3 ms·

This account is quite believable. It follows a pattern of unethical behavior from Altman. In his latest unethical binge, he illegally used Scarlett Johansson's

This account is quite believable. It follows a pattern of unethical behavior from Altman. In his latest unethical binge, he illegally used Scarlett Johansson's voice and likeliness for the latest ChatGPT version with speech output. [1] His timed-announcement tweet, "Her", is quite self-incriminating. [2] Remember: inductive logic is a valuable tool for discovering truth. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/20/24161253/scarlett-johansson-openai-altman-legal-action https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/20/24161253/scarlett-johanss... [2] https://twitter.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666

__loam 2y ago
I think what happened is OpenAI was probably going to easily defend themselves from this suit until Altman tweeted about it. It seems like the company didn't really do anything wrong (in this case) but that tweet is actually going to give ScarJo the legal standing she needs to move forward and even win. It feels like leadership class in the valley is totally clueless sometimes.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > totally clueless Another way to view these things is that it's about managing the author's personal brand-identity, as opposed to acting as a fiduciary representative of the overall corporation. (Those CEOs tend to avoid the limelight.) There are certain folks out there who build their celebrity with a narrative of "I'm strong and smart and successful, you can tell because I can do what I want and piss people off but my detractors are impotent and can't touch me." [0] If you think Altman falls into that category, then "her" can be seen as a coded message: For fans, it's sly advertisement that the result is a deliberate achievement, while also maintaining a veneer of deniability for anyone who objects. ("I only meant the outcome was coincidentally similar, and you can't prove otherwise, hahaha.") ___ [0] That doesn't mean the narrative is true or that they always escape consequences, but it means they can at least convince enough fans/supporters that repercussions didn't really happen, that they weren't significant, or that they were actually good because 4-D chess.
- throw310822 2y ago
  Didn't this get everyone talking of how OpenAI basically replicated Her's Samantha? Well worth a lawsuit, right?
  - __loam 2y ago
    Not sure OpenAI wants to invite the negative press at a time when the public opinion on them is wavering.
dkarras 2y ago
not eager to defend Sam as I think he is shady (maybe necessary for a successful CEO? don't know) but the Scarlett Johansson story was just speculation because she knew that she was asked to act, then the news spun it in a way favorable to clicks. I don't think the voice resembles her at all, and it turns out that they auditioned multiple voice actors and used a real voice actor for the voice. IIRC OpenAI also says that the selection of the voice actress was done before any correspondence with Scarlett Johansson, which can easily be corroborated. Sure, had she accepted the voice acting role it would be an additional news-worthy push for the tech, but given what we know and what was revealed I don't think there was any foul play in that regard.
- solidasparagus 2y ago
  How does Sam's tweet of 'her' fit into this narrative? Or them reaching out to her two days before release? (methinks the lawyers had some concerns during final stages of release). We can debate how they achieved the final voice and the legality of it, but it seems so clear from where I'm sitting that "it was never intended to resemble [ScarJo's voice]" is a blatant lie.
  - throw310822 2y ago
    Max news impact? At this point, any talk of OpenAI is good marketing.

__loam 2y ago

I think what happened is OpenAI was probably going to easily defend themselves from this suit until Altman tweeted about it. It seems like the company didn't really do anything wrong (in this case) but that tweet is actually going to give ScarJo the legal standing she needs to move forward and even win. It feels like leadership class in the valley is totally clueless sometimes.

Terr_ 2y ago
> totally clueless Another way to view these things is that it's about managing the author's personal brand-identity, as opposed to acting as a fiduciary representative of the overall corporation. (Those CEOs tend to avoid the limelight.) There are certain folks out there who build their celebrity with a narrative of "I'm strong and smart and successful, you can tell because I can do what I want and piss people off but my detractors are impotent and can't touch me." [0] If you think Altman falls into that category, then "her" can be seen as a coded message: For fans, it's sly advertisement that the result is a deliberate achievement, while also maintaining a veneer of deniability for anyone who objects. ("I only meant the outcome was coincidentally similar, and you can't prove otherwise, hahaha.") ___ [0] That doesn't mean the narrative is true or that they always escape consequences, but it means they can at least convince enough fans/supporters that repercussions didn't really happen, that they weren't significant, or that they were actually good because 4-D chess.
throw310822 2y ago
Didn't this get everyone talking of how OpenAI basically replicated Her's Samantha? Well worth a lawsuit, right?
- __loam 2y ago
  Not sure OpenAI wants to invite the negative press at a time when the public opinion on them is wavering.

dkarras 2y ago

not eager to defend Sam as I think he is shady (maybe necessary for a successful CEO? don't know) but the Scarlett Johansson story was just speculation because she knew that she was asked to act, then the news spun it in a way favorable to clicks. I don't think the voice resembles her at all, and it turns out that they auditioned multiple voice actors and used a real voice actor for the voice. IIRC OpenAI also says that the selection of the voice actress was done before any correspondence with Scarlett Johansson, which can easily be corroborated. Sure, had she accepted the voice acting role it would be an additional news-worthy push for the tech, but given what we know and what was revealed I don't think there was any foul play in that regard.

solidasparagus 2y ago
How does Sam's tweet of 'her' fit into this narrative? Or them reaching out to her two days before release? (methinks the lawyers had some concerns during final stages of release). We can debate how they achieved the final voice and the legality of it, but it seems so clear from where I'm sitting that "it was never intended to resemble [ScarJo's voice]" is a blatant lie.
- throw310822 2y ago
  Max news impact? At this point, any talk of OpenAI is good marketing.