4 ms·
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
by 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 agoEspecially 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 agoThey 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.
- gizajob 2y agoI’m sure “Majel” is in the pipeline. Would the everywoman on the street be able to recognise Majel over Scarlett? I don’t believe so.
- throwawaymaths 2y agoI don't think most people recognized Scarlett either, and if so, they recognized her not from "Her" but generally as an actor
- bloopernova 2y agoNot HAL?
- eqvinox 2y agoI think the problem with HAL is that some people would recognize the attitude, not the voice ;D (i.e. I'm not sure if I would jump to "that's HAL!" if it weren't in disobeyance and vaguely threatening…)