You must log in or register to comment.
But if OpenAI didn’t do anything wrong, why would it take down the voice?
This almost made me stop reading. What a garbage point, if someone is offended by something I did, even if I did nothing wrong, I don’t do it to them again because I’m not an asshole. He’s clearly an asshole who tried to use her voice anyway, but this line of questioning is garbage…decent people apologize all the time when they’ve done nothing wrong, and then not do the offending thing again, without admitting guilt.
But the design choice is worrying on an ethical level. Researchers say it reinforces sexist stereotypes of women as servile beings who exist only to do someone else’s bidding — to help them, comfort them, and plump up their ego.
And this is where I stopped. If they had used a male voice, they could have argued that they were excluding women. But they did a study and picked the voice people would respond to the best. And objective choice. The author set out to find sexism, and by golly they did it. Amazing.
What a garbage point, if someone is offended by something I did, even if I did nothing wrong, I don’t do it to them again because I’m not an asshole.
Putting aside the jury still being out in the last part of that statement, Sam Altman has showed himself to not only be an asshole, but an asshole who will do anything he thinks he can get away with. So the statement you took issue with “but if OpenAI didn’t do anything wrong, why would it take down the voice” is accurate. Considering the pattern of behavior from Altman and OpenAI that action is a rather implicit admission of guilt.
They did something wrong. We both agree.
But the suggestion that doing something to correct the offense is considered an admission of guilt is garbage logic. This is why people are so hesitant to apologize or move to correct perceived wrongs, because people treat doing so as an admission that you did something wrong.
Yeah this is a real: “Let me find a problem and not let them apologize.” You don’t like Open AI. Ok. I’m sure you have a good reason. So focus on that and stop contriving controversy. You’re not changing any minds like that. That only gets kudos from people that already agree with you.
Why not just have both a male and female voice, and ideally one that’s as neutral as possible?
They do have 2 male voices. The article is complaining about the choice of sky for the demo.
Neutral is boring? Flaws add as much character to a thing as beauty
There is a choice of different voices, it wasn’t and isn’t a problem. But Sky was the best in my opinion, so even if I support the right of ms Johansson to not hear her voice out of every device, it’s personally kinda sad that they’re removing it
Well what about the fact that they asked her to do it multiple times and right before they launched it the CEO tweeted the word “Her”?
He’s clearly an asshole who tried to use her voice anyway
Can you explain to me what you think this line meant?Because I’m not sure how I could have made it more clear.
I don’t really care what the article says or what opinions the author has. I’m just asking what you think about those facts involving the subject of said articles.
I believe I’ve already answered your question, with the statement I quoted, which is why I’m asking you what you think that means.
My bad, I thought you were quoting the article, not yourself. It’s clear now I wasn’t seeing the difference between disagreeing with the article and disagreeing with them fucking up. It’s no excuse but I was probably high, I am right now too
Lol I’m over it. Enjoy. I’m hoping to join you real soon out in this nice weather we’re having.
The potential of a “exclusion argument” does not justify reinforcing the servile, assistant stereotype. Researchers arent pulling that one out of their ass.
I could pull together a youtube playlist of beardy men explaining why woman hating is bad. Would you like that?
(Edit: Rhetorical. We can all see your true colors with the “gay agenda” conspiracy pushing bs.)
The potential of a “exclusion argument” does not justify reinforcing the servile, assistant stereotype.
My point is that no matter what openai did, the author could have found sexism in it. It’s not hard to create something like this if you’re really trying.
I could pull together a youtube playlist of beardy men explaining why woman hating is bad. Would you like that?
I don’t follow.
(Edit: Rhetorical. We can all see your true colors with the “gay agenda” conspiracy pushing bs.)
Lol. I’ve been an lbgtq ally probably even before you were born. The fact that I can see that this ridiculously biased source for what it is doesn’t make me a conspiracy theorist against gay people.
Thanks for demonstrating my point. You were desperate to reveal my “try colors” and, by golly, you were going to find it regardless of how much you had to spin.
IMO it sounded fake, not fake like artificial or not being real, but more like not being honest or genuine. Like a bit too much or over-attached girlfriend.
Don’t get me wrong, it was very impressive, but IMO they should tone down the fake enthusiasm.GPT is just trying to get a good tip.
Don’t stick your dick in that
Hee hee
Some people sound fake also. They’re very popular.
I find it nauseating. Except if it’s for comedic effect.
Yep, me too. But like I said, they are very popular and lots of people do like them.
I work with some of them. They even did a literal cheerleading dance at one point for the company 🤮 When they speak I usually tune out completely because they have nothing of value to say.
I bet the boss loved the cheerleading dance. lol 🤣
Well one of them is the boss. The owner actually.
Even if they hired an actress with a similar voice to train the AI to sound similar to Johansonn, celebrity impersonators have been doing that for (I’d guess) longer than recorded voice media has even existed. I’m having a hard time seeing why one is fine but the other isn’t.
Edit: corrected bad spelling of her name.
I’m having a hard time seeing why one is fine but the other isn’t.
I think the law says that neither is fine, in the context here. The law allows celebrity impersonators to engage in parody and commentary, but not to actually use their impersonation skills to endorse products, engage in fraud, and pretend to be that person being impersonated.
But this is just using a voice. It might even be their natural voice. I don’t think there’s fraud because it wasn’t presented as Scarlett’s voice. If it wasn’t presented as not her voice, then maybe those other two would apply, though is allowing a service to use your voice the same as endorsement? Is it enough to sound like someone to be considered impersonating them?
This situation lands in a grey area where I can’t endorse or condemn it. I mean, it would have been smarter to just use a different voice. Find a celebrity that would sign on or just use an unrecognisable voice. Ethical or not, and legal or not, it was stupid.
I’m mostly going off of this article and a few others I’ve read. This article notes:
Celebrities have previously won cases over similar-sounding voices in commercials. In 1988, Bette Midler sued Ford for hiring one of her backup singers for an ad and instructing the singer to “sound as much as possible like the Bette Midler record.” Midler had refused to be in the commercial. That same year, Tom Waits sued Frito-Lay for voice misappropriation after the company’s ad agency got someone to imitate Waits for a parody of his song in a Doritos commercial. Both cases, filed in California courts, were decided in the celebrities’ favor. The wins by Midler and Waits “have clear implications for AI voice clones,” says Christian Mammen, a partner at Womble Bond Dickinson who specializes in intellectual property law.
There’s some more in there:
To win in these cases, celebrities generally have to prove that their voice or other identifying features are unregistered trademarks and that, by imitating them, consumers could connect them to the product being sold, even if they’re not involved. That means identifying what is “distinctive” about her voice — something that may be easier for a celebrity who played an AI assistant in an Oscar-winning movie.
I think taken with the fact that the CEO made a direct reference to the movie she voiced an AI assistant when announcing the product, that’s enough that a normal person would “connect them to the product being sold.”
It was explicitly represented as her voice when he tweeted “Her” in relation to the product, referencing a movie which she voiced. It’s not a legal grey area in the US. He sank his own ship here.
I read that Scarlett’s family & friends couldn’t tell it apart from her actual voice.
I’d say that “Open AI” or whatever they’re called, trained it specifically on only her voice.
The seems-narcissistic-machiavellian-sociopath-CEO whats-his-face tried to get her to agree to this,
she wouldn’t agree,
he tweeted “her” when releasing the update ( after Scarlett’s movie )
she lawyered up,
he backed down…
I’d say it’s a clear case of identity-theft-for-profit of a celebrity, by a consistently narcissistic-machiavellian-sociopath who’s kinda leaving lots of corpses of “integrity” all over the place.
There’s some law which protects celebrities from use of their likeness, and rightly:
it’s their “coin” that their career is made-of, right?
_ /\ _
frankly I’m amazed they tried to pull this shit when it was so obvious and Johannson obviously wasn’t on board.
if they didn’t need to license it, why did they repeatedly try?
Legally maybe its fine, I’m not sure. But because they tried to license or get permission and involvement officially from her, but she declined, then they asked again , she declined again and two days later they released it with (possibly) her voice anyway. At best it displays them to be bad faith plundering abusers including of individuals’ likenesses. We in this type of forum are not surprised of course - its par for the course with these tech bros who’ve made a business out of other peoples content largely without consent. Respect to Johansonn for making this known publicly though. But even weirder that they then took it down when they saw the reaction. Highlighting themselves as Sociopaths. Plenty of those around, but with this much power and access to data? Creepy.
Yeah, it is kinda sketchy, though they might have backed down because they realized there was no winning this in the court of public opinion, regardless of whether they were trying to act in good faith prior to the controversy coming out.
IMO Johansonn making it public was an obvious strategic move because it gave her a strong position because of how unpopular AI is these days. She might have otherwise just paid some lawyers a lot of money to accomplish nothing if it was legally fine and she was adamant about them not using a voice that sounded like hers (guessing the best she would have gotten without going public is them paying her some money to continue using that similar voice or maybe a bit more money to use her actual voice, either way they would have gotten what they wanted).
Yeh she effectively chose an ethical position with no downside I can think of. Unless they made her sign an NDA / MOU which they clearly didn’t. Their sketchiness is enhanced if anything. Makes me wonder if they made some low level threat at that last minute approach. e.g we are using your voice anyway, now’s your chance to get onboard the gravy train or look bad. Just speculation of course. She wasnt aware apparently. Also the fact they want to mimic the “her” ai is just weird. They are worse than the cautionary fiction.
I hate to defend Sam but Scarlet does not have a patent on a bubbly mid western accent.
He tweeted “Her”, which explicitly tells us it’s a deliberate imitation of Scarlett’s voice in that movie. And he tried to negotiate licencing her famous voice, which she rejected.
So it’s more than just a coincidence, it’s deliberate bad faith behaviour. Legally you can’t misrepresent a product as being from a famous person when it wasn’t, and he very much did that. I guess he was hoping she’d give in and accept the licensing agreement post-facto. But instead it looks he’s in legal deep water now.
That’s not proof of anything. It’s the most well known reference to a “AI Girlfriend” in popular culture that there currently is.
This reminds me of when the Fine Brothers tried to trademark the word “react” or when Paris Hilton did the same thing for “That’s hot”.
Celebrities get wide latitude to protect themselves from imitators. Impressionists can do “satire” etc. but this isn’t that. It’s explicitly a reference to her voice in the movie, and as such she’s protected by law from them going around her and hiring someone else to imitate her.
Well maybe Scarlet needs to start pay royalties to millions of Midwestern women. Because she didn’t come up with that way of talking on her own now did she?
This argument is so stupid it’s even remarkably stupider than the surrounding comments in a lemmy thread full of braindead bot humpers.
Congrats! 🎈
Alternate theory, they heard what they came up with, tried to liscence the use of her voice to avoid a legal fight, hoped she might come around after the fact and now here we are.
Seems possible anyway.
Do we know Sam had any specific and previous interest in Scarlet?
Isn’t calling the voice “flirty” sexist? It didn’t seem flirty in any of the clips I heard of it.
This was my voice of choice because it sounded like a “person on the other side” is engaged. Like when you talk to a friend or teacher who’s interested in the topic.
If somebody thinks it’s somehow related to sexuality, gender questions, etc, they have to check themselves.
What, does it talk like that grey bluetooth speaker often featured on Dankpods?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I’ve listened to it, and it sounds nothing like Scarlett does. I had to find a movie with Scarlett in it to compare with, and I can honestly tell you ChatGPT sounds nothing like Natasha in Black Widow.
(Joke aside, ChatGPT doesn’t sound like Scarlett at all).
After the uproar, I was expecting it to be way closer…but not at all? Really?
I probably should say “IMO”.
They played it on a local radio station here yesterday, and even they were mocking it as “not close”.
Didnt hear this radio interview, but the video they released sounded too close based on the fact that they asked for permission and she said no.
She has a very generic sounding American sultry woman voice, imo. Seems like a money grab to me. She’s not dumb, she sued Disney for some nonsense, and now she’s starting shit with the soon to be biggest company in the world.
She’s just latching onto the fact that any time women complain about shit like this, and use words like sexism, gaslighting, misogyny, etc, it gets a lot of traction in the media.
What a horrible woman.
You could like… read about it before you talk?
I did. And unlike you, I can draw my own conclusions, rather than let the media dictate them for me.
Maybe try thinking a bit, before simping for these celebs. She’s just taking the opportunity to get some money, that’s all. She’s purposely throwing these words around because she knows you white knights will freak out about it and jump on her side. It’s scary how easy it is to manipulate you guys.
Well, I’m not gonna waste my time explaining to you. It’s not my job, and I just don’t want to. If you wanna simp for her, go ahead.
Mhmm… that’s why OpenAI asked her for permission to use her voice a while back? That’s why Altman joked about the new voice sounding like hers?
Yeah I said I’m not gonna waste my time educating you, so if you refuse to see it, then so be it.
Not sure if you’re fishing for downvotes or trolling lol
Just telling the truth. People have a hard time seeing past this wokeness.
Wokeness? Lol
Didn’t she sue Disney for breach of contract? That doesn’t sound like nonsense.
Nope. She sued because she felt she was owed more money. Disney released the movie on their streaming service at the same time as it was released in cinema.
There was no “breach of contract”, otherwise she would have won easily. Instead, she and Disney settled out of court. She was just being greedy. Disney probably didn’t want the bad publicity and paid her off.
Settling out of court doesn’t imply no one did anything wrong lol.
It also doesn’t imply one did something wrong. They could just want to “pay the ransom” so their name doesn’t get spread through the mud.
I literally never said it did. But you did say it implied the opposite.
Sure, believe what you want to believe. I literally cannot be bothered to educate you.
Ok woman hater
Resorting to name calling I see 😂😂😂 that’s what happens when you know I’m right, but refuse to change your wrong views.
Oh honey. Oh no that wasnt an insult. Id be more creative! I was stating a fact. Your posting history shows us that the Phantasm of scapegoat is allowing you to stand on both sides of the contradiction, simultaneously.
So, you can keep going down this path youre on. We both know where it leads though. Loneliness, and nothing good.
OR: Watch this Kratos lookin guy break down what’s been going on in this area of thought for over a decade, and begin to heal, and then maybe you’ll be able to make friends with people without expecting anything in return.
You deserve that. You deserve to be on both sides of that, and not the phantasm.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That’s a lot of assumptions you’re making about me. I mean, if you can’t believe that scarjo is doing this for the money, then so be it.
Far be it from me to try to tell you how to think. Believe what you want. I really can’t be bothered to correct you. And yes, what you’re doing is name calling, just because I believe a different thing from you. I shall not be replying to you any more, since you have no basic respect. Cheers!
This was last weeks news… But sure.
This article was published the same day it was posted here. Believe it or not you can read more than one article about the same topic, over several days even.
And sometimes the first news isn’t the most accurate
It’s not a news piece.
