7 ms·

The Movie Her predates all of this by years, and Sam Altman even tweeted "her"! The OpenAI team are clearly well aware of Scarlett's voice (its inconceivable th

by giobox 2y ago

The Movie Her predates all of this by years, and Sam Altman even tweeted "her"! The OpenAI team are clearly well aware of Scarlett's voice (its inconceivable the majority of the team at OpenAI haven't at least seen part of the film that almost defined their industry). The movie predates all of this by years - of course they knew. When auditioning actors "months before" they can still look for an actor who guess what? Sounds like SJ, even "before the first time SJ was contacted". As the actor - I'd likely also be looking to emulate SJ in Her - its clearly what the client was looking for.

asaxena76 2y ago
Even if thats true why would that be illegal or unethical? She can't possibly have a copyright on all voices that sounds like "her"
- mastax 2y ago
  There have been cases where it was decided that a person had rights[0] to their distinctive voice, as an extension of the Right of Publicity[1]. For example Midler v. Ford Motor Co.[2], and one or two other cases I've seen mentioned but can't remember. [0]: Though not necessarily "copyrights"? [1]: https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-of-identity/ https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-o... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
  - Athari 2y ago
    Midler v. Ford is a poor comparison for this case specifically because of: 1. hiring an impersonator 2. copying a song 3. intending to confuse. If what OpenAI is saying is true, then none of the conditions apply. I'd say (1) is unlikely, (2) is very unlikely, and (3) is maybe, at least to some degree.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      I would suggest that (3) is a solid "yes" given the other communications around this, and honestly the similarity of the final tone of voice. Very little suggests an intent to confuse more than tweets from company leaders confirming that there was intent to confuse. What is left on the table is whether actual confusion occurred, which is different.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  NIL rights are pretty broad, and more like trademark rights than patents or copyrights. The main test isn't similarity, it's whether there is brand confusion. Karpathy and Altman's tweets indicate brand confusion. Still, this isn't recognized in every state or country, and there aren't many cases yet (although there are laws).
TeMPOraL 2y ago
> its inconceivable the majority of the team at OpenAI haven't at least seen part of the film that almost defined their industry Let's not exaggerate. It was a somewhat popular movie, yes, but not really defining and far from the first example of conversational AI speaking woman's voice. There are plenty of examples in movies and TV shows. If anything, the seminal work in this space is Star Trek casting Majel Barrett-Roddenberry as the voice of computer systems with conversational interfaces, as early as 1987 (or 1986, if she had that role in the Original Series; I don't remember those episodes too well), all the way to ~2008 (or to 2023, if you count post-mortem use of her voice). That is one distinctive voice I'd expect people in OpenAI to be familiar with :). Also, I can't imagine most people knowing, or caring, who voiced the computer in Her. It's not something that most people care about, especially when they're more interested in the plot itself.
- goatlover 2y ago
  What matters is whether OpenAI leadership had the movie Her in mind, and the AI in Her is more similar to LLMs than the Next Generation Star Trek main computer.
- giobox 2y ago
  If "her" wasn't the canonical example of a near-future AI assistant in a film, why then does Sam bother to tweet the single word "her" following launch? I think that film is far more influential than you give it credit for here. Everyone in tech who saw that tweet knew what it meant - a single word. The tweet doesn't even require additional context or explanation to almost anyone in this industry. There is also a clear difference in the behaviour of the "computer" in Star Trek vs "her" - what OpenAI shipped is far more like the personality of "her" than the much more straight-laced examples in Star Trek, where the computer was virtually devoid of emotional-sounding responses at all.
  - JoeMattiello 2y ago
    Who cares.
  - Manabu-eo 2y ago
skybrian 2y ago
Sure, it could have happened, but it seems we don’t have evidence either way. Tweeting “her” months later doesn’t prove anything. That Tweet might superficially look like evidence of intent, but if you think about it, it’s not.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  Counterpoint: if you think about it, yes it is.
  - skybrian 2y ago
    To spell it out, based on the date, it's very weak evidence for something that happened many months before.
    - sanderjd 2y ago
      To spell it out in the way that doesn't require a crazy level of suspension of disbelief: Based on the date (right after the public release of the assistant), it is actually very strong evidence for "we thought it would be awesome to have an AI voice companion that sounds like the one in Her", which, combined with the (undisputed) revelation that they indeed tried (twice) to get the person who did that voice, is a very strong indicator of the intent of the thing that happened many months before.
      - skybrian 2y ago
        Yes, actually trying to hire Scarlett Johansson is very good evidence that they thought it would be awesome if they succeeded in hiring her as a celebrity voice. A one-word tweet adds nothing to that.
        sanderjd 2y ago
        Sure it does. Intent is all about a pattern of behavior. It's part of the pattern.

by giobox 2y ago

asaxena76 2y ago

Even if thats true why would that be illegal or unethical? She can't possibly have a copyright on all voices that sounds like "her"

mastax 2y ago
There have been cases where it was decided that a person had rights[0] to their distinctive voice, as an extension of the Right of Publicity[1]. For example Midler v. Ford Motor Co.[2], and one or two other cases I've seen mentioned but can't remember. [0]: Though not necessarily "copyrights"? [1]: https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-of-identity/ https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-o... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
- Athari 2y ago
  Midler v. Ford is a poor comparison for this case specifically because of: 1. hiring an impersonator 2. copying a song 3. intending to confuse. If what OpenAI is saying is true, then none of the conditions apply. I'd say (1) is unlikely, (2) is very unlikely, and (3) is maybe, at least to some degree.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    I would suggest that (3) is a solid "yes" given the other communications around this, and honestly the similarity of the final tone of voice. Very little suggests an intent to confuse more than tweets from company leaders confirming that there was intent to confuse. What is left on the table is whether actual confusion occurred, which is different.
pclmulqdq 2y ago
NIL rights are pretty broad, and more like trademark rights than patents or copyrights. The main test isn't similarity, it's whether there is brand confusion. Karpathy and Altman's tweets indicate brand confusion. Still, this isn't recognized in every state or country, and there aren't many cases yet (although there are laws).

TeMPOraL 2y ago

> its inconceivable the majority of the team at OpenAI haven't at least seen part of the film that almost defined their industry Let's not exaggerate. It was a somewhat popular movie, yes, but not really defining and far from the first example of conversational AI speaking woman's voice. There are plenty of examples in movies and TV shows. If anything, the seminal work in this space is Star Trek casting Majel Barrett-Roddenberry as the voice of computer systems with conversational interfaces, as early as 1987 (or 1986, if she had that role in the Original Series; I don't remember those episodes too well), all the way to ~2008 (or to 2023, if you count post-mortem use of her voice). That is one distinctive voice I'd expect people in OpenAI to be familiar with :). Also, I can't imagine most people knowing, or caring, who voiced the computer in Her. It's not something that most people care about, especially when they're more interested in the plot itself.

goatlover 2y ago
What matters is whether OpenAI leadership had the movie Her in mind, and the AI in Her is more similar to LLMs than the Next Generation Star Trek main computer.
giobox 2y ago
If "her" wasn't the canonical example of a near-future AI assistant in a film, why then does Sam bother to tweet the single word "her" following launch? I think that film is far more influential than you give it credit for here. Everyone in tech who saw that tweet knew what it meant - a single word. The tweet doesn't even require additional context or explanation to almost anyone in this industry. There is also a clear difference in the behaviour of the "computer" in Star Trek vs "her" - what OpenAI shipped is far more like the personality of "her" than the much more straight-laced examples in Star Trek, where the computer was virtually devoid of emotional-sounding responses at all.
- JoeMattiello 2y ago
  Who cares.
- Manabu-eo 2y ago

skybrian 2y ago

Sure, it could have happened, but it seems we don’t have evidence either way. Tweeting “her” months later doesn’t prove anything. That Tweet might superficially look like evidence of intent, but if you think about it, it’s not.

sanderjd 2y ago
Counterpoint: if you think about it, yes it is.
- skybrian 2y ago
  To spell it out, based on the date, it's very weak evidence for something that happened many months before.
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    To spell it out in the way that doesn't require a crazy level of suspension of disbelief: Based on the date (right after the public release of the assistant), it is actually very strong evidence for "we thought it would be awesome to have an AI voice companion that sounds like the one in Her", which, combined with the (undisputed) revelation that they indeed tried (twice) to get the person who did that voice, is a very strong indicator of the intent of the thing that happened many months before.
    - skybrian 2y ago
      Yes, actually trying to hire Scarlett Johansson is very good evidence that they thought it would be awesome if they succeeded in hiring her as a celebrity voice. A one-word tweet adds nothing to that.
      - sanderjd 2y ago
        Sure it does. Intent is all about a pattern of behavior. It's part of the pattern.