16 ms·

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

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.
    - beachy 2y ago
      All of these can be true. 1) Sam is a conniving weasel. 2) Sam has made many OpenAI employees rich. 3) The board knows that Sam is toxic and must be removed. 4) The board knows that removing Sam would mean the end of the company.
      - imjonse 2y ago
        It is not the first or the last company where people may despise their CEOs character but still stay for the advantages.
        aleph_minus_one 2y ago
        > It is not the first or the last company where people may despise their CEOs character but still stay for the advantages. Exactly. Most people are simply hypocrites.
    - lelanthran 2y ago
      > The board is probably stacked with people loyal to Sam now. Sure. Now. I.e. only until they get sued.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
  I’m sick to death of hearing this. It’s the antithesis of a substantive argument, in a topic where there’s no shortage of substantive points to be made. Why are we still trotting it out on HN. Arguing about the name basically amounts to “I believe that when you use the word ‘open’ in your company name, they should act like $this”…which is, frankly, absurd. If you want to talk about how they’ve gone back on their word or whatever, can we just stick to that? Getting one’s knickers in a twist over “open” in the name just dumbs down the conversation and gets everyone arguing about semantics.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    I think you're looking at the general notion and annoyance that "Open" is misconstrued and misapplied. But there is also a specific annoyance that OpenAI is literally closed, antithetical to its historical promises.
  - frabcus 2y ago
    It has never been and still is not a company. It's a non profit. It doesn't act like that any more, which is the point.
  - alternatex 2y ago
    I'm still angry Microsoft isn't producing microfiber cloths.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >Arguing about the name basically amounts to “I believe that when you use the word ‘open’ in your company name, they should act like $this”…which is, frankly, absurd. it does have a connotation of advertisement to it, so I think it's worth examining. This isn't like complaining about how Apple doesn't sell food. "Open" has a very specific meaning in Tech, and OpenAI is a tech company. It'd be the equivalent of Github swiching all of its repositories over to Mercurial tomorrow. They may have no obligation to support Git, but naming your company after such tech will have such expectation. You can definitely have an honest conversation about how using a word like "Open" for a tech company while switching to a closed source, publicly traded mentality is in fact a betrayal of the audiene who were inevitably attracted by the naming scheme.
- klyrs 2y ago
  Open as in open legs, even if you say no? https://futurism.com/researcher-openai-sex-drug-parties https://futurism.com/researcher-openai-sex-drug-parties https://www.themarysue.com/annie-altmans-abuse-allegations-against-openais-sam-altman-highlight-the-need-to-prioritize-humanity-over-tech/ https://www.themarysue.com/annie-altmans-abuse-allegations-a...
amelius 2y ago
"Good artists copy, great artists steal."
- aredox 2y ago
  Another thought-terminating cliché. https://bookriot.com/do-great-artists-steal/ https://bookriot.com/do-great-artists-steal/
- jamil7 2y ago
  This isn't an artist building on the work of previous artists, this is a for-profit company repurposing people's work and mass producing it without permission or paying royalties.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    Apple would disagree. Jobs considered himself an artist in the straightforward context or his quote.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Jobs considered himself an artist Jobs, at the very least, would have stolen competently. OpenAI asked Johansson for her likeness; she refused. So they trained an AI on a person instructed to mimic her likeness, and then tweeted a mocking reference to the source they stole from [1]. Put aside your views on morality or legality. I’m damning them for being stupid. [1] https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1790075827666796666%7Ctwgr%5E61db2b983aa83e49e32c1e0dce12274e0f1c260e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportskeeda.com%2Fus%2Fmovies%2Fnews-sam-altman-s-her-tweet-goes-viral-scarlett-johansson-calls-openai-unauthorized-use-voice https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666?ref_src=twsrc%...
      - tomrod 2y ago
        Make no mistake: I think lame wannabes steal, competently or not, regardless how successful they become. And yeah, the techbro culture Sam steeped in results in remarkable stupidity!
chx 2y ago
> OpenAI is amazing technology, Erm... no. https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/112006855076082650 https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/112006855076082650 > You might be surprised to learn that I actually think LLMs have the potential to be not only fun but genuinely useful. “Show me some bullshit that would be typical in this context” can be a genuinely helpful question to have answered, in code and in natural language — for brainstorming, for seeing common conventions in an unfamiliar context, for having something crappy to react to. > Alas, that does not remotely resemble how people are pitching this technology.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  That is a dumb low effort take that doesn't even try to refute the statement that this is amazing technology, which it very clearly is. He said "amazing technology" not "AGI that can replace humans". They are not the same.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
  It’s absurd that you think that the benefit that I and others get from, say, Copilot, is somehow thwarted by some ranty social media thread that you’re a fan of. It’s some blogger’s theory arguing with empiricism. It’s a completely empty argument. I’m not sure how you’d expect that this would add to the conversation at all. It certainly doesn’t warrant your snarky tone.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    Perhaps you should read it again because you seem to have misunderstood the message. It doesn't even try to claim that LLMs aren't beneficial - it agrees that they're useful in certain situations, but that they're also over-hyped and misrepresented by their creators. > You might be surprised to learn that I actually think LLMs have the potential to be not only fun but genuinely useful. [...] > I’ve heard from several students that LLMs have been really useful to them in that “where the !^%8 do I even start?!” phase of learning a new language, framework, or tool. Documentation frequently fails to share common idioms; discovering the right idiom in the current context is often difficult. And “What’s a pattern that fits here, never mind the correctness of the details?” is a great question for an LLM. > Alas, the AI hype is around LLMs •replacing• thought, not •prompting• it. This perfectly matches my experience too. If I know what needs to be done, then all LLMs waste my time on average. However when I'm trying to learn about some new topic then LLMs have been a good way to get me oriented in the right direction and get a really high level overview that allows me to get a jump start and start learning about the topic on my own. They tend to shine a light on all the "unknown unknowns" (e.g. common terminology and concepts), but they're poor at converting "known unknowns" into real knowledge since they lack any real and deep understanding themselves. Are LLMs useful? Yes. Do they live up to expectations set by their creators? Not even close.
kolinko 2y ago
They didn’t steal her voice, they paid someone with a similar voice. It’s still not nice, but not stealing.
- saberience 2y ago
  How do you know that? The timeline of events makes it seem fairly clear that they were in fact using her voice. If it was just a soundalike, why suddenly take it down?
  - tmalsburg2 2y ago
    Didn't they also ask for permission from her two days before releasing the voice? Why ask permission if it was not her voice?
    - ptman 2y ago
      They refused to provide documentation of how the voice was trained.
    - eviks 2y ago
      To avoid negative PR and legal risk stemming from confusion
- splatzone 2y ago
  They passed off Sky as Johansson’s voice though. It’s highly misleading and passing off is a kind of theft of her persona.
  - KaoruAoiShiho 2y ago
    It sounds nothing like johansson, like nothing at all. https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1cx1np4/voice_comparison_between_gpt4o_and_scarlett/ https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1cx1np4/voice_... This whole controversy makes no sense and is obvious that the media is looking for something to attack openai with.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it also points to a wider problem Look at the comments, even in this thread, defending Sam. I thought this could be dealt with by the courts. But it clearly needs stronger medicine; there is simply too much hubris. Congress may need to act; let’s start with states’ AGs. (Narrow clarifications on copyright and likeness rights, to start. Prosecution from there. The low-hanging fruit is anyone in Illinois who was enrolled in WorldCoin.) We, as a community, have been critical of crypto. AI is different—Altman is not. He is a proven liar, and this episode demonstrates the culture he has created at a multibillion-dollar firm that seems destined, in the long run, for—at best—novel conservatorship. We have a wider problem. It isn’t “alignment.” It’s 19th-century fast-talking fraudsters clothing themselves in the turtlenecks of dead founders.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  We aren't a community. Please stop this constant attempt to create tribes and then (presumably) become the tribe's representative. We are individuals with different opinions. The individuals on HN are more amenable to reason than the average discussion; persuade them into a way of thinking.
  - MrSkelter 2y ago
    Spoken like a housecat who thinks it’s a Tiger.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > We aren't a community Of course we are. That doesn’t coerce anyone into a groupthink, and it doesn’t mean everyone is a part of it. I’m simply asking anyone who held one opinion to find harmonics with another.
    - mlrtime 2y ago
      We aren't a group-think echo chamber. The original message stands, Most of us are open to changing our mind given the correct information. I read HN 10x more than reddit just because of this fact.
zigzag312 2y ago
> They've stolen it, they're put it into their little magic box and now they want to sell it back to you. In a way, it's similar to how cable TV started. Early cable relayed free terrestrial channels and charged a fee for it. The selling point was better picture quality in some areas. Cable operators did not pay broadcasters for the content they retransmitted. https://www.britannica.com/technology/cable-television https://www.britannica.com/technology/cable-television https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute
- b112 2y ago
  They also didn't chop up the broadcasts, store them, rearrange and put together frames from different broadcasts, and then charge an additional fee for help videos, and rebroadcast them upon demand. It's not even remotely the same.
  - growfeather 2y ago
    Sounds almost transformative when you put it that way. You’re saying they took the content, and turned it into something completely different than its source? Hm.
    - b112 2y ago
      No, I'm not saying that. I can read a book, like it, create a screenplay with changes, and make a movie. It's different, but not completely different, and it is infringement. I can even create an entirely new story, but using the same canon and characters, that too is infringement. What people don't get is that you can't play games. TV lawyers are drama, and made up gibberish. Judges won't tolerate mental gymnastics, and attempts to explain away legalities rarely succeed.
  - zigzag312 2y ago
    Altering of received broadcast signals did happen. They did substitute advertising sometimes. But I'm not sure, if it happened without any rights and compensation at any point in history. Quick google search doesn't find any quality sources on the topic. But the parallel I was trying to draw is that they profited financially from other people's work without any compensation to the IP owners.
baq 2y ago
> This is like early 2010s facebook vibes. Was just thinking that sama managed to frame himself in opposition to the good guy Zuck. This sounds absurd, but we're here, this is the timeline.
ulfw 2y ago
A lot can be an amazing company if you're dealing with unlicensed instead of licensed content. Anyone could beat Netflix or HBO or Disney or whoever if they just could take films and series and sell them without ever having paid licensing fees. Anyone could beat Spotify or Apple Music if they just could take songs andsell them without ever having paid licensing fees. etc etc you get the idea
chrisjj 2y ago
> such incredible bad vibes. This is like early 2010s facebook vibes What's saddest is they will probably impede OpenAI no more than they did Facebook.
barfbagginus 2y ago
We must seize or copy the magic black box and make it free for everyone. It represents a great potential to reduce suffering and knowledge scarcity. It would be a massive injustice to do anything but make it part of the universal human legacy.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
"They're built on theft." The "Big Tech" companies trying to compete with OpenAI were built on theft, too. They do not produce content. They collect data about people and usurp others' content for advertising purposes. This comes at the cost of privacy, "data breaches", teen mental health, journalism, perhaps even civil, democratic society, to name just a few sacrifices. OpenAI is pushing those companies to be as bad as they can be. As we are seeing, they have no problem going there. It is "in their DNA". Always has been. This forced showing of "true colors" is the effect of a potential competitor that cannot be merged and acquired. People from all walks of life are noticing. It's a great time.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
  Energy waste, water waste, the list of sacrifices is ugly.
swat535 2y ago
Of course people on HN are going to defend Sam, why wouldn't they? He has promised us all salvation through AI revolution: The one where finally mankind is saved through technology, hunger is no more and diseases have been cured thanks to ChatGPT; We will have AGI and rogue Terminators are capable of roaming free in the wild. Altman is a master magician, he has even convinced the Vatican to write a document regarding the dangers of AI; in his path to reach bigger piles mountains of cash, he has thrown out all sense of ethics and integrity. He has replaced entire board, solidified his position as the CEO, is actively attempting to silence any possible whistle blower or negative feedback internally through legal agreements, attempted regulatory capture to stop opposition, stolen other people's content to train his chat bot and of course now yet another scam, passing on someone else's voice as Scarlet. It won't end here, he will keep on going and his followers will defend him, because they are truly convinced the man is a revolutionary. I for one, fear for a world where openAI (open in lowercase is intentional) dominates with Sam at the helm.
tim333 2y ago
>If you wrote something on the internet in the last 20 years, they've stolen it. I don't really expect any person or AI to be influenced by what I've written but if were I'm quite pleased. I wouldn't call it stealing. Is everyone on this forum a thief because they learnt English and much culture without getting permission from those who came up with it?
mountainriver 2y ago
How is it stolen if it’s public information?

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.
  - beachy 2y ago
    All of these can be true. 1) Sam is a conniving weasel. 2) Sam has made many OpenAI employees rich. 3) The board knows that Sam is toxic and must be removed. 4) The board knows that removing Sam would mean the end of the company.
    - imjonse 2y ago
      It is not the first or the last company where people may despise their CEOs character but still stay for the advantages.
      - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
        > It is not the first or the last company where people may despise their CEOs character but still stay for the advantages. Exactly. Most people are simply hypocrites.
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    > The board is probably stacked with people loyal to Sam now. Sure. Now. I.e. only until they get sued.
cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
I’m sick to death of hearing this. It’s the antithesis of a substantive argument, in a topic where there’s no shortage of substantive points to be made. Why are we still trotting it out on HN. Arguing about the name basically amounts to “I believe that when you use the word ‘open’ in your company name, they should act like $this”…which is, frankly, absurd. If you want to talk about how they’ve gone back on their word or whatever, can we just stick to that? Getting one’s knickers in a twist over “open” in the name just dumbs down the conversation and gets everyone arguing about semantics.
- tomrod 2y ago
  I think you're looking at the general notion and annoyance that "Open" is misconstrued and misapplied. But there is also a specific annoyance that OpenAI is literally closed, antithetical to its historical promises.
- frabcus 2y ago
  It has never been and still is not a company. It's a non profit. It doesn't act like that any more, which is the point.
- alternatex 2y ago
  I'm still angry Microsoft isn't producing microfiber cloths.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >Arguing about the name basically amounts to “I believe that when you use the word ‘open’ in your company name, they should act like $this”…which is, frankly, absurd. it does have a connotation of advertisement to it, so I think it's worth examining. This isn't like complaining about how Apple doesn't sell food. "Open" has a very specific meaning in Tech, and OpenAI is a tech company. It'd be the equivalent of Github swiching all of its repositories over to Mercurial tomorrow. They may have no obligation to support Git, but naming your company after such tech will have such expectation. You can definitely have an honest conversation about how using a word like "Open" for a tech company while switching to a closed source, publicly traded mentality is in fact a betrayal of the audiene who were inevitably attracted by the naming scheme.
klyrs 2y ago
Open as in open legs, even if you say no? https://futurism.com/researcher-openai-sex-drug-parties https://futurism.com/researcher-openai-sex-drug-parties https://www.themarysue.com/annie-altmans-abuse-allegations-against-openais-sam-altman-highlight-the-need-to-prioritize-humanity-over-tech/ https://www.themarysue.com/annie-altmans-abuse-allegations-a...

amelius 2y ago

"Good artists copy, great artists steal."

aredox 2y ago
Another thought-terminating cliché. https://bookriot.com/do-great-artists-steal/ https://bookriot.com/do-great-artists-steal/
jamil7 2y ago
This isn't an artist building on the work of previous artists, this is a for-profit company repurposing people's work and mass producing it without permission or paying royalties.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Apple would disagree. Jobs considered himself an artist in the straightforward context or his quote.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Jobs considered himself an artist Jobs, at the very least, would have stolen competently. OpenAI asked Johansson for her likeness; she refused. So they trained an AI on a person instructed to mimic her likeness, and then tweeted a mocking reference to the source they stole from [1]. Put aside your views on morality or legality. I’m damning them for being stupid. [1] https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1790075827666796666%7Ctwgr%5E61db2b983aa83e49e32c1e0dce12274e0f1c260e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportskeeda.com%2Fus%2Fmovies%2Fnews-sam-altman-s-her-tweet-goes-viral-scarlett-johansson-calls-openai-unauthorized-use-voice https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666?ref_src=twsrc%...
    - tomrod 2y ago
      Make no mistake: I think lame wannabes steal, competently or not, regardless how successful they become. And yeah, the techbro culture Sam steeped in results in remarkable stupidity!

chx 2y ago

> OpenAI is amazing technology, Erm... no. https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/112006855076082650 https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/112006855076082650 > You might be surprised to learn that I actually think LLMs have the potential to be not only fun but genuinely useful. “Show me some bullshit that would be typical in this context” can be a genuinely helpful question to have answered, in code and in natural language — for brainstorming, for seeing common conventions in an unfamiliar context, for having something crappy to react to. > Alas, that does not remotely resemble how people are pitching this technology.

IshKebab 2y ago
That is a dumb low effort take that doesn't even try to refute the statement that this is amazing technology, which it very clearly is. He said "amazing technology" not "AGI that can replace humans". They are not the same.
cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
It’s absurd that you think that the benefit that I and others get from, say, Copilot, is somehow thwarted by some ranty social media thread that you’re a fan of. It’s some blogger’s theory arguing with empiricism. It’s a completely empty argument. I’m not sure how you’d expect that this would add to the conversation at all. It certainly doesn’t warrant your snarky tone.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  Perhaps you should read it again because you seem to have misunderstood the message. It doesn't even try to claim that LLMs aren't beneficial - it agrees that they're useful in certain situations, but that they're also over-hyped and misrepresented by their creators. > You might be surprised to learn that I actually think LLMs have the potential to be not only fun but genuinely useful. [...] > I’ve heard from several students that LLMs have been really useful to them in that “where the !^%8 do I even start?!” phase of learning a new language, framework, or tool. Documentation frequently fails to share common idioms; discovering the right idiom in the current context is often difficult. And “What’s a pattern that fits here, never mind the correctness of the details?” is a great question for an LLM. > Alas, the AI hype is around LLMs •replacing• thought, not •prompting• it. This perfectly matches my experience too. If I know what needs to be done, then all LLMs waste my time on average. However when I'm trying to learn about some new topic then LLMs have been a good way to get me oriented in the right direction and get a really high level overview that allows me to get a jump start and start learning about the topic on my own. They tend to shine a light on all the "unknown unknowns" (e.g. common terminology and concepts), but they're poor at converting "known unknowns" into real knowledge since they lack any real and deep understanding themselves. Are LLMs useful? Yes. Do they live up to expectations set by their creators? Not even close.

kolinko 2y ago

They didn’t steal her voice, they paid someone with a similar voice. It’s still not nice, but not stealing.

saberience 2y ago
How do you know that? The timeline of events makes it seem fairly clear that they were in fact using her voice. If it was just a soundalike, why suddenly take it down?
- tmalsburg2 2y ago
  Didn't they also ask for permission from her two days before releasing the voice? Why ask permission if it was not her voice?
  - ptman 2y ago
    They refused to provide documentation of how the voice was trained.
  - eviks 2y ago
    To avoid negative PR and legal risk stemming from confusion
splatzone 2y ago
They passed off Sky as Johansson’s voice though. It’s highly misleading and passing off is a kind of theft of her persona.
- KaoruAoiShiho 2y ago
  It sounds nothing like johansson, like nothing at all. https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1cx1np4/voice_comparison_between_gpt4o_and_scarlett/ https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1cx1np4/voice_... This whole controversy makes no sense and is obvious that the media is looking for something to attack openai with.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> it also points to a wider problem Look at the comments, even in this thread, defending Sam. I thought this could be dealt with by the courts. But it clearly needs stronger medicine; there is simply too much hubris. Congress may need to act; let’s start with states’ AGs. (Narrow clarifications on copyright and likeness rights, to start. Prosecution from there. The low-hanging fruit is anyone in Illinois who was enrolled in WorldCoin.) We, as a community, have been critical of crypto. AI is different—Altman is not. He is a proven liar, and this episode demonstrates the culture he has created at a multibillion-dollar firm that seems destined, in the long run, for—at best—novel conservatorship. We have a wider problem. It isn’t “alignment.” It’s 19th-century fast-talking fraudsters clothing themselves in the turtlenecks of dead founders.

robertlagrant 2y ago
We aren't a community. Please stop this constant attempt to create tribes and then (presumably) become the tribe's representative. We are individuals with different opinions. The individuals on HN are more amenable to reason than the average discussion; persuade them into a way of thinking.
- MrSkelter 2y ago
  Spoken like a housecat who thinks it’s a Tiger.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > We aren't a community Of course we are. That doesn’t coerce anyone into a groupthink, and it doesn’t mean everyone is a part of it. I’m simply asking anyone who held one opinion to find harmonics with another.
  - mlrtime 2y ago
    We aren't a group-think echo chamber. The original message stands, Most of us are open to changing our mind given the correct information. I read HN 10x more than reddit just because of this fact.

zigzag312 2y ago

> They've stolen it, they're put it into their little magic box and now they want to sell it back to you. In a way, it's similar to how cable TV started. Early cable relayed free terrestrial channels and charged a fee for it. The selling point was better picture quality in some areas. Cable operators did not pay broadcasters for the content they retransmitted. https://www.britannica.com/technology/cable-television https://www.britannica.com/technology/cable-television https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute

b112 2y ago
They also didn't chop up the broadcasts, store them, rearrange and put together frames from different broadcasts, and then charge an additional fee for help videos, and rebroadcast them upon demand. It's not even remotely the same.
- growfeather 2y ago
  Sounds almost transformative when you put it that way. You’re saying they took the content, and turned it into something completely different than its source? Hm.
  - b112 2y ago
    No, I'm not saying that. I can read a book, like it, create a screenplay with changes, and make a movie. It's different, but not completely different, and it is infringement. I can even create an entirely new story, but using the same canon and characters, that too is infringement. What people don't get is that you can't play games. TV lawyers are drama, and made up gibberish. Judges won't tolerate mental gymnastics, and attempts to explain away legalities rarely succeed.
- zigzag312 2y ago
  Altering of received broadcast signals did happen. They did substitute advertising sometimes. But I'm not sure, if it happened without any rights and compensation at any point in history. Quick google search doesn't find any quality sources on the topic. But the parallel I was trying to draw is that they profited financially from other people's work without any compensation to the IP owners.

baq 2y ago

> This is like early 2010s facebook vibes. Was just thinking that sama managed to frame himself in opposition to the good guy Zuck. This sounds absurd, but we're here, this is the timeline.

ulfw 2y ago

A lot can be an amazing company if you're dealing with unlicensed instead of licensed content. Anyone could beat Netflix or HBO or Disney or whoever if they just could take films and series and sell them without ever having paid licensing fees. Anyone could beat Spotify or Apple Music if they just could take songs andsell them without ever having paid licensing fees. etc etc you get the idea

chrisjj 2y ago

> such incredible bad vibes. This is like early 2010s facebook vibes What's saddest is they will probably impede OpenAI no more than they did Facebook.

barfbagginus 2y ago

We must seize or copy the magic black box and make it free for everyone. It represents a great potential to reduce suffering and knowledge scarcity. It would be a massive injustice to do anything but make it part of the universal human legacy.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

"They're built on theft." The "Big Tech" companies trying to compete with OpenAI were built on theft, too. They do not produce content. They collect data about people and usurp others' content for advertising purposes. This comes at the cost of privacy, "data breaches", teen mental health, journalism, perhaps even civil, democratic society, to name just a few sacrifices. OpenAI is pushing those companies to be as bad as they can be. As we are seeing, they have no problem going there. It is "in their DNA". Always has been. This forced showing of "true colors" is the effect of a potential competitor that cannot be merged and acquired. People from all walks of life are noticing. It's a great time.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
Energy waste, water waste, the list of sacrifices is ugly.

swat535 2y ago

Of course people on HN are going to defend Sam, why wouldn't they? He has promised us all salvation through AI revolution: The one where finally mankind is saved through technology, hunger is no more and diseases have been cured thanks to ChatGPT; We will have AGI and rogue Terminators are capable of roaming free in the wild. Altman is a master magician, he has even convinced the Vatican to write a document regarding the dangers of AI; in his path to reach bigger piles mountains of cash, he has thrown out all sense of ethics and integrity. He has replaced entire board, solidified his position as the CEO, is actively attempting to silence any possible whistle blower or negative feedback internally through legal agreements, attempted regulatory capture to stop opposition, stolen other people's content to train his chat bot and of course now yet another scam, passing on someone else's voice as Scarlet. It won't end here, he will keep on going and his followers will defend him, because they are truly convinced the man is a revolutionary. I for one, fear for a world where openAI (open in lowercase is intentional) dominates with Sam at the helm.

tim333 2y ago

>If you wrote something on the internet in the last 20 years, they've stolen it. I don't really expect any person or AI to be influenced by what I've written but if were I'm quite pleased. I wouldn't call it stealing. Is everyone on this forum a thief because they learnt English and much culture without getting permission from those who came up with it?

mountainriver 2y ago

How is it stolen if it’s public information?