2 ms·

For the first part, you're forgetting the "her" tweet, and the attempts of getting SJ to sell them her voice as recently as two days before they launched her so

For the first part, you're forgetting the "her" tweet, and the attempts of getting SJ to sell them her voice as recently as two days before they launched her sound-alike. And we know they thought it's a soundalike because they immediately changed it once the scandal started. For the second part, you're assuming that they just didn't offer enough money. It's very likely instead that SJ didn't want to associate her brand with this business.

michaelbuckbee 2y ago
To add on to your comment, in the arts and creative space there are substantial levels of opposition to AI as it's perceived as a job killer and maybe at some level perverse or akin to an automated plagiarism system that steals their intellectual property (this is complicated and not my personal take, but I see where they're coming from). It's quite likely that SJ would suffer from severe reputational damage from being the literal voice of AI.
vessenes 2y ago
I'm not forgetting "Her", and I think it's in-bounds to say a company is inspired by / referencing a film in PR -- I can list quite a few SV startups that directly tie their DNA to an inspiring book or film, and heretofore that's generally not considered objectionable. (For instance, Paypal / Cryptonomicon). The sky voice has been part of the app since the launch, it was not newly launched for GPT4o. You're missing a key step in your logic chain: That they pulled the voice when SJ made a public complaint does not imply that they thought it was a soundalike, or that they documented they were making a soundalike, or that a soundalike is wrong, or that they thought they were doing something wrong when they hired the Sky voice actor. It just means that they pulled the Sky voice on public request from SJ. That, combined with SJ reports that she turned down a licensing deal, and WaPo reporting that the Sky voice actor sounds like the voice delivered in ChatGPT, are pretty much the only facts we have right now. As to SJ brand decisions -- maybe. I would bet the offer was low / not discussed, instead of it being substantial. But, that is also speculation.

michaelbuckbee 2y ago

To add on to your comment, in the arts and creative space there are substantial levels of opposition to AI as it's perceived as a job killer and maybe at some level perverse or akin to an automated plagiarism system that steals their intellectual property (this is complicated and not my personal take, but I see where they're coming from). It's quite likely that SJ would suffer from severe reputational damage from being the literal voice of AI.

vessenes 2y ago

I'm not forgetting "Her", and I think it's in-bounds to say a company is inspired by / referencing a film in PR -- I can list quite a few SV startups that directly tie their DNA to an inspiring book or film, and heretofore that's generally not considered objectionable. (For instance, Paypal / Cryptonomicon). The sky voice has been part of the app since the launch, it was not newly launched for GPT4o. You're missing a key step in your logic chain: That they pulled the voice when SJ made a public complaint does not imply that they thought it was a soundalike, or that they documented they were making a soundalike, or that a soundalike is wrong, or that they thought they were doing something wrong when they hired the Sky voice actor. It just means that they pulled the Sky voice on public request from SJ. That, combined with SJ reports that she turned down a licensing deal, and WaPo reporting that the Sky voice actor sounds like the voice delivered in ChatGPT, are pretty much the only facts we have right now. As to SJ brand decisions -- maybe. I would bet the offer was low / not discussed, instead of it being substantial. But, that is also speculation.