5 ms·

you have to be willfully missing the point when he said Her was his favorite movie, tweeted just “her” when the Sky voice was announced, and when they repeatedl

by zemo 2y ago

you have to be willfully missing the point when he said Her was his favorite movie, tweeted just “her” when the Sky voice was announced, and when they repeatedly tried to get the voice actor from Her. People who do underhanded things don’t just come out and say “look at me, doing the bad thing!”

behnamoh 2y ago
> you have to be willfully missing the point when he said Her was his favorite movie So what? It's one of my fav movies too. > they repeatedly tried to get the voice actor from Her. She didn't do it. So they went ahead and made a voice that sounds like her. It's not like she contributed to making the voice and then decided not to have it used.
- starttoaster 2y ago
  I'm not sure you're aware of the ramifications of all of this, or else you just don't care. The voice acting industry is now entirely dead thanks to your opinions on this matter. Nobody is going to reach out to Liam Neeson for his voice, they'll just have some voice tool recreate it and read the script as long as the tool can recreate the same emotional tones they're looking for, and it's cheaper than hiring the actual actor. There's tangible damages here. But I guess you don't mind because you're not a voice actor and this doesn't directly affect you. And before you try this rebuttal, this is different from machinery taking the jobs away from manufacturing plant workers, it's much bigger than that. With manufacturing plant workers, at least humans were still needed for recognizing a fault in the machinery and stopping the line. Humans still needed to maintain the machines. Humans needed to design and build the machines. In this scenario, a couple of central parties are creating these tools, and then nobody is needed to ensure a quality product any further down the chain than that. There either needs to be a legal consequence to this, or a 4.4 billion dollar industry is now just closing their doors. That's all well and good until all of those peoples' families need to eat their next meal or sleep in a home. But I guess their lives aren't your problem. It won't be anytime all that soon, in my opinion. But generative AI is coming for many (most? all?) sectors of work. And if history is any indicator, millions of people will have to suffer and/or die before governments step in to do much of anything about it. Probably especially-so in the US, since we tend to lean towards "free markets" that benefit the massive companies that have already made it, and allow them to chew through human resources (the people, not the department) mostly any way they see fit. So many people are going to lose their jobs and never find work in their field again, and they will all either die or retrain for all the same laborer positions and end up with a massive surplus of workers in those fields too. And that's only until we become skilled enough in robotics and generative AI to automate the trades too.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Getting rid of AI so people can do the work instead is another incarnation of the fallacy of the broken window.
    - starttoaster 2y ago
      All depends what lens you're looking through. From the perspective of advancement of the human race, AI is almost definitely a good thing. From the perspective of humans being employed at least in the short term, it's going to be very, very bad before anyone thinks to say, "maybe it's not necessary that all humans need to work if we don't have enough jobs to give them all. Maybe we need systems for allowing humans without a job function to continue to survive." But you don't need to listen to me, we'll all just see for ourselves because cat's already out of the bag and I don't think it's going to go back in. And the people that don't think it's going to happen won't willfully notice it's already happening to others until it also happens to them.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        The Luddites said the same thing about textile machinery.
        starttoaster 2y ago
        I already kind of replied to this rebuttal in advance in my first comment that you replied to. But I’ll refute it again a second way. Textile machinery impacted a very specific sector of work. We’re talking here about an advancement in technology threatening to substitute the creativity of humans one day. With textile machinery, other technological advancements eventually created new jobs which helped to displace the jobs that were lost. Will we manage to displace all of the creative roles we may lose to artificial intelligence at the same rate that the human workers are becoming obsolete? Time will tell. You seem very confident we will, and I wish I shared that confidence. But I’ll grant that I consider it’s possible we succeed in this. I find it wild that other people don’t consider it’s possible we fail though. All I’m saying is that we need to be mindful of it, mindful enough to notice it if it happens, as I’d argue is happening with ScarJo here, and the greater voice acting industry. Because in my opinion the overconfidence displayed to the contrary in this thread is exactly how I expect most of humanity will be blindsided by it happening instead.
rowanG077 2y ago
Oke and they weren't able to get her and then did a fall back to a different voice actor. How is that problematic? That's like trying to cast a specific actor in a movie, they decline and then you find the next closest match. It's not acceptable that the originally wanted actor then throws a hissy fit. I don't see the reason for outrage here at all.
- verdverm 2y ago
  The confusion (and that OAI attempted to recruit her) is sufficient grounds for a lawsuit to the effect that they impersonated her. Generally, celebrities have ownership and rights over their likeness for commercial or promotional purposes. OpenAI tried to benefit by using "her" likeness without permission or a contract/license
  - rowanG077 2y ago
    So If a director tries to cast Scarlett Johansson and she denies. Then instead casts Amber Heard in the movie. He is opening himself to lawsuits? Because Amber Heard looks very similar to Scarlet Johansson? I can't believe that. What gives Scarlett Johansson the right to block Amber Heard from playing in a movie she was considered for? I think this is what this argument comes down to but just in terms of voices.
    - verdverm 2y ago
      This is different and there is existing case law, see this other comment on this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40435274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40435274
- computerdork 2y ago
  I don't know, but Sam seemed to think it necessary to try to get her permission first, so it must be at least somewhat problematic. Yeah, "the major AI product in the world" to ask to use a famous actors voice, and then when she says no, create something similar anyways, is at least a little be slimy and really a bad idea on many different levels (legally for one thing).
computerdork 2y ago
agree with this.
wvenable 2y ago
I don't think any of this translates to anything bad. He loves the movie. OpenAI invented similar technology. They wanted to use Scarlett's voice to market it. She said no. They used a different voice. People really want their to be a crime here with no evidence. You all have ears, you can listen to both clips back to back and discover, unsurprisingly, that they are actually different voices. Not even an imitation.
- zemo 2y ago
  what do you think Her is about?
  - wvenable 2y ago
    What is relevance of that to this discussion on whether OpenAI stole Scarlett Johansson's voice?
    - zemo 2y ago
      you’re using “he loves the movie” as some sort of defense, when the movie is a pretty standard sci fi cautionary tale. You know the saying: sci-fi author: I wrote about the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale tech bros: Finally we have built the Torment Nexus from beloved sci fi story “Do not build the Torment Nexus” Enjoying a story is not justification for recreating any artifact that occurs within the story. Her is quite clearly a cautionary tale, not meant to be instructive. https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/why-is-sam-altman-so-obsessed-with https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/why-is-sam-altman-so-obs... so yes I do think it’s very relevant that when you say “he liked the film”, the contents of the film is an admissible area of inquiry.
      - wvenable 2y ago
        This is real life not fiction. Perhaps we shouldn't crucify people for this sort of vague association.
        2y ago

by zemo 2y ago

behnamoh 2y ago

> you have to be willfully missing the point when he said Her was his favorite movie So what? It's one of my fav movies too. > they repeatedly tried to get the voice actor from Her. She didn't do it. So they went ahead and made a voice that sounds like her. It's not like she contributed to making the voice and then decided not to have it used.

starttoaster 2y ago
I'm not sure you're aware of the ramifications of all of this, or else you just don't care. The voice acting industry is now entirely dead thanks to your opinions on this matter. Nobody is going to reach out to Liam Neeson for his voice, they'll just have some voice tool recreate it and read the script as long as the tool can recreate the same emotional tones they're looking for, and it's cheaper than hiring the actual actor. There's tangible damages here. But I guess you don't mind because you're not a voice actor and this doesn't directly affect you. And before you try this rebuttal, this is different from machinery taking the jobs away from manufacturing plant workers, it's much bigger than that. With manufacturing plant workers, at least humans were still needed for recognizing a fault in the machinery and stopping the line. Humans still needed to maintain the machines. Humans needed to design and build the machines. In this scenario, a couple of central parties are creating these tools, and then nobody is needed to ensure a quality product any further down the chain than that. There either needs to be a legal consequence to this, or a 4.4 billion dollar industry is now just closing their doors. That's all well and good until all of those peoples' families need to eat their next meal or sleep in a home. But I guess their lives aren't your problem. It won't be anytime all that soon, in my opinion. But generative AI is coming for many (most? all?) sectors of work. And if history is any indicator, millions of people will have to suffer and/or die before governments step in to do much of anything about it. Probably especially-so in the US, since we tend to lean towards "free markets" that benefit the massive companies that have already made it, and allow them to chew through human resources (the people, not the department) mostly any way they see fit. So many people are going to lose their jobs and never find work in their field again, and they will all either die or retrain for all the same laborer positions and end up with a massive surplus of workers in those fields too. And that's only until we become skilled enough in robotics and generative AI to automate the trades too.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Getting rid of AI so people can do the work instead is another incarnation of the fallacy of the broken window.
  - starttoaster 2y ago
    All depends what lens you're looking through. From the perspective of advancement of the human race, AI is almost definitely a good thing. From the perspective of humans being employed at least in the short term, it's going to be very, very bad before anyone thinks to say, "maybe it's not necessary that all humans need to work if we don't have enough jobs to give them all. Maybe we need systems for allowing humans without a job function to continue to survive." But you don't need to listen to me, we'll all just see for ourselves because cat's already out of the bag and I don't think it's going to go back in. And the people that don't think it's going to happen won't willfully notice it's already happening to others until it also happens to them.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      The Luddites said the same thing about textile machinery.
      - starttoaster 2y ago
        I already kind of replied to this rebuttal in advance in my first comment that you replied to. But I’ll refute it again a second way. Textile machinery impacted a very specific sector of work. We’re talking here about an advancement in technology threatening to substitute the creativity of humans one day. With textile machinery, other technological advancements eventually created new jobs which helped to displace the jobs that were lost. Will we manage to displace all of the creative roles we may lose to artificial intelligence at the same rate that the human workers are becoming obsolete? Time will tell. You seem very confident we will, and I wish I shared that confidence. But I’ll grant that I consider it’s possible we succeed in this. I find it wild that other people don’t consider it’s possible we fail though. All I’m saying is that we need to be mindful of it, mindful enough to notice it if it happens, as I’d argue is happening with ScarJo here, and the greater voice acting industry. Because in my opinion the overconfidence displayed to the contrary in this thread is exactly how I expect most of humanity will be blindsided by it happening instead.

rowanG077 2y ago

Oke and they weren't able to get her and then did a fall back to a different voice actor. How is that problematic? That's like trying to cast a specific actor in a movie, they decline and then you find the next closest match. It's not acceptable that the originally wanted actor then throws a hissy fit. I don't see the reason for outrage here at all.

verdverm 2y ago
The confusion (and that OAI attempted to recruit her) is sufficient grounds for a lawsuit to the effect that they impersonated her. Generally, celebrities have ownership and rights over their likeness for commercial or promotional purposes. OpenAI tried to benefit by using "her" likeness without permission or a contract/license
- rowanG077 2y ago
  So If a director tries to cast Scarlett Johansson and she denies. Then instead casts Amber Heard in the movie. He is opening himself to lawsuits? Because Amber Heard looks very similar to Scarlet Johansson? I can't believe that. What gives Scarlett Johansson the right to block Amber Heard from playing in a movie she was considered for? I think this is what this argument comes down to but just in terms of voices.
  - verdverm 2y ago
    This is different and there is existing case law, see this other comment on this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40435274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40435274
computerdork 2y ago
I don't know, but Sam seemed to think it necessary to try to get her permission first, so it must be at least somewhat problematic. Yeah, "the major AI product in the world" to ask to use a famous actors voice, and then when she says no, create something similar anyways, is at least a little be slimy and really a bad idea on many different levels (legally for one thing).

computerdork 2y ago

agree with this.

wvenable 2y ago

I don't think any of this translates to anything bad. He loves the movie. OpenAI invented similar technology. They wanted to use Scarlett's voice to market it. She said no. They used a different voice. People really want their to be a crime here with no evidence. You all have ears, you can listen to both clips back to back and discover, unsurprisingly, that they are actually different voices. Not even an imitation.

zemo 2y ago
what do you think Her is about?
- wvenable 2y ago
  What is relevance of that to this discussion on whether OpenAI stole Scarlett Johansson's voice?
  - zemo 2y ago
    you’re using “he loves the movie” as some sort of defense, when the movie is a pretty standard sci fi cautionary tale. You know the saying: sci-fi author: I wrote about the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale tech bros: Finally we have built the Torment Nexus from beloved sci fi story “Do not build the Torment Nexus” Enjoying a story is not justification for recreating any artifact that occurs within the story. Her is quite clearly a cautionary tale, not meant to be instructive. https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/why-is-sam-altman-so-obsessed-with https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/why-is-sam-altman-so-obs... so yes I do think it’s very relevant that when you say “he liked the film”, the contents of the film is an admissible area of inquiry.
    - wvenable 2y ago
      This is real life not fiction. Perhaps we shouldn't crucify people for this sort of vague association.
      - 2y ago