5 ms·

A more charitable scenario might be that they hire the voice actor and it sounds a bit like her. Someone suggests why don't we just get Scarlett to do it proper

A more charitable scenario might be that they hire the voice actor and it sounds a bit like her. Someone suggests why don't we just get Scarlett to do it properly, wouldn't that be cooler? They reach out and she says no. They decide to continue with the one that sounds a bit like her.

jrm4 2y ago
Genuine question; Why in the world would one expect the more charitable scenario?
- glenstein 2y ago
  It's just a best practice that serves as a healthy counterbalance to cognitive biases, that might otherwise urge us to convict without evidence. It's not necessarily what will prove true at the end of the day but I think we owe people the presumption of innocence.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - rangerelf 2y ago
    Is it necessarily a bad bias to assume OpenAI is still behaving as it's been behaving during its entire history: recklessly taking other people's IP?
    - glenstein 2y ago
      I think the way I would split the difference here is that your point should inform how we think about regulation and investigation. How we write rules, how we decide to proceed in terms of investigating things. But when it comes to specific questions that hinge on evidence, I think you have to maintain the typical presumption of innocence, just to balance out the possibilities of mob psychology getting out of control.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      Yes, because the courts have yet to decide whether OpenAI has been "recklessly taking other people's IP" in an illegal way. Right now, it's only something believed by people who wish it to be true; legally, it's not clear just yet. In contrast, actually doing SJ impersonation here would be a much clearer violation. There's a huge gap between the two deeds, and I don't see the reason to just assume OpenAI crossed it. It's like, the people dropping leaflets in your physical mailbox are delivering spam, but you wouldn't automatically assume those same people are also trying to scam you and your neighbors by delivering you physical letters meant to trick people into parting with their savings. In both cases, the messages are spam, but one is legal, other is not, and there's a huge gap between them.
      - jrm4 2y ago
        Exactly wrong; it's the job of the law to "be careful," not of the people. Those of us accusing and talking about it have no power -- thus there is literally no harm, and possible good in, putting them on the defense about this. edit: In fact, the First Amendment of the Constitution essentially directly upholds the idea of "people saying whatever they want" in this regard.
  - jrm4 2y ago
    Yes, you owe people that. No, you do not owe "corporations, especially those with a tendency, incentive, and history of being ruthless in this way." Wise up, people.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    I think we owe people outside of a commercial environment the presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt. But we owe profit-seeking corporations (or their officers) neither, and the assumption should be that they are simply amorally doing whatever maximizes profit. As soon as someone hangs their shingle out there as a business, our presumptions should change.
- KHRZ 2y ago
  Because it follows the legal principle of innocent untill proven guilty? Unlike the "OpenAI must have cloned Scarlett Johansson's voice" wild dystophia speculations.
  - jrm4 2y ago
    This is goofy. "The law" should be careful because the law has power to do real harm. People don't need to be careful just talking; in fact we generally support the idea of "people saying whatever" in the form of the First Amendment.
- bengale 2y ago
  Until proven otherwise I try not to assume malice in every action.
- alickz 2y ago
  The Principle of Charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
lupire 2y ago
That's the same thing, in fewer words. It doesn't change that the beginning and the end are still imitating the original, and this is a billion dollar corporation, not an Elvis personator doing a little show.

jrm4 2y ago

Genuine question; Why in the world would one expect the more charitable scenario?

glenstein 2y ago
It's just a best practice that serves as a healthy counterbalance to cognitive biases, that might otherwise urge us to convict without evidence. It's not necessarily what will prove true at the end of the day but I think we owe people the presumption of innocence.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rangerelf 2y ago
  Is it necessarily a bad bias to assume OpenAI is still behaving as it's been behaving during its entire history: recklessly taking other people's IP?
  - glenstein 2y ago
    I think the way I would split the difference here is that your point should inform how we think about regulation and investigation. How we write rules, how we decide to proceed in terms of investigating things. But when it comes to specific questions that hinge on evidence, I think you have to maintain the typical presumption of innocence, just to balance out the possibilities of mob psychology getting out of control.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Yes, because the courts have yet to decide whether OpenAI has been "recklessly taking other people's IP" in an illegal way. Right now, it's only something believed by people who wish it to be true; legally, it's not clear just yet. In contrast, actually doing SJ impersonation here would be a much clearer violation. There's a huge gap between the two deeds, and I don't see the reason to just assume OpenAI crossed it. It's like, the people dropping leaflets in your physical mailbox are delivering spam, but you wouldn't automatically assume those same people are also trying to scam you and your neighbors by delivering you physical letters meant to trick people into parting with their savings. In both cases, the messages are spam, but one is legal, other is not, and there's a huge gap between them.
    - jrm4 2y ago
      Exactly wrong; it's the job of the law to "be careful," not of the people. Those of us accusing and talking about it have no power -- thus there is literally no harm, and possible good in, putting them on the defense about this. edit: In fact, the First Amendment of the Constitution essentially directly upholds the idea of "people saying whatever they want" in this regard.
- jrm4 2y ago
  Yes, you owe people that. No, you do not owe "corporations, especially those with a tendency, incentive, and history of being ruthless in this way." Wise up, people.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  I think we owe people outside of a commercial environment the presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt. But we owe profit-seeking corporations (or their officers) neither, and the assumption should be that they are simply amorally doing whatever maximizes profit. As soon as someone hangs their shingle out there as a business, our presumptions should change.
KHRZ 2y ago
Because it follows the legal principle of innocent untill proven guilty? Unlike the "OpenAI must have cloned Scarlett Johansson's voice" wild dystophia speculations.
- jrm4 2y ago
  This is goofy. "The law" should be careful because the law has power to do real harm. People don't need to be careful just talking; in fact we generally support the idea of "people saying whatever" in the form of the First Amendment.
bengale 2y ago
Until proven otherwise I try not to assume malice in every action.
alickz 2y ago
The Principle of Charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

lupire 2y ago

That's the same thing, in fewer words. It doesn't change that the beginning and the end are still imitating the original, and this is a billion dollar corporation, not an Elvis personator doing a little show.