4 ms·

While not defending OpenAI or Altman, the caveat here is that this was a voice actor using their natural voice, not an actor impersonating scarlett johansson.

While not defending OpenAI or Altman, the caveat here is that this was a voice actor using their natural voice, not an actor impersonating scarlett johansson. Setting a precedent that if your natural voice sounds similar to a more famous actor precludes you from work would be a terrible precedent to set.

hluska 2y ago
If we assume that Scarlett Johansson is telling the truth, why would they try to resume negotiations with her two days before they launched the model? If they found a good actor whose voice sounds like Scarlett Johansson, that’s a great argument. But if they found a good actor whose voice sounds like Scarlett Johansson because the real Scarlett Johansson said no, that gets more questionable. When they did all that and still promoted the launch by directly referring to a Scarlett Johansson role, it got even more questionable. I’m not pulling out my pitchforks but this is reckless.
- czl 2y ago
  > why would they try to resume negotiations Could they be trying to avert possible negative public perception even if they believe all they did was 100% legal? If you have ample funds and are willing to pay someone to make X easier for you does your offer to pay them imply that X is against the law? If your voice sounds like someone famous now you are prevented from getting any voice acting work? Because that famous person owns the rights to your voice? Tell me which law says this?
  - hluska 2y ago
    I don’t know why you’re asking me those last three questions. First, I’m not a lawyer. Second, I didn’t make any claims that could make those questions relevant. Instead, I’ll repeat my earlier claim - this was reckless. If they were trying to avoid a strong negative perception, they failed. And they failed with an actor who sued Disney shortly after they paid her $20 million to make a movie.
    - czl 2y ago
      You asked the good question about why they may have acted as they did and I attempted to answer it. In hindsight based on results it may look reckless but decisions need to be judged based on that is known at the time they are made and the public reaction was not a foregone outcome. The openAI sky voice has been available since last September why was there no outrage about it back then? You can listen to the voices side by side: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cwy6wz/comment/l4z9726/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cwy6wz/comment/l4... And here is voice of another actress ( Rashida Jones ): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385414AVZcA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385414AVZcA This test is not blind but YOU tell me which you think is similar to the openAI sky voice? > And they failed with an actor who sued Disney shortly after they paid her $20 million to make a movie. OpenAI did not fail. They suspended the sky voice and backed down not to further anger a segment of the public who views much of what OpenAI does in a negative light. Given the voice test above do you seriously think OpenAI would lose in court? Would that matter to the segment of population that is already outraged by AI? How are journalists and news companies affected by AI? How might their reporting be biased?
      - CRConrad 2y ago
        > OpenAI did not fail. They suspended the sky voice and backed down Yeah, that's failing.
pseudalopex 2y ago
> While not defending OpenAI or Altman, the caveat here is that this was a voice actor using their natural voice, not an actor impersonating scarlett johansson. How do you know?
- frankacter 2y ago
  "Sky's voice is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using her own natural speaking voice" https://www.npr.org/2024/05/20/1252495087/openai-pulls-ai-voice-that-was-compared-to-scarlett-johansson-in-the-movie-her https://www.npr.org/2024/05/20/1252495087/openai-pulls-ai-vo...
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    Ahh, because Sam "Insufficiently Candid" Altman has never lied before?
wk_end 2y ago
I think it would be more like "precludes you from work (arguably) deceptively impersonating the more famous actor."
- frankacter 2y ago
  Speaking with your natural voice is not impersonating.
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40435388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40435388
  - wk_end 2y ago
    You should tell that to OpenAI, who are the ones selling it as "her".
    - frankacter 2y ago
      Drawing a parallel to a calming persona of an always on life assistant from pop culture in a few throwaway social media posts from personal accounts such as "Hope Everyone's Ready" isn't "selling it as Her" any more than Anthropic is selling their offerings as a Star Trek communicator despite a few comments they've made on social media.
      - CRConrad 2y ago
        > an always on life assistant from pop culture It's not "from pop culture", it's from a specific film. Starring Scarlett Johansson.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> Setting a precedent that if your natural voice sounds similar to a more famous actor precludes you from work would be a terrible precedent to set. Yes, but literally no one anywhere is suggesting that the voice actress used would be banned from work because of any similarity between her voice and Johansson's; that’s an irrelevant strawman. Some people are arguing that there is considerable reason to believe that the totality of the circumstances of OpenAI’s particular use of her voice would make OpenAI liable under existing right of personality precedent, which, again, does not create liability for mere similarity of voice.
- frankacter 2y ago
  >Yes, but literally no one anywhere is suggesting that the voice actress used would be banned from work because of any similarity between her voice and Johansson's; that’s an irrelevant strawman It's not. The original comment in this chain was drawing parallel to a lawsuit in which someone intentionally took steps to impersonate an actor. This situation is a voice actor using their "natural voice" as a source of work. If a lawsuit barring OpenAI from using this voice actor is successful, due to similarities to a more famous actor, that puts this voice actor's future potential at risk for companies actively wanting to avoid potential for litigation. Suggesting a calming female persona as a real time always present life assistant draws parallel to a movie about a calming female persona that is a real time always present life assistant is not a smoking gun of impropriety. Pursuing a more famous name to attach to marketing is certainly worth paying a premium over a lesser known voice actor and again is not a smoking gun. Sky voice has been around for a very long time in the OpenAI app dating back to early 2023. No one was drawing similarities or crying foul and decrying how it "sounds just like Scarlett" ..
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    > The original comment in this chain was drawing parallel to a lawsuit in which someone intentionally took steps to impersonate an actor. > This situation is a voice actor using their "natural voice" as a source of work. Work which was then marketed with heavy implications referring to another actor. Which is what makes this situation so similar to the earlier one.
CaptainZapp 2y ago
There is precedent. Frito Lay wanted to use a Tom Waits song for an ad. Since Waits is violently opposed to the use of his music in ads he declined. So they hired an impersinator for the soundtrack. Waits sued Frito Lay for voice misappropriation and false endorsement and they had to cough up to the tune of 2.6 million for violating his rights. This was upheld on appeal[0]. So, you absolutely have precedent and in my opinion it's galling that the tech bro'ship just doesn't give a shit about the rights of others. [0]

hluska 2y ago

If we assume that Scarlett Johansson is telling the truth, why would they try to resume negotiations with her two days before they launched the model? If they found a good actor whose voice sounds like Scarlett Johansson, that’s a great argument. But if they found a good actor whose voice sounds like Scarlett Johansson because the real Scarlett Johansson said no, that gets more questionable. When they did all that and still promoted the launch by directly referring to a Scarlett Johansson role, it got even more questionable. I’m not pulling out my pitchforks but this is reckless.

czl 2y ago
> why would they try to resume negotiations Could they be trying to avert possible negative public perception even if they believe all they did was 100% legal? If you have ample funds and are willing to pay someone to make X easier for you does your offer to pay them imply that X is against the law? If your voice sounds like someone famous now you are prevented from getting any voice acting work? Because that famous person owns the rights to your voice? Tell me which law says this?
- hluska 2y ago
  I don’t know why you’re asking me those last three questions. First, I’m not a lawyer. Second, I didn’t make any claims that could make those questions relevant. Instead, I’ll repeat my earlier claim - this was reckless. If they were trying to avoid a strong negative perception, they failed. And they failed with an actor who sued Disney shortly after they paid her $20 million to make a movie.
  - czl 2y ago
    You asked the good question about why they may have acted as they did and I attempted to answer it. In hindsight based on results it may look reckless but decisions need to be judged based on that is known at the time they are made and the public reaction was not a foregone outcome. The openAI sky voice has been available since last September why was there no outrage about it back then? You can listen to the voices side by side: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cwy6wz/comment/l4z9726/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cwy6wz/comment/l4... And here is voice of another actress ( Rashida Jones ): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385414AVZcA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=385414AVZcA This test is not blind but YOU tell me which you think is similar to the openAI sky voice? > And they failed with an actor who sued Disney shortly after they paid her $20 million to make a movie. OpenAI did not fail. They suspended the sky voice and backed down not to further anger a segment of the public who views much of what OpenAI does in a negative light. Given the voice test above do you seriously think OpenAI would lose in court? Would that matter to the segment of population that is already outraged by AI? How are journalists and news companies affected by AI? How might their reporting be biased?
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      > OpenAI did not fail. They suspended the sky voice and backed down Yeah, that's failing.

pseudalopex 2y ago

> While not defending OpenAI or Altman, the caveat here is that this was a voice actor using their natural voice, not an actor impersonating scarlett johansson. How do you know?

frankacter 2y ago
"Sky's voice is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using her own natural speaking voice" https://www.npr.org/2024/05/20/1252495087/openai-pulls-ai-voice-that-was-compared-to-scarlett-johansson-in-the-movie-her https://www.npr.org/2024/05/20/1252495087/openai-pulls-ai-vo...
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Ahh, because Sam "Insufficiently Candid" Altman has never lied before?

wk_end 2y ago

I think it would be more like "precludes you from work (arguably) deceptively impersonating the more famous actor."

frankacter 2y ago
Speaking with your natural voice is not impersonating.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40435388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40435388
- wk_end 2y ago
  You should tell that to OpenAI, who are the ones selling it as "her".
  - frankacter 2y ago
    Drawing a parallel to a calming persona of an always on life assistant from pop culture in a few throwaway social media posts from personal accounts such as "Hope Everyone's Ready" isn't "selling it as Her" any more than Anthropic is selling their offerings as a Star Trek communicator despite a few comments they've made on social media.
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      > an always on life assistant from pop culture It's not "from pop culture", it's from a specific film. Starring Scarlett Johansson.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> Setting a precedent that if your natural voice sounds similar to a more famous actor precludes you from work would be a terrible precedent to set. Yes, but literally no one anywhere is suggesting that the voice actress used would be banned from work because of any similarity between her voice and Johansson's; that’s an irrelevant strawman. Some people are arguing that there is considerable reason to believe that the totality of the circumstances of OpenAI’s particular use of her voice would make OpenAI liable under existing right of personality precedent, which, again, does not create liability for mere similarity of voice.

frankacter 2y ago
>Yes, but literally no one anywhere is suggesting that the voice actress used would be banned from work because of any similarity between her voice and Johansson's; that’s an irrelevant strawman It's not. The original comment in this chain was drawing parallel to a lawsuit in which someone intentionally took steps to impersonate an actor. This situation is a voice actor using their "natural voice" as a source of work. If a lawsuit barring OpenAI from using this voice actor is successful, due to similarities to a more famous actor, that puts this voice actor's future potential at risk for companies actively wanting to avoid potential for litigation. Suggesting a calming female persona as a real time always present life assistant draws parallel to a movie about a calming female persona that is a real time always present life assistant is not a smoking gun of impropriety. Pursuing a more famous name to attach to marketing is certainly worth paying a premium over a lesser known voice actor and again is not a smoking gun. Sky voice has been around for a very long time in the OpenAI app dating back to early 2023. No one was drawing similarities or crying foul and decrying how it "sounds just like Scarlett" ..
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > The original comment in this chain was drawing parallel to a lawsuit in which someone intentionally took steps to impersonate an actor. > This situation is a voice actor using their "natural voice" as a source of work. Work which was then marketed with heavy implications referring to another actor. Which is what makes this situation so similar to the earlier one.

CaptainZapp 2y ago

There is precedent. Frito Lay wanted to use a Tom Waits song for an ad. Since Waits is violently opposed to the use of his music in ads he declined. So they hired an impersinator for the soundtrack. Waits sued Frito Lay for voice misappropriation and false endorsement and they had to cough up to the tune of 2.6 million for violating his rights. This was upheld on appeal[0]. So, you absolutely have precedent and in my opinion it's galling that the tech bro'ship just doesn't give a shit about the rights of others. [0]