4 ms·

If they had simply used Sky from the beginning and stuck with her natural voice they would likely be in the clear. The problem OpenAI has is they tried to get

by Retric 2y ago

If they had simply used Sky from the beginning and stuck with her natural voice they would likely be in the clear. The problem OpenAI has is they tried to get Scarlet to do the voice and after she declined OpenAI found someone who has a similar voice to do it. That shows intent which would otherwise be difficult, combined with the actual result being closer to Scarlet’s voice than Sky is naturally and they are likely going to lose. Edit: By after I am saying they decided to use Sky’s voice not that it was recorded first.

r2_pilot 2y ago
>The problem OpenAI has is they tried to get Scarlet to do the voice and after she declined OpenAI found someone who has a similar voice to do it. As the public currently knows based on reporting from WaPo, the original VA was selected and performed her role (months) BEFORE they reached out to Scarlett for the first time. Please don't misconstrue the timeline for other people that are just now tuning in.
- thih9 2y ago
  Why does this matter? I'd say whether they contacted ScarJo before, after or not at all is irrelevant. Then again, yes, I guess best to present events and the timeline as they were.
  - r2_pilot 2y ago
    For starters, it lends credence to (a claim I've read somewhere in this morass) OpenAI wanting to have a 6th voice in addition to the previous ones already created.
    - thih9 2y ago
      How does that affect the end result?
- Retric 2y ago
  They made the choice to use that voice after she decided otherwise they would never have approached Scarlet. When the recording session occurred is irrelevant. They wanted her voice, couldn’t get it, and then chose to use something similar.
  - mdorazio 2y ago
    This changes absolutely nothing about the legality or ethics involved.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Using something similar is a possible legal problem. Creating evidence likely to sway a jury that it was intentionally similar even if it wasn’t intended in that fashion is a problem.
  - ComplexSystems 2y ago
    If they really recorded the Sky actor well in advance then there's nothing wrong with them using it. They aren't required to suddenly delete the other voice actor's work because Scarlett Johansen refused a later proposal to use her voice instead. She owns the rights to her voice, not any vaguely similar sounding white female voice put together before they even talked to her.
    - Retric 2y ago
      OpenAI didn’t need to talk to her to create an imitation there’s many recordings freely available. Recording beforehand therefore has zero impact on their ability or intent to imitate such a public figure. The core question eventually put before a jury would be if it was unintentionally similar or an imitation and attempting to pay her for use of her voice is clear evidence they wanted it because of it or they perceived the voices where overly similar. Either of those are possible, but to then use the voice anyway became problematic.
      - ComplexSystems 2y ago
atleastoptimal 2y ago
they hired the VA before they even contacted Scarlett. Here’s what probably happened. OpenAI people realize they can do TTS for ChatGPT so they hire some voice actors. Some people point out that it would be cool if it could be as good as it is in Her, especially with 4o on the way, so they decide to contact Scarlett Johansson either to do a voice or just some promotional thing. She declines, but after 4o is released OpenAI realizes they can fairly make the comparison to the movie based on the quality and speed of the voice. Simply subtly referencing the film via an obvious parallel doesn’t constitute deceptive impersonation.
- Retric 2y ago
  That seems like an extremely generous interpretation on OpenAI’s behalf especially the timing of when they first think of the movie. Personally there’s many ways they could have been less suspicious from my perspective. Have a large number of voices or the ability to tweet them in many ways and no one voice seems important. Contact many famous people and it would have seemed like a promotional rather than a reference. Have someone lower on the totem pole than the CEO of a multi billionaire dollar corporation trying to make the deal. This not being about an actor playing an AI assistant in a movie vs the voice of an AI product. Not actually making the reference in a tweet. The phrase ‘the preponderance of the evidence’ comes to mind.
  - atleastoptimal 2y ago
    not sure what you mean by the “tweet them in many ways” sentence. There’s a chance they did contact other celebrities. We only know for sure they contacted Scarlett due to her lawsuit. Here’s the thing. No matter what, people would make the reference to Her. It’s like how everyone would make the connection to any sci fi movie if a device came out similar to the one in it. A woman’s voice as a virtual assistant is a very broad UI category, and being cheeky and drawing the comparison to a specific movie on everyone’s mind doesn’t constitute misleading impersonation, especially when you consider from OpenAI’s view the fact that they hired a different actress and didn’t ask her to do a Her impersonation.
    - 2y ago
tptacek 2y ago
No, they didn't. The opposite thing happened. They hired and recorded this voice actor months before they reached out to Johanssen. People are scrambling to hold bits of this original story together, but it's dead, Jim.
- Retric 2y ago
  It was recorded first, but not used publicly beforehand. If they had released the voice they could have argued they wanted something different, but by waiting and going with Sky after the negotiations failed it’s a different matter.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    No, I don't think you can walk this back: they tried to get Scarlet to do the voice and after she declined OpenAI found someone This is exactly the question the Washington Post set out to answer, and the answer is "no": that didn't happen.
    - Retric 2y ago
      There’s no walking back. My initial post said: “used Sky from the beginning” If they had released Sky’s voice publicly before contacting Scarlet it would have been a different situation, but they made the decision afterwards. Simply recording Sky’s voice beforehand doesn’t imply a different intent. This isn’t animation where you’re trying to match two mediums and you want the actors recording first. Having a similar voice to work with would have been useful internally to know if they wanted to pay what it might cost to use her voice.
- bnralt 2y ago
  Even further - they hired multiple female and male voice actors to create various voices that people can choose from. There isn’t one ChatGPT voice that would have either gone to this actress or Johansson. People are making the assumption that if Johansson agreed, Johansson’s voice would have replaced the Sky voice option, but there’s no evidence that this would have happened. It’s likely that Johansson’s would have been just another voice option, in addition to Sky and all the other options available.

by Retric 2y ago

r2_pilot 2y ago

>The problem OpenAI has is they tried to get Scarlet to do the voice and after she declined OpenAI found someone who has a similar voice to do it. As the public currently knows based on reporting from WaPo, the original VA was selected and performed her role (months) BEFORE they reached out to Scarlett for the first time. Please don't misconstrue the timeline for other people that are just now tuning in.

thih9 2y ago
Why does this matter? I'd say whether they contacted ScarJo before, after or not at all is irrelevant. Then again, yes, I guess best to present events and the timeline as they were.
- r2_pilot 2y ago
  For starters, it lends credence to (a claim I've read somewhere in this morass) OpenAI wanting to have a 6th voice in addition to the previous ones already created.
  - thih9 2y ago
    How does that affect the end result?
Retric 2y ago
They made the choice to use that voice after she decided otherwise they would never have approached Scarlet. When the recording session occurred is irrelevant. They wanted her voice, couldn’t get it, and then chose to use something similar.
- mdorazio 2y ago
  This changes absolutely nothing about the legality or ethics involved.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Using something similar is a possible legal problem. Creating evidence likely to sway a jury that it was intentionally similar even if it wasn’t intended in that fashion is a problem.
- ComplexSystems 2y ago
  If they really recorded the Sky actor well in advance then there's nothing wrong with them using it. They aren't required to suddenly delete the other voice actor's work because Scarlett Johansen refused a later proposal to use her voice instead. She owns the rights to her voice, not any vaguely similar sounding white female voice put together before they even talked to her.
  - Retric 2y ago
    OpenAI didn’t need to talk to her to create an imitation there’s many recordings freely available. Recording beforehand therefore has zero impact on their ability or intent to imitate such a public figure. The core question eventually put before a jury would be if it was unintentionally similar or an imitation and attempting to pay her for use of her voice is clear evidence they wanted it because of it or they perceived the voices where overly similar. Either of those are possible, but to then use the voice anyway became problematic.
    - ComplexSystems 2y ago

atleastoptimal 2y ago

they hired the VA before they even contacted Scarlett. Here’s what probably happened. OpenAI people realize they can do TTS for ChatGPT so they hire some voice actors. Some people point out that it would be cool if it could be as good as it is in Her, especially with 4o on the way, so they decide to contact Scarlett Johansson either to do a voice or just some promotional thing. She declines, but after 4o is released OpenAI realizes they can fairly make the comparison to the movie based on the quality and speed of the voice. Simply subtly referencing the film via an obvious parallel doesn’t constitute deceptive impersonation.

Retric 2y ago
That seems like an extremely generous interpretation on OpenAI’s behalf especially the timing of when they first think of the movie. Personally there’s many ways they could have been less suspicious from my perspective. Have a large number of voices or the ability to tweet them in many ways and no one voice seems important. Contact many famous people and it would have seemed like a promotional rather than a reference. Have someone lower on the totem pole than the CEO of a multi billionaire dollar corporation trying to make the deal. This not being about an actor playing an AI assistant in a movie vs the voice of an AI product. Not actually making the reference in a tweet. The phrase ‘the preponderance of the evidence’ comes to mind.
- atleastoptimal 2y ago
  not sure what you mean by the “tweet them in many ways” sentence. There’s a chance they did contact other celebrities. We only know for sure they contacted Scarlett due to her lawsuit. Here’s the thing. No matter what, people would make the reference to Her. It’s like how everyone would make the connection to any sci fi movie if a device came out similar to the one in it. A woman’s voice as a virtual assistant is a very broad UI category, and being cheeky and drawing the comparison to a specific movie on everyone’s mind doesn’t constitute misleading impersonation, especially when you consider from OpenAI’s view the fact that they hired a different actress and didn’t ask her to do a Her impersonation.
  - 2y ago

tptacek 2y ago

No, they didn't. The opposite thing happened. They hired and recorded this voice actor months before they reached out to Johanssen. People are scrambling to hold bits of this original story together, but it's dead, Jim.

Retric 2y ago
It was recorded first, but not used publicly beforehand. If they had released the voice they could have argued they wanted something different, but by waiting and going with Sky after the negotiations failed it’s a different matter.
- tptacek 2y ago
  No, I don't think you can walk this back: they tried to get Scarlet to do the voice and after she declined OpenAI found someone This is exactly the question the Washington Post set out to answer, and the answer is "no": that didn't happen.
  - Retric 2y ago
    There’s no walking back. My initial post said: “used Sky from the beginning” If they had released Sky’s voice publicly before contacting Scarlet it would have been a different situation, but they made the decision afterwards. Simply recording Sky’s voice beforehand doesn’t imply a different intent. This isn’t animation where you’re trying to match two mediums and you want the actors recording first. Having a similar voice to work with would have been useful internally to know if they wanted to pay what it might cost to use her voice.
bnralt 2y ago
Even further - they hired multiple female and male voice actors to create various voices that people can choose from. There isn’t one ChatGPT voice that would have either gone to this actress or Johansson. People are making the assumption that if Johansson agreed, Johansson’s voice would have replaced the Sky voice option, but there’s no evidence that this would have happened. It’s likely that Johansson’s would have been just another voice option, in addition to Sky and all the other options available.