paid voice actresses voice is not hers anymore because another one's voice is similar and it's used in a movie? So she can't work and voice any other work without Scarlet Johansson's permission?
- iamacyborg 2y ago
  You’re assuming that the VA’s voice (assuming there even was one) was their natural voice, rather than an acted one.
  - fsniper 2y ago
    With the recent news, I am more inclined to think this voice is forgery than it's another voice actress.
tanvach 2y ago
Are LLMs basically ‘pirating humanity’ at this point? The unauthorized use or reproduction of humanity's work.
spuz 2y ago
> Today, under pressure, OpenAI pulled the ScarJo-like voice, alleging that the resemblance was purely a coincidence. > I probably don’t have to tell you, but that’s complete bullshit. And stupid, obviously refuted bullshit at that. This article is quoting the linked Tom's Guide article but nowhere in the original OpenAI statement do they claim that their voice's resemblance to Scarlett Johansen was "purely a coincidence". It's kind of important to actually quote the original source before you call it out as "complete bullshit". Original OpenAI statement: https://openai.com/index/how-the-voices-for-chatgpt-were-chosen/ https://openai.com/index/how-the-voices-for-chatgpt-were-cho...
- jprete 2y ago
  https://twitter.com/haydenfield/status/1792748249272795348 https://twitter.com/haydenfield/status/1792748249272795348 Not the exact wording, but close.
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
> Before we could connect, the system was out there. I.e. they asked for permission (which they presumably felt they needed), then launched not only without it, but without a response either way. > As a result of their actions, I was forced to hire legal counsel, who wrote two letters to Mr. Altman and OpenAI, setting out what they had done and asking them to detail the exact process by which they created the ‘Sky’ voice. Consequently, OpenAI reluctantly agreed to take down the ‘Sky’ voice. Strongly suggests OpenAI had something to worry about regarding their own process.
- csharpminor 2y ago
  I truly wonder if this is an “any publicity is good publicity” tactic on their part. It’s now national news that OpenAI supports conversational voice. Buying this level of publicity would likely have cost more than the lawyers and damages.
dandanua 2y ago
Moral bankrupt as a leader of an AGI development. What could go wrong. But of course, all this is not about only one man. Corporatocracy will prevail, if not actively confronted.
hathawsh 2y ago
Just a matter of curiosity: do people really think the Sky OpenAI voice is similar to ScarJo? While they both vary pitch a lot, Scarlett also adds great dimension by shifting rapidly between different tone qualities. Tone variation seems to be only barely detectable in Sky. Sky sticks to a pure tone, while Scarlett starts on a mildly harsh (but pleasant) tone.
- rossant 2y ago
  Is there an objective, quantitative metric to compare two voices, including pitch, tone variations etc?
  - logicchains 2y ago
    You train a neural network to distinguish between them and measure its accuracy. If they were the same voice, the accuracy in the eval dataset wouldn't be better than chance.
    - squarepizza 2y ago
      I find this comment a bit myopic. First is the belief that the essence of a person can be reduced to quantified metrics as inherited and objective as height or, in this case, the shape of one's vocal cords and the resultant pitch of their voice. Second is using a glorified function approximator as an arbiter. The positive outcome for OpenAI would be a classifier able to achieve high accuracy in distinguishing between the original and impersonated voice as evidence that the voices are sufficiently distinct. In the event of an underperforming classifier, what is preventing OpenAI from claiming that the current technology is simply not adequate? Under what grounds could one refute the claim that a future, more advanced system, very probably trained with more appropriated data, would be a better classifier and favor OpenAI?
x-complexity 2y ago
In most of the discussions about this fiasco, I have yet to see anyone point out the following: - There is a finite number of distinct human voices. - The # of desirable human voices (D) < The # of distinct human voices (A) Where D := A - (All unwanted / undesirable human voices) - Two voices that sound alike are treated as if they are alike The fact that people say that it sounds like Scarlett Johansson means that there IS a region of multi-dimensional vector space that is claimed to be "owned" by the actress and that actress alone. I HATE the end conclusion that came resulting from this mob spectacle: That people with voices that sound like hers have effectively no agency with what they can do with their own voices. That they are eternally marked as "that person that sounds like Scarlett Johansson", and that whatever they do with their own voice (including consent to be used for ML training) is met with the ire of the online mob.
- lijok 2y ago
  You're trying to engineer a way out of a sociology problem. Never gonna happen. Whoever voiced Sky didn't lose their agency over their own voice. The issue at hand is Sama not taking No for an answer.
- lm28469 2y ago
  Legality vs morality, the problem is as old as the humanity. Legally they can perfectly use a sound alike, morally it's a shit move to ask the actress who voiced a very similar product, get a "no" and still decide to find a sound alike voice actress. If it was a non profit health care company you can be sure people would be much less outraged, but silicon valley's tech companies burned the little trust people had in them a long time ago, it's hard to have empathy for sociopath
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Legally it becomes a problem if it can be shown that the intent was to copy the voice. In this case, it seems like Sam made that pretty clear with only a few bits of public info. If a case was brought against them I can only assume discovery would find internal emails or chats that spell out they were absolutely trying to replicate Scarlett Johansson's voice after she turned down their offer.
bambax 2y ago
[flagged]
- klyrs 2y ago
  Holy shit, it's incredible that I've been reading about Sam Altman for years now and this is the first time I've read Annie's story. HN sure loves to cover for guys like him.
lijok 2y ago
Sama should've asked ChatGPT 4o what it thinks about this idiotic move before proceeding; https://chatgpt.com/share/5cfa921c-fde9-4e4b-ac97-4f256d241387 https://chatgpt.com/share/5cfa921c-fde9-4e4b-ac97-4f256d2413...
- dkdbejwi383 2y ago
  LLMs don't think, they just regurgitate text tokens based on a probability + randomness model.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - stevenhuang 2y ago
    I hope the irony of repeating this tired phrase much like a stochastic parrot would is not lost on you.
    - MVissers 2y ago
      LLMs don't think, they just regurgitate text tokens based on a probability + randomness model. /s
Madmallard 2y ago
how are we not sacking the company? this is so antisocietal it’s unreal
throwawaycities 2y ago
OpenAI's Original Mission Statement: Advance digital intelligence in a way that benefits humanity, without the need to generate financial return. That bit about financial return has since been removed. Until now no one could point to a human story of what that meant, instead pointing to the shift from a 501(c)(3) to a for profit model which people don’t understand so it just doesn’t resonate. But now, we have a human story of someone that makes a living on their likeness, the CEO approaching them for licensing rights, then allegedly just training the AI on their likeness and stealing it for financial gain without compensation when the CEO couldn’t get a deal done. AI is dystopian to start with, which is why the initial model was created as a non-profit to benefit everyone, but now we have a human story validating the danger and dystopian beliefs surrounding AI. On top of everything the Founder was personally involved in making these decisions and even Tweeted “her” as a sick joke referencing the actress’ movie where she voiced an AI.
jeegsy 2y ago
Good luck finding a voice that doesnt sound like anyone else
- ed_elliott_asc 2y ago
  https://youtu.be/2kV2EVWNqXQ?si=HmhGULskIe3-idmr https://youtu.be/2kV2EVWNqXQ?si=HmhGULskIe3-idmr
- klyrs 2y ago
  Good luck shooting a gun into a crowd of people without hitting anybody! ... because not pulling the trigger clearly isn't an option.
  - jeegsy 2y ago
    Oh, so no voice then?
gmerc 2y ago
Given that the next step is to use the data trail of employees across all kind of professions, for example sales, design, etc and use it to replace them at scale this is a very timely conversation https://youtu.be/U2vq9LUbDGs?si=2GFBPE-XdHU8Fsk2 https://youtu.be/U2vq9LUbDGs?si=2GFBPE-XdHU8Fsk2
whamlastxmas 2y ago
The personal attacks on Sam are disappointing when anyone making those comments don’t actually know him. I think speculation on trustworthiness as the OpenAI CEO is fine but some stuff here is just being shitty towards him. I feel bad for the voice actor OpenAI hired. She was probably really excited about this and then SJ had to make it weird and claim she was ripping her off It wasn’t SJ’s natural voice in Her, it was a performance that is nothing like her regular speaking. The idea that she can claim giggly/pitchy as only her domain, or that she owns the rights to the character in the movie, feels really silly to me
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

340 points by isaacfrond 2y ago

When it comes to the tech industry, assume malice unless proven otherwise - open source code, maximum transparency, proven history of ethical conduct. We're way past the point where anyone who achieves any level of fame in tech deserves the benefit of the doubt. They've optimized for maximum abuse of public trust.

sanxiyn 2y ago

Sam Altman is a grifter. We all should boycott Sam Altman. Repeat after me: Sam Altman is powerless if we all ignore him. Sam Altman is nothing without his people. He can't do anything himself. https://x.com/OpenAI/status/1727236805182026159 https://x.com/OpenAI/status/1727236805182026159

kunley 2y ago

Altman playing a wannabe god, geez...

moffkalast 2y ago
Always has been.

ChildOfChaos 2y ago

This article is terrible. There is a lot of nonsense and drama about all of this, but the voice is clearly not Scarlet, even though they were clearly trying to get someone to sound like her. So much drama over nothing.

isaacfrond 2y ago
On this one, it is OpenAI who are terrible and acting like spoiled kids. They approached Ms. Johansson, she said no, and they went ahead and did it anyways.
- ChildOfChaos 2y ago
  No they didn't though. They hired a voice actor who had a similar voice profile to her, a similar voice to what they were looking for. If you just hear the voice they used, it sounds very similar, but if you actually play them side by side, you can hear they are very clearly different. How is that different from anything else? You ask someone to do something you want them to do, they say no, so you then go and find someone else that will do what you need which is what they did.
DonHopkins 2y ago
That's just your opinion that it's clearly not Scarlet, but you don't know her, and she and her family and friends who do think it is, and the fact that you say "even though they were clearly trying to get someone to sound like her" is kind of the whole point: even YOU admit they were "CLEARLY TRYING" to steal her voice after being told TWO TIMES not to. Trying to steal something and not quite stealing 100% of it perfectly is STILL THEFT. You're the one being dramatic trying to defend what even you admit is outright theft. And Sam Altman's lower case single word tweet "her" clinches it. Clearly he was not just announcing his new pronoun.
- ChildOfChaos 2y ago
  Wow. Having something similar to someone else does not equal theft. What is wrong with people? Why are they acting so weird about this. What about the voice actor that did this? Is her voice 'theft'?
  - DonHopkins 2y ago
    Then explain Sam Atlman's tweet, "her": https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666?lang=en https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666?lang=en And you already admitted "they were clearly trying to get someone to sound like her". You pre-lost your own argument yourself, before I even replied, with your own words. Why are you acting so weird about this, like there's something wrong with you, and then trying to project it onto other people? Trying to emulate Trump's debating techniques and psychological disorders doesn't work any more, nor look very good on you.
    - ChildOfChaos 2y ago
      I don't need to explain anything. Why should I explain a tweet? The tweet is the tweet, they used it for marketing. It doesn't' change anything, they can make it seem similar to her if they want by hiring a voice actor with similar characteristics, the voice actor is paid for there work and they get something that is great marketing. There is no theft here. This is a completely normal situation, your massive overreaction is not normal. If they stole her voice outright, there is a problem, but it is extremely unlikely they did. So then there is no issue. It's common sense, i'm not sure what's wrong with you that you are trying to bring politics into it.

_3u10 2y ago

That’s how it works in Hollywood: The voice, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this AI are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.

drpossum 2y ago
Glad you brought this up because that is, in fact, not how it works at all! With legal precedence even! It turns out you can't just say some magic words to make your legal problems go away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclaimer#Effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclai...

schmidt_fifty 2y ago

[dead]

SilverBirch 2y ago

It really is incredible how something as small and simple as this gives such incredible bad vibes. This is like early 2010s facebook vibes. It's just... if they're going to steal her voice, what would they do to yours? But it also points to a wider problem in OpenAI's existence. They're built on theft. If you wrote something on the internet in the last 20 years, they've stolen it. They've stolen it, they're put it into their little magic box and now they want to sell it back to you. OpenAI is amazing technology, and once the equity of the company is redistributed back to the content owners who actually provided the value, it'll be great to see what they can do from there.

actuallyrizzn 2y ago
It isn't theft. Nothing was removed from anyone to train the model. If I do a Christopher Walken impression, what have I taken away from the actor? Nothing. I stg it's so silly the contortions you anti-ai ppl go thru.
xiwenc 2y ago
Exactly. And the name “Open” in OpenAI implies it is open. Open to the world. Open to humanity. Nothing of that came to be. It should have remained non-profit; be good for humanity (yes i know this is up for interpretation).
- sanxiyn 2y ago
  I think the board should fire Sam Altman again. If the board does not fire Sam Altman it is not doing its duty, so someone should sue the board, or convince attorney general to sue. Attorney general of Delaware is Kathy Jennings <attorney.general@delaware.gov>. Mail your argument now. Do your civic duty.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 2y ago
    While I agree, somehow I doubt it'll happen. The board is probably stacked with people loyal to Sam now. And even if it isn't, they all witnessed the pending mass exodus to Microsoft before he was reinstated. They'll be reluctant to risk something like that happening.

Falkvinge 2y ago

It is reasonably common in the voicing part of the acting industry, when a famous name turns you down, that you instead turn to a voice imitator to give a performance that's reminiscent of a number of factors (kind of sounding like this other person, for example). This way, legally you're in the clear, because you didn't use the voice of X. Not on any occasion did you use the voice of X. You even paid a voicer to make your recordings, and it's their voice. Morally, it can be - and probably is - a different matter.

twobitshifter 2y ago
Why do people think they need an actor? You can recreate a voice from just a few seconds of audio today. Do that and then mix in some fair use modifiers to CYA.
wokwokwok 2y ago
I think, as with most things, it’s slightly more legally ambiguous if the person you’re copying/whatever is rich enough to have good lawyers and a strong media presence. You can argue about these morality of that, but I think it’s reasonably true, practically. Thus, it got taken down.
- gizajob 2y ago
  Especially given the very clear cut case here of the AI company deliberately cloning the voice of the most recognisable and human-like AI voice from fiction. And also tweeting that they’d done exactly that. And then lying that it was a coincidence. It wouldn’t stand up in court which is why they got rid of it – I’m sure that if Sam Altman and his counsel believed that they could beat ScarJo in court then we’d still be listening to “Sky”.
  - kolinko 2y ago
    They didn’t clone her voice
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    > the most recognisable and human-like AI voice from fiction No, that would be either cortana or Majel Barrett Roddenberry.

AJRF 2y ago

Am I right in saying that this voice has existed in the app for the voice feature for ~6 months now? I remember hearing it and thinking "Sounds like Scarlett Johansson"

Havoc 2y ago

Unless she can prove that it’s directly derived somehow I don't see much of a case here. Questionable ethically perhaps but OpenAI doesn’t seem to care about that

drpossum 2y ago
This was posted up-thread, but there is a clear legal argument known as "passing off" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off. It turns out your "intuition" isn't actually a basis for a legal system nor a way to position yourself as a legal scholar.
- Havoc 2y ago
  Where have they passed this off as her?
pseudalopex 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

breck 2y ago

[flagged]

was_a_dev 2y ago
As a physicist- ChatGPT is no Einstein lmao
- xanderlewis 2y ago
  As a humble mathematics student — ChatGPT makes me look clever.
camillomiller 2y ago
[flagged]
sanxiyn 2y ago
And all safety people are leaving, due to Sam Altman? And Sam Altman forced them to sign non-disparagement? And Sam Altman is lying about not clawing back equity, even if we know Daniel Kokotajlo gave up equity and has not made whole yet? This is not okay. We should not move on.
- breck 2y ago
  I am all for keeping the heat on OpenAI for still calling themselves "OpenAI", when they are really closed/secretAI. I think they have a true position on secrets that they do not reveal, and that's a serious issue deserving of serious questioning--but is also a broader societal issue (corporations have legal protection on secrets. should they? I think we need to revisit that) I think a lot of other things like this one are nits.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
askl 2y ago
A teacher that appears to be smart as Einstein. Unless you know about the topic.

camillomiller 2y ago

Sam Altman’s personality is another proof of the theory that startup/Silicon Valley hyperinnovation culture has a massive problem of incentivizing manipulative narcissists to rise to the top. The entire culture clearly has a set of filters in place that favor individuals with extreme manipulative god-complex-style traits, who are convinced their mission is so supreme and important that any other rule shouldn’t apply to them. The fact that the future of AI is in the hands of one of these individuals is an utter disaster.

cromka 2y ago
I couldn't but instantly thought of WeWork.

padjo 2y ago

For me this speaks to the arrogance and disconnect from reality that some people in tech operate under. It seems they never considered it possible that someone would say no to them and would protect their IP against them, because who wouldn’t want to be part of their glorious mission, right?

mschuster91 2y ago
In the end, it's business, it's purely about money. When you got untold billions in the bank account, or have someone backing you who has the billions, you can do whatever you want as long as it's not a violation of criminal codes. Hope that no one discovers what you did, and in the case they do and have the financial resources to fight back, drag the case along for as long as you can, and eventually settle for pennies. As long as you don't commit crimes, this strategy will always work out. Hell even if you do commit crimes, as long as you have willing "fixers", you got to piss off a lot of powerful people to face justice. Just look at the 45th - that guy has a history of decades of stiffing contractors, lenders and employees (including those who actually went behind bars for him), but it took a pretty flimsy constructed case to finally charge him with a crime and I'm not certain that the case is clear enough for a conviction.
edflsafoiewq 2y ago
Tech has a consent problem, no doubt. The popup which won't let you decline but instead asks you again and again forever is just the lowest manifestation of a deeper issue.
- maeln 2y ago
  Eh, it's not just Tech, most company has a consent issue, and you could easily argue that capitalism as a consent issue (not saying that alternative also don't have one). Rarely do businesses have any incentive to care about consent. In many case they actually have a vested interest in not caring about your consent, as it can remove one big barrier to profit. It is easier to illustrate these days with all the IA company harvesting data with 0 consent, it is true, but you find the same behavior in most industry. Consent is seen as a customer service issue, something extra, not something that is due.

Y_Y 2y ago

sama is a chancer, no doubt, but I take issue with this article's angle. Clearly they wanted something reminiscend of the film "Her". Since Scarlett Johansson didn't want to do they voice they hired someone else. The voice they used is that of their voice actor, not Scarlett Johansson. She owns her own voice, but I don't think she has any rights to voices that merely sound like hers, when they're not being used to fraudently imply that she's involved. So movies are really influential on culture, and I think there should be broad scope for "taking inspiration" as long as it stops short of plagiarism. Think how many works you've seen that are obviously heavily inspired by e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey. I don't think the vibe of "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that" as belonging to the voice actor Douglas Rain, or Kubrick or Clark. And that's what a good thing! Producing cultural works must feed the production of future works and I'd like to permit all but the most blantant ripoffs.

camillomiller 2y ago
Why isn’t anyone stopping for a minute to think what happens in that darn movie? Why is it even ok to want your AI to sound like the AI from her? Why are the people leading AI and tech today so shallow when it comes to cultural depictions of their role? Unless they would actually like to be the villain.
- gizajob 2y ago
  Because they’re not as creative as they think they are.
- tidenly 2y ago
  I've seen this take quite a lot around Twitter recently, which is confusing to me. Do you read Her as a "AI assistants are bad" story? I thought it was a much more subtle exploration of what our world would be like if such things existed, rather than outright condemning it, but it seems like lots of people saw only horror start to finish.
  - CipherThrowaway 2y ago
    "AI assistants are bad" isn't the take. The thing making people feel icky/uncomfortable about Her - and about the 4o demos - is not the idea of Samantha but the idea of Theodore. It's about nerds' idealized AI versions of womanhood. Tirelessly flirty, giggly servants who they can interrupt and talk over as they please, that come without the inconvenient features of personhood.

tomthe 2y ago

I would love to play some board games with Sam Altman. He is smart, strategic and very persuasive (I heard). He would excel especially at games like Risk or Mafia, where you have to persuade your opponents to collaborate with you. But after a few rounds, no one would help him anymore and he would loose all the games.

whamlastxmas 2y ago
He seems to be winning all the games in real life
- tomthe 2y ago
  Not all (look up how he got fired from ycombinator). But as long as there are enough new people who want to play with him, he might do fine (and there are a lot of willing VCs). Once the word starts to spread about him, through stories like this, he might experience some backslash.
  - 93po 2y ago
    Sam wasn't fired for doing a bad job at YC, he was fired because the compensation structure wasn't something he was happy with, which is why he was also "double dipping" with his own funds into startups - something that was common at the time across the whole org. Jessica Livingston even went on to put money into his next project (OpenAI) which is also counter to the characterization in your perspective. He has tons of friends in high places that continue to put a lot of their money into Sam's coffers, because Sam is really good at making money for himself and others
    - tomthe 2y ago
      Sorry, you are right and I stand corrected. I must have misremembered this. Here is a tweet from PG correcting this: https://x.com/paulg/status/1796107666265108940 https://x.com/paulg/status/1796107666265108940 via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40521657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40521657 I originally got this sentiment partly from this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38378216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38378216

cryptozeus 2y ago

I think the lies are catching up...feeling less conf. about Sam now..his statement to CNBC in response https://twitter.com/haydenfield/status/1792748249272795348 https://twitter.com/haydenfield/status/1792748249272795348

largbae 2y ago

The first order problem is how do we compensate those whose performances and art were unique and recognizable before computers could imitate them. However we solve for that will tell us if and how we can motivate people to make all the tradeoffs needed to stand out and bring new unique art into the world. I am hoping we land somewhere in between the extremes of "no copyright use" and "what's a copyright" and create a royalty system that can trace your content's influence on the weights used at inference and cut you in according to your contribution.

onhacker 2y ago

Extremely concerning. Think she is a prominent actress that's why this news is all over the internet but every individual has the right to their voice and face shouldn't be cloned, for them it's not concerning on internet but definitely in their family, relatives and society

IMTDb 2y ago

Does that mean that the voice actress that was hired to sample "sky" has to stop working since her voice is "too similar to another famous person" ? So Scarlett Johansson owns her voice, and every single one that is "too similar to hers" (by what metric) and gets to dictate what can and cannot be done. It's a slippery slope.

jamil7 2y ago
No, there is wider a context and nuance to the whole topic, as there always is. Jumping to hyperbolic "slippery slope" arguments doesn't add anything interesting to this discussion and instead tries to deflect it.
gorbypark 2y ago
Do we know that these voices are backed by real people? I kind of assumed that given AI tech in voice cloning, they could make a voice sound like anyone they want and don't need to go out and find someone that sounds like "the target" voice. I think it's more fair game if they actually found another human that could sound like someone famous, but if they just ran the audio of some of her movies through some AI and out popped a voice, that's a little bit less clear.
- SiempreViernes 2y ago
  It's probably fair game if they got a similar voice by coincidence, but here they intentionally want to copy someone's voice as performed in a well known IP for pure business profit.
h4kor 2y ago
No. There is an interview/documentary about South Park where they talk about celebrity appearances in the show. They said that they never request celebrities to play themselves in the show. If the person declines the offer, they can get into legal trouble for imitating them. If they don't ask it is fine. The problem here is that they wanted Scarlett Johansson and imitated her when she said no. There is also a big market for "celebrity sound alikes" in voice acting.

kamaal 2y ago

Lets say this goes to the court. I wonder how would they prove if a 'voice' belongs to a person. This is such a grey area, how does some one own a 'voice'. Also similar doesn't mean same. Plus this opens the door for all kinds of things. Say tomorrow some one makes a AI that sings. And they make any lyrics, and make a AI sing it, say in a voice that's very close to their favorite singer. Would that qualify as illegal? Would be interesting to see how that legal side of things in this regards unfolds.

kolinko 2y ago
That is quite easy - you show the training data and provide the details of a person whose voice it was. With purely synthetic voices, it’s gray area just like with most of the other genai.
- kamaal 2y ago
  How is this any different than text, photographs or anything for that matter. By this definition all AI is illegal. Besides, how does one prove a recording is of a particular person's voice? The AI might be generating voice similar to that of Scarlett Johnson, but its still not her voice. Similar != Same.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

KoolKat23 2y ago

If it was an exact copy fine, but it's not. This is ridiculous. Imagine Margot Robbie sued a film producer for using Jamie Presley when she turns down a role or Michael Cera for Jessie Eisenberg.

consp 2y ago
> If it was an exact copy fine, but it's not. This is not the point, as stated by Ms Johansson's statement, her own friends could not tell the difference which is the point. If a reasonable person cannot tell the difference, there is none. In combination with seeking a prior agreement to use her voice this sounds quite dubious at best, malicious at worst.
- notalike23 2y ago
  [flagged]
- KoolKat23 2y ago
  Of course she's going to say that, either that or her own friends don't know her very well. There's a nice comparison here. https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1cx1np4/voice_comparison_between_gpt4o_and_scarlett/ https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1cx1np4/voice_... I bet OpenAI took it down for the free PR, when life hands you lemons...
- unraveller 2y ago
  Suddenly all the media companies and social media pundits have forgotten how to upload audio media samples alongside accusations in text, they might not want to reach reasonable people. The outrage is proof enough. ChatGPT using Sky voice (not 4o - original sept. release): https://youtu.be/JmxjluHaePw?t=129 https://youtu.be/JmxjluHaePw?t=129 Samantha from "Her" (voiced by ScarJo): https://youtu.be/GV01B5kVsC0?t=134 https://youtu.be/GV01B5kVsC0?t=134 Rashida Jones Talking about herself https://youtu.be/iP-sK9uAKkM https://youtu.be/iP-sK9uAKkM
sigwinch28 2y ago
There are clauses in many Hollywood contracts which prevent the use of an actor’s likeness. See what happened in Back to the Future Part 2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II#Replacement_of_Crispin_Glover_and_lawsuit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II#R...

futurecat 2y ago

Never forget sama is also behind the Worldcoin dystopian absurdity. It tells a lot.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lavezzi 2y ago
https://x.com/anniealtman108 https://x.com/anniealtman108

ollysb 2y ago

Interested to see how this plays out. Given the level of mimicry that AI can now achieve how do actors, musicians and artists safeguard the likeness, sound or style that they've developed?

can16358p 2y ago

OpenAI wanted a tone in their demo, they contacted Scarlet, and she refused. If this is OK (and of course it is, no one has to accept any offer), how is OpenAI working with someone with a similar voice tone not OK? If Sam used someone's voice without consent, that's illegal and immoral, but I see nothing wrong with Sam paying someone with a similar voice and using that voice instead.

eschaton 2y ago
Because they are using her likeness without her permission. If they just wanted a “similar” voice they could have hired one from the start. They wanted her voice and when she said “no” they used it anyway. The “her” tweet makes it exceptionally clear that it was always intended to be Johanssen’s likeness, not some other voice actor’s that happens to sound similar; OpenAI is just betting they can get away with it. It seems like OpenAI were also betting on Johanssen not knowing her rights _de jure_in that area, which it appears they were quite wrong about. (And even if she didn’t, she would have quickly learned of them in this hyper-connected world, making the bet utterly incompetent…)
- can16358p 2y ago
  It's clear that they wanted her voice (by contacting her first, and the "her" tweet), and they aren't denying it. What's wrong with using a similar voice to the one in your vision of the demo/service, as it's the closest voice that you can (legally) use it?
  - omnicognate 2y ago
    As mentioned in my other comment, you can't legally use a similar voice. There are "right of publicity" laws against that: https://rightofpublicity.com/brief-history-of-rop https://rightofpublicity.com/brief-history-of-rop
    - can16358p 2y ago
      So if I'm a celebrity and I have my voice known, anyone who wants to be a voice actor who has a similar voice to mine... can't?

WrockBro 2y ago

Maybe Sama tweeted/ex-posted "her" because that was a trending topic related to the demo? I guess everything has to be some grand conspiracy nowadays.

fsniper 2y ago

I don't condone using a replacement voice with bad intentions,And this is clearly what it is. However! With this mentality, the mentioned paid voice actresses voice is not hers anymore because another one's voice is similar and it's used in a movie? So she can't work and voice any other work without Scarlet Johansson's permission?

iamacyborg 2y ago
You’re assuming that the VA’s voice (assuming there even was one) was their natural voice, rather than an acted one.
- fsniper 2y ago
  With the recent news, I am more inclined to think this voice is forgery than it's another voice actress.

tanvach 2y ago

Are LLMs basically ‘pirating humanity’ at this point? The unauthorized use or reproduction of humanity's work.

spuz 2y ago

> Today, under pressure, OpenAI pulled the ScarJo-like voice, alleging that the resemblance was purely a coincidence. > I probably don’t have to tell you, but that’s complete bullshit. And stupid, obviously refuted bullshit at that. This article is quoting the linked Tom's Guide article but nowhere in the original OpenAI statement do they claim that their voice's resemblance to Scarlett Johansen was "purely a coincidence". It's kind of important to actually quote the original source before you call it out as "complete bullshit". Original OpenAI statement: https://openai.com/index/how-the-voices-for-chatgpt-were-chosen/ https://openai.com/index/how-the-voices-for-chatgpt-were-cho...

jprete 2y ago
https://twitter.com/haydenfield/status/1792748249272795348 https://twitter.com/haydenfield/status/1792748249272795348 Not the exact wording, but close.

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago

> Before we could connect, the system was out there. I.e. they asked for permission (which they presumably felt they needed), then launched not only without it, but without a response either way. > As a result of their actions, I was forced to hire legal counsel, who wrote two letters to Mr. Altman and OpenAI, setting out what they had done and asking them to detail the exact process by which they created the ‘Sky’ voice. Consequently, OpenAI reluctantly agreed to take down the ‘Sky’ voice. Strongly suggests OpenAI had something to worry about regarding their own process.

csharpminor 2y ago
I truly wonder if this is an “any publicity is good publicity” tactic on their part. It’s now national news that OpenAI supports conversational voice. Buying this level of publicity would likely have cost more than the lawyers and damages.

dandanua 2y ago

Moral bankrupt as a leader of an AGI development. What could go wrong. But of course, all this is not about only one man. Corporatocracy will prevail, if not actively confronted.

hathawsh 2y ago

Just a matter of curiosity: do people really think the Sky OpenAI voice is similar to ScarJo? While they both vary pitch a lot, Scarlett also adds great dimension by shifting rapidly between different tone qualities. Tone variation seems to be only barely detectable in Sky. Sky sticks to a pure tone, while Scarlett starts on a mildly harsh (but pleasant) tone.

rossant 2y ago
Is there an objective, quantitative metric to compare two voices, including pitch, tone variations etc?
- logicchains 2y ago
  You train a neural network to distinguish between them and measure its accuracy. If they were the same voice, the accuracy in the eval dataset wouldn't be better than chance.
  - squarepizza 2y ago
    I find this comment a bit myopic. First is the belief that the essence of a person can be reduced to quantified metrics as inherited and objective as height or, in this case, the shape of one's vocal cords and the resultant pitch of their voice. Second is using a glorified function approximator as an arbiter. The positive outcome for OpenAI would be a classifier able to achieve high accuracy in distinguishing between the original and impersonated voice as evidence that the voices are sufficiently distinct. In the event of an underperforming classifier, what is preventing OpenAI from claiming that the current technology is simply not adequate? Under what grounds could one refute the claim that a future, more advanced system, very probably trained with more appropriated data, would be a better classifier and favor OpenAI?

x-complexity 2y ago

In most of the discussions about this fiasco, I have yet to see anyone point out the following: - There is a finite number of distinct human voices. - The # of desirable human voices (D) < The # of distinct human voices (A) Where D := A - (All unwanted / undesirable human voices) - Two voices that sound alike are treated as if they are alike The fact that people say that it sounds like Scarlett Johansson means that there IS a region of multi-dimensional vector space that is claimed to be "owned" by the actress and that actress alone. I HATE the end conclusion that came resulting from this mob spectacle: That people with voices that sound like hers have effectively no agency with what they can do with their own voices. That they are eternally marked as "that person that sounds like Scarlett Johansson", and that whatever they do with their own voice (including consent to be used for ML training) is met with the ire of the online mob.

lijok 2y ago
You're trying to engineer a way out of a sociology problem. Never gonna happen. Whoever voiced Sky didn't lose their agency over their own voice. The issue at hand is Sama not taking No for an answer.
lm28469 2y ago
Legality vs morality, the problem is as old as the humanity. Legally they can perfectly use a sound alike, morally it's a shit move to ask the actress who voiced a very similar product, get a "no" and still decide to find a sound alike voice actress. If it was a non profit health care company you can be sure people would be much less outraged, but silicon valley's tech companies burned the little trust people had in them a long time ago, it's hard to have empathy for sociopath
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Legally it becomes a problem if it can be shown that the intent was to copy the voice. In this case, it seems like Sam made that pretty clear with only a few bits of public info. If a case was brought against them I can only assume discovery would find internal emails or chats that spell out they were absolutely trying to replicate Scarlett Johansson's voice after she turned down their offer.

bambax 2y ago

[flagged]

klyrs 2y ago
Holy shit, it's incredible that I've been reading about Sam Altman for years now and this is the first time I've read Annie's story. HN sure loves to cover for guys like him.

lijok 2y ago

Sama should've asked ChatGPT 4o what it thinks about this idiotic move before proceeding; https://chatgpt.com/share/5cfa921c-fde9-4e4b-ac97-4f256d241387 https://chatgpt.com/share/5cfa921c-fde9-4e4b-ac97-4f256d2413...

dkdbejwi383 2y ago
LLMs don't think, they just regurgitate text tokens based on a probability + randomness model.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- stevenhuang 2y ago
  I hope the irony of repeating this tired phrase much like a stochastic parrot would is not lost on you.
  - MVissers 2y ago
    LLMs don't think, they just regurgitate text tokens based on a probability + randomness model. /s

Madmallard 2y ago

how are we not sacking the company? this is so antisocietal it’s unreal

throwawaycities 2y ago

OpenAI's Original Mission Statement: Advance digital intelligence in a way that benefits humanity, without the need to generate financial return. That bit about financial return has since been removed. Until now no one could point to a human story of what that meant, instead pointing to the shift from a 501(c)(3) to a for profit model which people don’t understand so it just doesn’t resonate. But now, we have a human story of someone that makes a living on their likeness, the CEO approaching them for licensing rights, then allegedly just training the AI on their likeness and stealing it for financial gain without compensation when the CEO couldn’t get a deal done. AI is dystopian to start with, which is why the initial model was created as a non-profit to benefit everyone, but now we have a human story validating the danger and dystopian beliefs surrounding AI. On top of everything the Founder was personally involved in making these decisions and even Tweeted “her” as a sick joke referencing the actress’ movie where she voiced an AI.

jeegsy 2y ago

Good luck finding a voice that doesnt sound like anyone else

ed_elliott_asc 2y ago
https://youtu.be/2kV2EVWNqXQ?si=HmhGULskIe3-idmr https://youtu.be/2kV2EVWNqXQ?si=HmhGULskIe3-idmr
klyrs 2y ago
Good luck shooting a gun into a crowd of people without hitting anybody! ... because not pulling the trigger clearly isn't an option.
- jeegsy 2y ago
  Oh, so no voice then?

gmerc 2y ago

Given that the next step is to use the data trail of employees across all kind of professions, for example sales, design, etc and use it to replace them at scale this is a very timely conversation https://youtu.be/U2vq9LUbDGs?si=2GFBPE-XdHU8Fsk2 https://youtu.be/U2vq9LUbDGs?si=2GFBPE-XdHU8Fsk2

whamlastxmas 2y ago

The personal attacks on Sam are disappointing when anyone making those comments don’t actually know him. I think speculation on trustworthiness as the OpenAI CEO is fine but some stuff here is just being shitty towards him. I feel bad for the voice actor OpenAI hired. She was probably really excited about this and then SJ had to make it weird and claim she was ripping her off It wasn’t SJ’s natural voice in Her, it was a performance that is nothing like her regular speaking. The idea that she can claim giggly/pitchy as only her domain, or that she owns the rights to the character in the movie, feels really silly to me

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]