3 ms·

That makes it weird, but it doesn't (itself) mean they literally used her voice. It just means they were inspired by the movie. It's not illegal to be weird.

lwansbrough 2y ago
The founding principle of Silicon Valley.
throwaway42668 2y ago
Perpetual benefit of the doubt given for every implication as though it’s happening in a vacuum is how humanity keeps putting megalomaniacs and sociopaths into positions of power and influence. It’s really a shame.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  If we're going to pillory Sam Altman, it's important to do it for the right reasons. That was not a good reason. I really should not need to defend this principle.
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    What reason do you suggest is more appropriate to “pillory Sam Altman”
    - andrewflnr 2y ago
      Most of the other ones in this thread?
hluska 2y ago
I think it’s less the voice and more about how they went about it. They were apparently in negotiations with her and they fell apart. Then they tried to resume negotiations with her two days before the new model launched. If it was just an actor, it might be a case of inspiration gone awry. But this particular actor sued Disney in 2021 after making a lot of movies and a lot of money making movies for them. Deliberately poking a fight with a litigation happy actor is weird. Most weird is really benign. But this is the kind of weird that forces out of court settlements. It’s reckless. Edit - mistyped the date as 2001. Changed to 2021.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  Oh, sure. There's plenty of other ways OpenAI have been boneheaded. I'm just saying the mere fact of referencing "Her" implies very little.
  - jprd 2y ago
    That's a fair statement if you take the "Her" post out-of-context and without the corroborating retort from ScarJo and his history. Which, of course, is not possible and also pretty boneheaded itself. This isn't some college kid with an idea and too much passion.
llamaimperative 2y ago
Legally they don’t need to have literally used her voice to have broken the law, never mind violating many people’s basic sense of what’s right and wrong.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  They don't? Because if it's true that they used a sound-alike voice actress for the actual model, I don't see how any reasonable complaint about that could stand. You can't ban people from voice-acting who have similar voices to other celebrities. There needs to be something more to it.
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    The something more is intent.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
  - CaptainZapp 2y ago
    > You can't ban people from voice-acting who have similar voices to other celebrities Actually, you probably can.[0] [0] https://casetext.com/case/waits-v-frito-lay-inc https://casetext.com/case/waits-v-frito-lay-inc Edit: Added the context for the reply
    - andrewflnr 2y ago
      Well that's... concerning? I'm not sure I disagree with the decision there but to apply it any more widely would be a problem.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        It's such a huge problem that it's only brought up in the context of someone (probably) doing exactly what it's designed to prevent... By some miracle, this actually isn't used to outlaw satire or put Elvis impersonators out of work. It's used to prevent people from implying endorsement where none exists.

lwansbrough 2y ago

The founding principle of Silicon Valley.

throwaway42668 2y ago

Perpetual benefit of the doubt given for every implication as though it’s happening in a vacuum is how humanity keeps putting megalomaniacs and sociopaths into positions of power and influence. It’s really a shame.

andrewflnr 2y ago
If we're going to pillory Sam Altman, it's important to do it for the right reasons. That was not a good reason. I really should not need to defend this principle.
- jrflowers 2y ago
  What reason do you suggest is more appropriate to “pillory Sam Altman”
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    Most of the other ones in this thread?

hluska 2y ago

I think it’s less the voice and more about how they went about it. They were apparently in negotiations with her and they fell apart. Then they tried to resume negotiations with her two days before the new model launched. If it was just an actor, it might be a case of inspiration gone awry. But this particular actor sued Disney in 2021 after making a lot of movies and a lot of money making movies for them. Deliberately poking a fight with a litigation happy actor is weird. Most weird is really benign. But this is the kind of weird that forces out of court settlements. It’s reckless. Edit - mistyped the date as 2001. Changed to 2021.

andrewflnr 2y ago
Oh, sure. There's plenty of other ways OpenAI have been boneheaded. I'm just saying the mere fact of referencing "Her" implies very little.
- jprd 2y ago
  That's a fair statement if you take the "Her" post out-of-context and without the corroborating retort from ScarJo and his history. Which, of course, is not possible and also pretty boneheaded itself. This isn't some college kid with an idea and too much passion.

llamaimperative 2y ago

Legally they don’t need to have literally used her voice to have broken the law, never mind violating many people’s basic sense of what’s right and wrong.

andrewflnr 2y ago
They don't? Because if it's true that they used a sound-alike voice actress for the actual model, I don't see how any reasonable complaint about that could stand. You can't ban people from voice-acting who have similar voices to other celebrities. There needs to be something more to it.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  The something more is intent.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
- CaptainZapp 2y ago
  > You can't ban people from voice-acting who have similar voices to other celebrities Actually, you probably can.[0] [0] https://casetext.com/case/waits-v-frito-lay-inc https://casetext.com/case/waits-v-frito-lay-inc Edit: Added the context for the reply
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    Well that's... concerning? I'm not sure I disagree with the decision there but to apply it any more widely would be a problem.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      It's such a huge problem that it's only brought up in the context of someone (probably) doing exactly what it's designed to prevent... By some miracle, this actually isn't used to outlaw satire or put Elvis impersonators out of work. It's used to prevent people from implying endorsement where none exists.