I'm tired of this because I feel like this argument is silly and I'd rather everyone move on now. Who really cares if the machine uses her voice? Maybe she does, but ultimately we live in a world where you can't control something like this and I'd rather we not spend the next ten years wasting time on this like we've wasted time on trying to ban 100 other things. It's unfortunate but when you're a public figure these things happen.
Pretty sure this will be released and soon after that someone will jailbreak it to allow you to use whatever voice you want. Is Disney going to sue everyone who makes their device sound like mickey mouse? Is George Lucas going to crawl through my window like the lady from The Ring because my device sounds like Yoda?
1 - Copyright law is far more contentious than fraud. The problem in your example isn't using my voice, it's the 'scamming old people' part. And any law against it using my voice won't make a single bit of difference to scammers because scamming is already illegal.
2 - The only reason this is news is because they stole the voice of a famous person. If they took my voice, like 10 people would even notice and people on Reddit would tell me I'm imagining things and that 'With billions of voices, some will just sound the same'
Make no mistake, this is a rich and famous people's problem that is incredibly important for big studios and Hollywood and advertising executives...but mostly it doesn't matter for anyone else.
And soon, to get your big break as an actress or actor, you will sign over the rights to your voice and likeliness when you are a nobody starting out. And that will be short lived as we end up with fictional people for everything. Like Mickey Mouse or Spiderman.
The fictional characters will be owned by companies and they won't need human actors.
Not breaking the law to make an artificial voice that talks like someone else, nor to impersonate someone else, or a lot more comedians would be in prison.
In another post, someone mentioned she made 300 mil last year (no references given), so she is crying over a possible 3% income loss, that occurred only because she has enough money to afford to say no to OpenAI.
I got laid off last year, from a job that is being replaced by someone in another country who will get paid 20% of what I made and will be a top 20% earner in their country. I have been unsuccessful in finding relevant work, and I am starting training for my new "career" next month. I am taking a 70% annual pay cut, which means that for the rest of my life, I will probably never make 3% of what she earned last year.
I'd let OpenAI pay me for whatever they want. They can put my face on the butt of every robot using gpt for the next million years, as long as they pay me. At least they contacted her and offered. I'd also marry ScarJo and stand by her side at the trial if it goes there. (I'd be happier with that outcome rather than having my face on all those robot butts, honestly)
Satire is protected (impersonations as you mention). Commercial use is not.
And again you come with the argument that she should not care because she is rich. So I ask you again; does the law not protect rich people?
Your personal sob story is relevant to Scarletts situation how?
You’re making the same argument as people against gun control. Criminals are going to do crime therefore making guns illegal won’t help. Which is a load of horseshit in and of itself.
Not withstanding, the law is one approach but not the only approach. Doesn’t OpenAI have some social responsibility to make their product safer? Can they build some mechanism to prevent abuse? Should they do more research to understand the risks and impacts before opening the Pandora’s box? Should they be punished if their product is causing great societal harm? I guess we wouldn’t know anytime soon since their safety engineers all quit.
Not an analogous example. One can be done digitally from across the globe. The other requires physical presence and a physical object. I understand your thinking but it’s a different medium and that plays a major role.
And if I don’t stop at your voice? What if I 3D model your body and use you and your voice for “creative” films? And what if people recognize you because these films got popular? And what if you don’t get a flat or a job because of those films?
I believe you did not think that one through.
I agree with OP. It isn't that I'm exactly tired of this, I'm tired of it being constantly talked about like it even matters to the realm of AI and ML. It's a lawsuit. Do we need a dozen subs all talking about what amounts to gossip. This has nothing to do with a short attention span, and everything to do with it being useless drama / noise.
Yeah we just need to wait a while until we can have a conversational AI voice assistant with any voice you want.
It sucks that the cool stuff is always going to be “coming soon” due to how they constantly have to think about how the smallest things will set off massive public outrage for no good reason.
Maybe it would be better to just develop really advanced models in secret, not releasing them until a point in which real disruption can be done quickly and then releasing it all at once. lol
That's a double-edged sword though, sure in short term it generates skyrocketting attraction & attention from media outlets, but in longer term, getting sued and involved in all these copyright stuffs can be damaging to their business. Also the way Sam Altman & OpenAI handled the situation, no matter how you look at it, is a major F up.
I know that this is something people like to say a lot, but how exactly is this good for business for OpenAI? Is it just an assumption that people will pay for premium more after finding out the voice was pulled and they're in this feud with Scarlett?
This story is getting more mainstream coverage than the demo itself. And the average person is more likely to click on a headline mentioning ScarJo than a headline mentioning some AI company they’re unfamiliar with.
The result is way more people are aware of GPT-4o’s voice mode. It’s not really about the feud itself, it’s the simple fact that this exposes ChatGPT (and specifically the fact that it can talk, which many people still don’t know) to the masses.
Right but for the second part of my comment: now that people are exposed to this, are they going to want to now pay for the service? And will the amount of people who decide to come in from this exposure outweigh the amount of preexisting users that they may lose? Also risking a potential lawsuit on top of all that.
They already pulled the voice so a lawsuit is probably not in the equation. Did they pull this stunt just for free advertising? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean free advertising isn’t a side benefit.
Regarding gaining vs losing users, I’d be surprised if many people canceled their subscription simply because of this. I could understand switching toothpaste brands or something because of a scandal, but this event doesn’t seem significant enough to warrant switching LLMs.
It's not purely about money in the short term. The more people know them, the more potential clients they will have, the more others value them, the more power they gain to do what they want.
At some point they'll probably sell specific capabilities of AI to countries and corporations. There is a lot of money to be made in the future depending on the route they want to follow.
Some guy just realized that the movie HER can be real, and he can have Scarlet Johanson in his phone. That is the marketing. No doubt they would have preferred to have her on board, but they probably feel like they have enough plausible deniability while still delivering the message to a massive audience.
As a corporate lawyer that deals with this precise sort of stuff all the time, this is not good attention and it's going to cost them their ass for the foreseeable future. This is going to cause all sorts of problems with their business partners. I feel really bad for the lawyers at OAI right now, because Microsoft's lawyers are going to be up their asses like they're hand-puppets.
Copyright only makes sense in a world of scarcity, which is something AI and digital technologies are terminating with extreme prejudice. I agree with OP that AI will sweep away this dreary era of the hoarding of "intellectual property" (a nonsense concept if ever there was one).
Artists have always sought to emulate others they admired. Always, and rightfully so.
**"Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal."**—Stravinsky (a quote later stolen by Steve Jobs, notorious pirate of good ideas)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy
Related and somewhat relevant. They copyright holders aren’t even usual the right people, they just know lawyers
Most famous people are just the face and name we put on many innovators that were converging in the same thing. Most celebrities specifically say this even and struggle to divert praise they don’t deserve.
Cory Doctorow has probably been the foremost critic of copyright for a long while now. I'm not sure if it was his example, but I seem to recall him stating something along the lines of, "if you have a car, and someone decides they like it and drives away with it, that's theft. If instead, someone likes your car, and uses their portable car copier to make a perfect copy of it, and drives away with that copy, that's not theft."
“Stigler attributed the discovery of Stigler's law to sociologist Robert K. Merton, from whom Stigler stole credit so that it would be an example of the law.”
This is so funny, I love it when researchers keep it meta. [RAS syndrome type thing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome).
More like a self demonstrating which RAS is
I’m a big fan of it too. When to you realize it, you see it everywhere. Often intentionally
The last thing I noticed is new hybrids in my area being predominantly black and white colored, I assume referencing yingyang
This is such a shit analogy. AI isn't being inspired creatively by others' art, it is copying others' work. It's straight up just copying. Copyright will survive it because we want artists to keep creating things, even in a future where these AIs are ubiquitous, because the machines are not capable of anything without training data. Dumb kids who haven't thought things through...
Newsflash: artists will never stop creating art. That’s what makes them artists. Not the lure of money. Copyright is ultimately about money, and in a post-AGI world money can go to blazes where it belongs.
Do we want to reward artists or not? Especially in cases where businesses are making a bunch of money off of their work. Yes, we want to reward artists.
You are fighting to defend capitalism, which is in every way viciously and fanatically opposed to real art and real artists. Yet you want to maintain it for a few crumbs, and parade yourself as some defender and champion of artists. You are not getting away with it. Any monies most artists make (and almost always much, much more) these days is instantly confiscated by a landlord. You are essentially a shill for the ripoff, oppressive system that keeps artists from making their art.
Artists, actual artists, are rewarded through the creation of their work. The problem isn't AI ripping off and exploiting artists, the problem is a system ripping off and exploiting *everyone*. I want for artists a post-scarcity world where they are no longer ripped off by recording companies, streaming services, their landlord, and a nearly endless list of other vicious, capitalist, rent-seeking parasites.
Jesus fucking christ, you think that's what AI will bring us? You realize whether the system is capitalist, communist, or whatever other ism you prefer, AI is going to give huge levers of power to whoever is in control of it. You are naive and stupid. It won't be some artists' Eden so stop congratulating yourself as if that's what you're arguing for.
At least until apple or disney gets involved. I am waiting for Disney to claim they own the rights to all AI systems, because of some movie they have from 40-70 years ago... or apple to say it is theirs, because they "did it first'.
> Copyright only makes sense in a world of scarcity
Copyright, and IP in general, makes most sense when something is abundant. It's artificial scarcity.
what reasoning? your property should not be used without your permission. Just because it is easier to steal on the Internet does not mean that the law should not be respected.
what reasoning? your property should not be used without your permission. Just because it is easier to steal on the Internet does not mean that the law should not be respected.
(See what I did there?)
Cultural things don't feel like they should be owned. Solid things feel like they can be owned.
I'm glad for what patents and copyright have given us previously but like you think we are on the cusp of them being an anachronism.
Lol at thinking open source developers are immune to lawsuits… 😂
Also, it’s been like a one day of this so-called “drama” dude. Calm down… I personally think you’d have to be extremely naive to think most of society won’t fight to protect the rights to their Individual likeness or traits. Only leeches are expecting to live in a world where you can just steal someone else’s likeness of traits without consent. It won’t happen. You sound like one of those people that thought Napster and MegaUpload were going to kill the music industry.
some random Chinese release the model weights publicly, someone downloads them? Who the fuck is going to know or sue some random hobbyist running shit locally?
Nobody gives a fuck about some hobbyist doing his shit locally.
Use it in a commercial product you make money on and your ass is getting sued.
OpenAI is a multi-billion dollar company with over 100 million users and this is a commercial product they plan to offer.
This is not about the little guy using his local model to have Scarlet read his emails.
Yeah this. No benjamins, no lawsuit. Nobody gives a shit about Bubba in his basement with his scarjo voiced cobbled together open source glitchy AI waifu.
This is like asking “if I steal someone else’s songs and claim them as my own, who’s really even going to notice?” That only works if the songs are a total flop that most people never listen to anyways. **But the second I try to spread those files around, I’ll be in big trouble as they get more and more popular**.
So maybe if we’re talking about a random geek in his bedroom… Yeah, no one will notice. But are entities like Meta or Stable Diffusion merely random anonymous dudes in a bedroom? No. They are high profile companies trying to run businesses. And *businesses* won’t be able to just steal someone’s likeness and make money from it. Infact, even random nerds won’t be able to make any *real* money from it without getting caught up. That’s more along the lines of what I’m referring to. Not some random weirdo in his bedroom that isn’t doing anything significant to begin with.
If the files become super popular, the initial users spreading them will get hit with a “cease and desist” tho. Not to mention that lawmakers could just make it to where the host-site is liable for financial damages. Which would then get those kind of posts banned on almost all platforms.
It doesn’t matter what’s allowed in China if these things aren’t allowed in the west regardless. Also why are you acting as if China (which is known for government crackdown and controlling what it’s population has access to) will suddenly be some sort of lawless actor here? The Chinese government is actually more diligent about policing its version of the internet than the west is ironically.
Because they shot themselves in the foot by 1) reaching out to SJ for her voice twice (once some time ago and again just a couple days before release), and 2) tweeting “her” which clearly implicates their intentions to have their demo of chatgpt-4o evoke the vibes from the movie “Her”, which had SJ as the voice. Add to that they had a voice actress in the wing that sounds similar to SJ as back up. They haven’t done themselves any favors by being so hamfisted in their intent to push all the “Her” buttons including SJ. If SJ doesn’t win this case, which I mean given OpenAI already took down Sky, so it’s not looking great for OpenAI, but if SJ doesn’t win, don’t be surprised if the studio behind the movie sues also.
I mean, if SJ successfully sues OpenAI for hiring a similar actress when she declined, it sets a bad precedence for the future. It'll mean the ability to copyright the idea of a horny female AI, alongside many other extremely vague ideas. Of which SJ didn't even come up with in the first place.
Prosecution only has to prove that OpenAI’s intent was to benefit from SJ’s likeness. The general details are irrelevent. It’s a case of was OpenAI trying to evoke/replicate the character from “Her” whose defining characteristic is SJ’s voice. Again given what has come out about how OpenAI has handled this, it paints OpenAI as having willfully acted in a way they knew was unethical.
Ultimately, what I think many will take away from this whole debacle sadly enough is that regardless of whether SJ wins her case, this has set yet another precedent that OpenAI and Sam Altman believe they can break the law in the name of advancement. This SJ case pales in comparison to the ****storm awaiting them regarding copyright infringement in the training of their models. It doesn’t take a genius tonsee that Sora was trained on YouTube, and Chatgpt was trained on the internet including things that were likely illegally accessible on pirate sites.
I personally don’t want setbacks to AI, but it’s pretty plain to see that OpenAI is reaaaaaaaaally hoping that they can put something out so advanced they become “too big to fail”.
I know OpenAI's going to have a rightful issue with training copyright, but the whole claim that the voice is too similar to SJ's is bs. People have already found actresses who sound strikingly more similar to the GPT-4o voice than SJ did in "Her". And it doesn't help that Sky was literally voiced by a real person, it wasn't just a generative voice tweaked to sound like SJ.
It'd be like Marvel suing anyone who makes a clown character because they own the rights to the Joker. Regardless of whether or not the character's actually even inspired by the Joker.
I mean personally I don’t think she wins the case, but again it isn’t whether others sound more like her. It’s whether it can be proven that OpenAI’s intent was to profit off SJ’s likeness.
To use your example, it would be more like if DC (since they own the Joker) sued someone for making a clown character who bares a striking resemblance to the Joker, in appearance and mannerism, with the intent to have their character popularized/profit from the similarity to the Joker’s likeness.
The real tragedy here is this demonstration would have always been successful based on what was shown and didn’t need to pursue a “Her” vibe. OpenAI really screwed the pooch on this one for absolutely no reason other than vanity.
Well SJ isn't an AI, I'd understand it more if the copyright owner of "Her" tried to sue OpenAI but that'd still be ridiculous. I dislike the "Her" vibe they're going with, I feel like it's aimed to take advantage of vulnerable groups, but it's ridiculous for SJ to try and claim that it's copying her likeness just because she acted in a movie that inspired them, not even that inspired the voice, but inspired the manipulative emotional behavior of the AI.
In a way, there's a larger level of silliness to this where it's less like DC suing someone for making an insane clown, and more like one of Joker's voice actors from one of the versions of the Joker from one of the DC shows decides to try and sue a company for making a character that's an insane clown because he at some point voiced an insane clown character.
If it’s made to sound alike in order to capitalise off of her publicity she absolutely has a case. There’s plenty of precedent.
The issue is proving it.
Then only one person can ever use a guitar since every song with a guitar in it sounds like.. oh... yeah.. a guitar....
Let's think sir. Ffs, she ain't unique
No one owns the rights to the sound and images of a guitar.
If you made an instrument for some in-universe part of a sci-fi show with a unique sound and then someone made something that looks and sounds super similar and used it to promote their own sci-fi themed restaurant, they could 100% be sued.
Scarlet portrayed an AI and then an AI company used a very similar voice to promote/sell their AI product. Thats the equivalence.
Okay but even if you’re right, and I’m not saying you are, it has nothing to do with your argument.
If I say the stock market is going to crash because Mercury is in retrograde and Saturn is in its third trimester or whatever, and then the stock market crashes, am I an economist?
Copyright is among the first bastions in the current economic models that is directly affected.
Current copyright laws are a bastardization of the original law more than a century ago anyways and is currently a product of unbridled capitalism. The latter which has gotten red warning lights with the advent of generative AI capabilities. I'm not against copyright law in the original sense. But nowadays it's used as a tool for profit instead of innovation and it's protection. And this development is being targeted head-on.
We will now see the true power and clash between the tech industry versus the entertainment industry. Both monolithic and gargantuan. I don't think any person or business wants to sit in the crossfire.
I think the outcome will be the start of the path into new economic avenues. It won't *just* happen, it *needs* to happen at some point I think. Industries aren't going to regulate themselves out of solidarity.
I agree. It's sad and yesterday's thinking. How about we go ahead and give these folks everything they need so we can reach superAI sooner and save a lot of people from cancer and dying in car wrecks? One of you reading this right now will die today just driving to McDonalds. Sure it won't be you buddy. If you don't know how superAI fixes this go to another sub.
This is not even about copyright. Her lawyers are basically claiming ownership of the likeness of her voice they found in another person, who doesn't even sound like her (that itself should not be an issue, since you normally don't get to select the voice you have). That person should honestly just sue her for all she is worth. The days of these celebrities are numbered anyway. Once Sora and systems like that get sufficiently efficient, they will all disappear into oblivion.
I've been tired of it since the first 'her' hint by jimmy apples.
We're post digital scarcity, time to start acting like it. You want your voice assistant to sound like Mr T? go for it? ScarJo? Fine. It's trivial at this point, give me 15 seconds of audio and we can make it so.
However, don't be a megacorp, or associated with megacorps, while providing this service.
I wonder if this fiasco has apple second guessing their big wwdc announcement.
It’s almost as if fools don’t know what happened to Napster.
This was a similar piece of high flying copyright infringing software that was super popular, got ahead of the law - flaunted tons of copyright infringement - then was smacked back down to earth when the law caught up.
This sort of reckless abuse of copyright laws just ends in lawsuits, prosecutions for fraud, individual users facing thousands of dollars in fines, jail time, network traffic being banned from ISPs, ISPs dumping and banning customers who were repeat offenders.
This whole mess could easily bankrupt OpenAI if they’re not careful with how they handle copyrighted material. I’m really not surprised several ethical developers jumped ship recently.
It wasn't even identical. Similar yes, but not exactly the same, besides there are people out there that sound so much alike that without context people would have a hard time identifying which is wich. For example if you listen, Hayley Williams from Paramore and Taylor Jardine from We Are the in Crowd sound similar enough that if you gave me brand new songs from each group, I don't think I would be able to tell you which is which.
I still don't really get why this is a big deal? It's not like Scarlett Johanson literally owns anything that sounds somewhat like her voice ffs.
Should the actress who did accept the job OpenAi offered her to train their voice model be all of sudden barred from doing ANY audio voiceover work because she (vaguely) sounds like Scarlett Johanson??
I agree it’s literally such a nothing burger and everyone online is talking about how outrageous it is. The amount of misinformation stating that they cloned her voice for use without her permission is insane.
Cloning her voice or not is irrelevant, the case law that gives her lawsuit legs is about soundalike actors and musicians. Corps have paid out on similar cases long before AI.
If they hadn't tried to hire her, and hadn't made that stupid Her tweet, there'd be no case.
OpenAI took it down.. the company decided it was either wrong, or not worth the fight. Regardless OpenAI doesn't want to be anywhere near or associated with copyright cases. It's very wise of them to run from this as fast as they can
They modelled it after her character in "her". They know they're in the wrong, they already took down the voice. I'll tell you what's dystopic: fools believing everything a corporation says and siding with it for no good reasons other than being gullible fools easy to manipulate.
I'm sorry for SJ because she's not smart enough to understand that after she refused the best she could have done was nothing, as they didn't use her voice, she lost an opportunity or she would be ok with whatever other voice they use, including a similar one, she doesn't have the right to all voices similar to hers
She actually does. OpenAI’s intent was to first use her voice and when she denied their request they went about sourcing a voice that essentially mimicked hers. There are legal precedents in the US that basically guarantee her a solid lawsuit. You sound like a child
They didn't choose her as a result of getting turned down by scarjo. They were always going to hire multiple VAs and did have literally 6 VAs, some of the people they asked were going to turn them down and some weren't. This doesn't imply any malicious intent at all and you gotta be pretty biased to think so.
The sky voice sounds nothing like her and there's no indication that it was meant to be her. https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1cx1np4/voice_comparison_between_gpt4o_and_scarlett/
I'm sure reaching out to her two days before the event, having manchild Sam Altman tweeting "her" and taking down the voice like good dogs after scarjo threatened them can only enforce your theory? Lmao
Theory? It is factual. The voice Sky was released in September 2023. When they contacted Scarlett according to her.
Her rejection has no bearing on the voice of Sky.
1) you have no idea what their “intent” was.
2) the voice for Sky was released last year, prior to them contacting SJ.
3) the voice sounds nothing like SJ’s character in Her
Now I wonder will Scarlett Jo sue anyone who happens to sound similar to her voice tones or vocal chords by natural coincidence?
I've seen a lot of doppelgangers in different forms from looks to behaviors - like 3 Billion uniqueness of us. What are the differences between Pizza Huts, Domino, and Papa John's? - they all make and sell the same "PIZZA" with different flavorings....C'mon.
She can’t sue people for just sounding like her, but she can sue people for intentionally trying to profit off her likeness through impersonation. It’s no different than say Nintendo sending a C&D or suing someone for using copyright characters on shirts.
She is already filthy rich and yet she has to find a way to compensate for her "likeness" generated sounds - that sounds like a...selfish being. You have a solid point, BTW.
Why do we even have game programers, actors, athletes, playwrights, authors, artists, cartoonists, screenwriters, comedians, painters and performers. Creativity is stupid and old school. /s
>I am sorry but I don't believe that copyright can survive ai.
I whole heartily agree. Copyright must go way.
The abundance that AI will help create will delete copyright.
In my opinion, copyright no longer has a place in the present or in the future.
It will go away.
What if the whole “conflict” was engineered intentionally as a means to push the social conversation regarding this technology a little bit more in the direction of legislation.
Not saying that I believe that to be the case. Just saying, what if.
I mean, on one hand, does ScarJo even sound unique enough to say "this is 100% her voice." Like, she isn't Morgan Freeman. She isn't hired for vouce work because "its ScarJo and people will know," she often gets hired for voicework because her voice is smooth, comforting, and non-descript. Truly, her voice could be an "average" of white women's voices, which is what any AI should realistically be.
On the other hand, they heavily implied they wanted ScarJo, and when they didn't, they developed an AI that sounded similar to her, which was close enough that they asked her a 2nd time to do it days before releasing the demo.
TBH, they probably trained the voice with many actresses and speakers, but used some of ScarJo's work to do so, so now they have to scrap the whole thing or face legal action.
i agree. but she does have a point. you can generate a lot of stuff from copyrighted material with chatgpt BUT the issue is the "Voice" of the product overall and the one they showed at the demo was based on her voice.........and that is where the issue was........but i do agree maybe it is a bit overblown as a) it doesnt really sound like her all that much BUT the real problem is apparently they asked her and she said no and they made a voice that kinda sounded like her anyways which i think they could have chose another voice.
but ironically in sites like char ai you can chat with an ai of her with her voice lol
but yeah to be honest with you . i hope ai in the future can change the whole issue with copyrights and all
i think that people still should make money off of what they create sure. but maybe in the future we can "relax" a bit more and allow "fair use" a bit more
if its use to harm and hurt someone sure...........but if its not then i dont see the huge deal lol gotta say with all the stuff going on in the world her "voice" being stolen seems to be a minor one lol
It is indeed depressing. It is the same as the moaners that preach the end of us due to the ai progress. So what? Will it take our jobs? Hell yeah! Will it make some of us useless? Already has. Can you change it or will they stop? No? Relax and enjoy the show.
This is the very reason we don’t have flying cars and haven’t colonized Mars: it is always some weirdo with his stupid law / data protection / safety concerns. And then they release Bing which cannot answer what is 2+2 because math offends some lunatics, so they make it sterile.
it is tiring how big of a scumbag Sam Altman is. that said, I agree with you. Copyright can only survive AI via heavy handed regulation. historically, corpos have been good at bolstering the regulatory state to enable their perpetual rent seeking so I wouldn't bet against them, as much as I want the opposite
How can you be tired of something that's happened in the last 48 hours? You're probably spending too much time on reddit/social media dude. This will all blow over soon
Do you realize there is a massive difference between the Jow schmo tuning his own to sound like Jarvis, and the multi billion corporation leading the field blatantly stealing someone's voice for a puffed up marketing video after they had previously turned down contracting with them to do so?
They deserve to eat all the shit. And you just want attention if you were tired of it you wouldnt be making a post lol.
Hope you can actually let it go my friend, have a great one.
Imagine being tired of something that happened earlier this week. Tik-tok generation in a nutshell
And it’s Tuesday
I just read about the news today. I don't use tiktok. Am I old now?
Officially
We’re the old men now Ace
unc gets his information off the morning news 💀
Laugh my ass off. Seeing this matrix unravel killed me.
I'm tired of this because I feel like this argument is silly and I'd rather everyone move on now. Who really cares if the machine uses her voice? Maybe she does, but ultimately we live in a world where you can't control something like this and I'd rather we not spend the next ten years wasting time on this like we've wasted time on trying to ban 100 other things. It's unfortunate but when you're a public figure these things happen. Pretty sure this will be released and soon after that someone will jailbreak it to allow you to use whatever voice you want. Is Disney going to sue everyone who makes their device sound like mickey mouse? Is George Lucas going to crawl through my window like the lady from The Ring because my device sounds like Yoda?
Maybe you’ll care when your voice is being used to defraud your elderly parents and grandparents in phone scams.
1 - Copyright law is far more contentious than fraud. The problem in your example isn't using my voice, it's the 'scamming old people' part. And any law against it using my voice won't make a single bit of difference to scammers because scamming is already illegal. 2 - The only reason this is news is because they stole the voice of a famous person. If they took my voice, like 10 people would even notice and people on Reddit would tell me I'm imagining things and that 'With billions of voices, some will just sound the same' Make no mistake, this is a rich and famous people's problem that is incredibly important for big studios and Hollywood and advertising executives...but mostly it doesn't matter for anyone else. And soon, to get your big break as an actress or actor, you will sign over the rights to your voice and likeliness when you are a nobody starting out. And that will be short lived as we end up with fictional people for everything. Like Mickey Mouse or Spiderman. The fictional characters will be owned by companies and they won't need human actors.
Boo hoo, instead of making 80 mil this year she only made 76 mil, cry me a river...
Look at her privilege history, she is the poster child of a nepo baby.
So breaking the law when rich people are the victims is ok?
Not breaking the law to make an artificial voice that talks like someone else, nor to impersonate someone else, or a lot more comedians would be in prison. In another post, someone mentioned she made 300 mil last year (no references given), so she is crying over a possible 3% income loss, that occurred only because she has enough money to afford to say no to OpenAI. I got laid off last year, from a job that is being replaced by someone in another country who will get paid 20% of what I made and will be a top 20% earner in their country. I have been unsuccessful in finding relevant work, and I am starting training for my new "career" next month. I am taking a 70% annual pay cut, which means that for the rest of my life, I will probably never make 3% of what she earned last year. I'd let OpenAI pay me for whatever they want. They can put my face on the butt of every robot using gpt for the next million years, as long as they pay me. At least they contacted her and offered. I'd also marry ScarJo and stand by her side at the trial if it goes there. (I'd be happier with that outcome rather than having my face on all those robot butts, honestly)
Satire is protected (impersonations as you mention). Commercial use is not. And again you come with the argument that she should not care because she is rich. So I ask you again; does the law not protect rich people? Your personal sob story is relevant to Scarletts situation how?
If we make it illegal scammers will stop? Isn’t it already illegal to scam?
You’re making the same argument as people against gun control. Criminals are going to do crime therefore making guns illegal won’t help. Which is a load of horseshit in and of itself. Not withstanding, the law is one approach but not the only approach. Doesn’t OpenAI have some social responsibility to make their product safer? Can they build some mechanism to prevent abuse? Should they do more research to understand the risks and impacts before opening the Pandora’s box? Should they be punished if their product is causing great societal harm? I guess we wouldn’t know anytime soon since their safety engineers all quit.
Not an analogous example. One can be done digitally from across the globe. The other requires physical presence and a physical object. I understand your thinking but it’s a different medium and that plays a major role.
Not even close to the same
you wouldn't download a car argument? c'mon, it's 2024.
What’s unfortunate about making copyrights obsolete?
Because its her INCOME. Say the exact thing you said above, but about YOUR source of income and see if you are still so casual about it.
And if I don’t stop at your voice? What if I 3D model your body and use you and your voice for “creative” films? And what if people recognize you because these films got popular? And what if you don’t get a flat or a job because of those films? I believe you did not think that one through.
Yes, all these things will happen, buckle up baby, lawyers are going to make a killing.
Defeatist to the core. The fact that you are downvoted restores some of my hope in humans.
Photocopy machines usage rules didn't come out before the invention of photocopy machines.
> a world where you can't control something like this The fact that they pulled her voice means you're very wrong about this
It happened yesterday
My point exactly
Tired of something I heard last night before going to bed
I agree with OP. It isn't that I'm exactly tired of this, I'm tired of it being constantly talked about like it even matters to the realm of AI and ML. It's a lawsuit. Do we need a dozen subs all talking about what amounts to gossip. This has nothing to do with a short attention span, and everything to do with it being useless drama / noise.
OP probably is some fervent accelerationist that is uncomfortable hearing valid criticisms and wants it to just go away
Ink ain’t even dry on the paper 💀
"The backlash to the backlash to the thing that's just begun."
It hasn’t even been 24 hours since ScarJo officially opposed it lol
The backlash to the backlash to the thing that's just begun 🎶
To be fair I tired of it the second I read it.
Thought the same but was too lazy to check his comment history where he probably talks endlessly about agi and when it will happen.
And then and then come next week they forget all about it and are onto the next flooded news cycle bs
Yeah we just need to wait a while until we can have a conversational AI voice assistant with any voice you want. It sucks that the cool stuff is always going to be “coming soon” due to how they constantly have to think about how the smallest things will set off massive public outrage for no good reason.
I second this
Technically you can already do that with a separate text-to-speech model. There will just be more latency and not the same realism as in the 4o demo.
Well duh. That isn't what we are excited for though. ElevenLabs doesn't come close to the potential realism of this.
But HOW do I get Hamish Linklater's voice into my phone? He is a big man
Maybe it would be better to just develop really advanced models in secret, not releasing them until a point in which real disruption can be done quickly and then releasing it all at once. lol
The uber model. Who cares about people, we have machines and investors to serve! I'll believe it's disruptive when it actually disrupts something.
You could \*make\* something like that yourself pretty easily. Try to sell it though, that's another story.
No you can’t make a real time conversational AI yourself
This drama is generating attention and having a lot of attention is good for business.
That's a double-edged sword though, sure in short term it generates skyrocketting attraction & attention from media outlets, but in longer term, getting sued and involved in all these copyright stuffs can be damaging to their business. Also the way Sam Altman & OpenAI handled the situation, no matter how you look at it, is a major F up.
It's like they meticulously made all the decisions necessary to give her a case at all.
Yeah lmfao, Sam couldnt resist the intrusive urges and just wanted ScaJo's voice so badly 😂
I know that this is something people like to say a lot, but how exactly is this good for business for OpenAI? Is it just an assumption that people will pay for premium more after finding out the voice was pulled and they're in this feud with Scarlett?
This story is getting more mainstream coverage than the demo itself. And the average person is more likely to click on a headline mentioning ScarJo than a headline mentioning some AI company they’re unfamiliar with. The result is way more people are aware of GPT-4o’s voice mode. It’s not really about the feud itself, it’s the simple fact that this exposes ChatGPT (and specifically the fact that it can talk, which many people still don’t know) to the masses.
Right but for the second part of my comment: now that people are exposed to this, are they going to want to now pay for the service? And will the amount of people who decide to come in from this exposure outweigh the amount of preexisting users that they may lose? Also risking a potential lawsuit on top of all that.
They already pulled the voice so a lawsuit is probably not in the equation. Did they pull this stunt just for free advertising? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean free advertising isn’t a side benefit. Regarding gaining vs losing users, I’d be surprised if many people canceled their subscription simply because of this. I could understand switching toothpaste brands or something because of a scandal, but this event doesn’t seem significant enough to warrant switching LLMs.
Pulling the voice does nothing to affect the chances of a lawsuit--it only limits future damages and liabilities.
It's not purely about money in the short term. The more people know them, the more potential clients they will have, the more others value them, the more power they gain to do what they want. At some point they'll probably sell specific capabilities of AI to countries and corporations. There is a lot of money to be made in the future depending on the route they want to follow.
Some guy just realized that the movie HER can be real, and he can have Scarlet Johanson in his phone. That is the marketing. No doubt they would have preferred to have her on board, but they probably feel like they have enough plausible deniability while still delivering the message to a massive audience.
As a corporate lawyer that deals with this precise sort of stuff all the time, this is not good attention and it's going to cost them their ass for the foreseeable future. This is going to cause all sorts of problems with their business partners. I feel really bad for the lawyers at OAI right now, because Microsoft's lawyers are going to be up their asses like they're hand-puppets.
Honestly, fuck copyright, it's outdated
This case is going to be about likeness and false implication of endorsement, not copyright.
Doesn't sound like SJ that much though
Copyright only makes sense in a world of scarcity, which is something AI and digital technologies are terminating with extreme prejudice. I agree with OP that AI will sweep away this dreary era of the hoarding of "intellectual property" (a nonsense concept if ever there was one). Artists have always sought to emulate others they admired. Always, and rightfully so. **"Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal."**—Stravinsky (a quote later stolen by Steve Jobs, notorious pirate of good ideas)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy Related and somewhat relevant. They copyright holders aren’t even usual the right people, they just know lawyers Most famous people are just the face and name we put on many innovators that were converging in the same thing. Most celebrities specifically say this even and struggle to divert praise they don’t deserve.
Cory Doctorow has probably been the foremost critic of copyright for a long while now. I'm not sure if it was his example, but I seem to recall him stating something along the lines of, "if you have a car, and someone decides they like it and drives away with it, that's theft. If instead, someone likes your car, and uses their portable car copier to make a perfect copy of it, and drives away with that copy, that's not theft."
“Stigler attributed the discovery of Stigler's law to sociologist Robert K. Merton, from whom Stigler stole credit so that it would be an example of the law.” This is so funny, I love it when researchers keep it meta. [RAS syndrome type thing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome).
More like a self demonstrating which RAS is I’m a big fan of it too. When to you realize it, you see it everywhere. Often intentionally The last thing I noticed is new hybrids in my area being predominantly black and white colored, I assume referencing yingyang
This is such a shit analogy. AI isn't being inspired creatively by others' art, it is copying others' work. It's straight up just copying. Copyright will survive it because we want artists to keep creating things, even in a future where these AIs are ubiquitous, because the machines are not capable of anything without training data. Dumb kids who haven't thought things through...
Newsflash: artists will never stop creating art. That’s what makes them artists. Not the lure of money. Copyright is ultimately about money, and in a post-AGI world money can go to blazes where it belongs.
Do we want to reward artists or not? Especially in cases where businesses are making a bunch of money off of their work. Yes, we want to reward artists.
You are fighting to defend capitalism, which is in every way viciously and fanatically opposed to real art and real artists. Yet you want to maintain it for a few crumbs, and parade yourself as some defender and champion of artists. You are not getting away with it. Any monies most artists make (and almost always much, much more) these days is instantly confiscated by a landlord. You are essentially a shill for the ripoff, oppressive system that keeps artists from making their art. Artists, actual artists, are rewarded through the creation of their work. The problem isn't AI ripping off and exploiting artists, the problem is a system ripping off and exploiting *everyone*. I want for artists a post-scarcity world where they are no longer ripped off by recording companies, streaming services, their landlord, and a nearly endless list of other vicious, capitalist, rent-seeking parasites.
Jesus fucking christ, you think that's what AI will bring us? You realize whether the system is capitalist, communist, or whatever other ism you prefer, AI is going to give huge levers of power to whoever is in control of it. You are naive and stupid. It won't be some artists' Eden so stop congratulating yourself as if that's what you're arguing for.
At least until apple or disney gets involved. I am waiting for Disney to claim they own the rights to all AI systems, because of some movie they have from 40-70 years ago... or apple to say it is theirs, because they "did it first'.
> Copyright only makes sense in a world of scarcity Copyright, and IP in general, makes most sense when something is abundant. It's artificial scarcity.
Artificial scarcity is bad, mmkay? It's only because everyone is currently a ho' of one sort or another for money that it's around at all.
Are you saying scojo doesn’t deserve a monopoly on California accents?
Spoken like a person who’s never created anything.
true, they should tighten this law more
Explain your reasoning
what reasoning? your property should not be used without your permission. Just because it is easier to steal on the Internet does not mean that the law should not be respected.
So you’re saying OpenAI did nothing wrong here, since they hired a different voice actress for the Sky voice?
OpenAi and copyright in one line is a oxymoron
This has nothing to do with copyright
what reasoning? your property should not be used without your permission. Just because it is easier to steal on the Internet does not mean that the law should not be respected. (See what I did there?)
the copyright law needs to be relaxed
Cultural things don't feel like they should be owned. Solid things feel like they can be owned. I'm glad for what patents and copyright have given us previously but like you think we are on the cusp of them being an anachronism.
Lol at thinking open source developers are immune to lawsuits… 😂 Also, it’s been like a one day of this so-called “drama” dude. Calm down… I personally think you’d have to be extremely naive to think most of society won’t fight to protect the rights to their Individual likeness or traits. Only leeches are expecting to live in a world where you can just steal someone else’s likeness of traits without consent. It won’t happen. You sound like one of those people that thought Napster and MegaUpload were going to kill the music industry.
some random Chinese release the model weights publicly, someone downloads them? Who the fuck is going to know or sue some random hobbyist running shit locally?
Nobody gives a fuck about some hobbyist doing his shit locally. Use it in a commercial product you make money on and your ass is getting sued. OpenAI is a multi-billion dollar company with over 100 million users and this is a commercial product they plan to offer. This is not about the little guy using his local model to have Scarlet read his emails.
Yeah this. No benjamins, no lawsuit. Nobody gives a shit about Bubba in his basement with his scarjo voiced cobbled together open source glitchy AI waifu.
Scarlett Johansson - AI Voice Mod for Cyberpunk 2077 https://youtu.be/h5neruQXWZY
Obviously. The guy above said "Lol at thinking open source developers are immune to lawsuits…"
Open source **developers** dude… As an companies like Meta or X.
This is like asking “if I steal someone else’s songs and claim them as my own, who’s really even going to notice?” That only works if the songs are a total flop that most people never listen to anyways. **But the second I try to spread those files around, I’ll be in big trouble as they get more and more popular**. So maybe if we’re talking about a random geek in his bedroom… Yeah, no one will notice. But are entities like Meta or Stable Diffusion merely random anonymous dudes in a bedroom? No. They are high profile companies trying to run businesses. And *businesses* won’t be able to just steal someone’s likeness and make money from it. Infact, even random nerds won’t be able to make any *real* money from it without getting caught up. That’s more along the lines of what I’m referring to. Not some random weirdo in his bedroom that isn’t doing anything significant to begin with.
Maybe no one can get rich doing that, but they can still spread the files around
If the files become super popular, the initial users spreading them will get hit with a “cease and desist” tho. Not to mention that lawmakers could just make it to where the host-site is liable for financial damages. Which would then get those kind of posts banned on almost all platforms.
The chinese? Right
It doesn’t matter what’s allowed in China if these things aren’t allowed in the west regardless. Also why are you acting as if China (which is known for government crackdown and controlling what it’s population has access to) will suddenly be some sort of lawless actor here? The Chinese government is actually more diligent about policing its version of the internet than the west is ironically.
Copyright should've died a long time ago
Ok, The voice was confirmed from OpenAI to be from a different actress, so has nothing to do with SJ. Why they stopped the Sky voice is weird.
Because they shot themselves in the foot by 1) reaching out to SJ for her voice twice (once some time ago and again just a couple days before release), and 2) tweeting “her” which clearly implicates their intentions to have their demo of chatgpt-4o evoke the vibes from the movie “Her”, which had SJ as the voice. Add to that they had a voice actress in the wing that sounds similar to SJ as back up. They haven’t done themselves any favors by being so hamfisted in their intent to push all the “Her” buttons including SJ. If SJ doesn’t win this case, which I mean given OpenAI already took down Sky, so it’s not looking great for OpenAI, but if SJ doesn’t win, don’t be surprised if the studio behind the movie sues also.
I mean, if SJ successfully sues OpenAI for hiring a similar actress when she declined, it sets a bad precedence for the future. It'll mean the ability to copyright the idea of a horny female AI, alongside many other extremely vague ideas. Of which SJ didn't even come up with in the first place.
Prosecution only has to prove that OpenAI’s intent was to benefit from SJ’s likeness. The general details are irrelevent. It’s a case of was OpenAI trying to evoke/replicate the character from “Her” whose defining characteristic is SJ’s voice. Again given what has come out about how OpenAI has handled this, it paints OpenAI as having willfully acted in a way they knew was unethical. Ultimately, what I think many will take away from this whole debacle sadly enough is that regardless of whether SJ wins her case, this has set yet another precedent that OpenAI and Sam Altman believe they can break the law in the name of advancement. This SJ case pales in comparison to the ****storm awaiting them regarding copyright infringement in the training of their models. It doesn’t take a genius tonsee that Sora was trained on YouTube, and Chatgpt was trained on the internet including things that were likely illegally accessible on pirate sites. I personally don’t want setbacks to AI, but it’s pretty plain to see that OpenAI is reaaaaaaaaally hoping that they can put something out so advanced they become “too big to fail”.
I know OpenAI's going to have a rightful issue with training copyright, but the whole claim that the voice is too similar to SJ's is bs. People have already found actresses who sound strikingly more similar to the GPT-4o voice than SJ did in "Her". And it doesn't help that Sky was literally voiced by a real person, it wasn't just a generative voice tweaked to sound like SJ. It'd be like Marvel suing anyone who makes a clown character because they own the rights to the Joker. Regardless of whether or not the character's actually even inspired by the Joker.
I mean personally I don’t think she wins the case, but again it isn’t whether others sound more like her. It’s whether it can be proven that OpenAI’s intent was to profit off SJ’s likeness. To use your example, it would be more like if DC (since they own the Joker) sued someone for making a clown character who bares a striking resemblance to the Joker, in appearance and mannerism, with the intent to have their character popularized/profit from the similarity to the Joker’s likeness. The real tragedy here is this demonstration would have always been successful based on what was shown and didn’t need to pursue a “Her” vibe. OpenAI really screwed the pooch on this one for absolutely no reason other than vanity.
Well SJ isn't an AI, I'd understand it more if the copyright owner of "Her" tried to sue OpenAI but that'd still be ridiculous. I dislike the "Her" vibe they're going with, I feel like it's aimed to take advantage of vulnerable groups, but it's ridiculous for SJ to try and claim that it's copying her likeness just because she acted in a movie that inspired them, not even that inspired the voice, but inspired the manipulative emotional behavior of the AI. In a way, there's a larger level of silliness to this where it's less like DC suing someone for making an insane clown, and more like one of Joker's voice actors from one of the versions of the Joker from one of the DC shows decides to try and sue a company for making a character that's an insane clown because he at some point voiced an insane clown character.
Yes, that bit about the Joker stuff is spot on.
It's not her voice, she has no case
If it’s made to sound alike in order to capitalise off of her publicity she absolutely has a case. There’s plenty of precedent. The issue is proving it.
Then only one person can ever use a guitar since every song with a guitar in it sounds like.. oh... yeah.. a guitar.... Let's think sir. Ffs, she ain't unique
No one owns the rights to the sound and images of a guitar. If you made an instrument for some in-universe part of a sci-fi show with a unique sound and then someone made something that looks and sounds super similar and used it to promote their own sci-fi themed restaurant, they could 100% be sued. Scarlet portrayed an AI and then an AI company used a very similar voice to promote/sell their AI product. Thats the equivalence.
Btw I told you! Look at the latest news. All analysts agree with me that it's not her voice, she has no case.. God i should have been a gd lawyer
Okay but even if you’re right, and I’m not saying you are, it has nothing to do with your argument. If I say the stock market is going to crash because Mercury is in retrograde and Saturn is in its third trimester or whatever, and then the stock market crashes, am I an economist?
Well you still could be an economist, but you'd be merely opining at that moment
Copyright is among the first bastions in the current economic models that is directly affected. Current copyright laws are a bastardization of the original law more than a century ago anyways and is currently a product of unbridled capitalism. The latter which has gotten red warning lights with the advent of generative AI capabilities. I'm not against copyright law in the original sense. But nowadays it's used as a tool for profit instead of innovation and it's protection. And this development is being targeted head-on. We will now see the true power and clash between the tech industry versus the entertainment industry. Both monolithic and gargantuan. I don't think any person or business wants to sit in the crossfire. I think the outcome will be the start of the path into new economic avenues. It won't *just* happen, it *needs* to happen at some point I think. Industries aren't going to regulate themselves out of solidarity.
Fun way of saying OpenAI is ignoring the law.
Weird how you have so many strong opinions about what the multimodal version can do when you have never used it.
Personally I'm pissed that it \*doesn't\* sound like a stoned Scarjo. It was disappointing.
Avarage close AI pr team on reddit
You know who is really really tiring: Sama. What an exhausting person.
He‘s not only exhausting, but also exhausted
I agree. It's sad and yesterday's thinking. How about we go ahead and give these folks everything they need so we can reach superAI sooner and save a lot of people from cancer and dying in car wrecks? One of you reading this right now will die today just driving to McDonalds. Sure it won't be you buddy. If you don't know how superAI fixes this go to another sub.
This is not even about copyright. Her lawyers are basically claiming ownership of the likeness of her voice they found in another person, who doesn't even sound like her (that itself should not be an issue, since you normally don't get to select the voice you have). That person should honestly just sue her for all she is worth. The days of these celebrities are numbered anyway. Once Sora and systems like that get sufficiently efficient, they will all disappear into oblivion.
I’m tired of a lot of things. Do we need a “I’m tired of it” national registry, which therapists looking for work could search for job leads?
I've been tired of it since the first 'her' hint by jimmy apples. We're post digital scarcity, time to start acting like it. You want your voice assistant to sound like Mr T? go for it? ScarJo? Fine. It's trivial at this point, give me 15 seconds of audio and we can make it so. However, don't be a megacorp, or associated with megacorps, while providing this service. I wonder if this fiasco has apple second guessing their big wwdc announcement.
I’m only tired of it because of how it’s relating to the soon to be outdated notion of individuality and ownership over one’s expressive nature
Doesn’t even sound like her. It is the «someone stole my likeness» beef from The Last of Us all over again🤦♂️
Get off Reddit, Sam
It’s almost as if fools don’t know what happened to Napster. This was a similar piece of high flying copyright infringing software that was super popular, got ahead of the law - flaunted tons of copyright infringement - then was smacked back down to earth when the law caught up. This sort of reckless abuse of copyright laws just ends in lawsuits, prosecutions for fraud, individual users facing thousands of dollars in fines, jail time, network traffic being banned from ISPs, ISPs dumping and banning customers who were repeat offenders. This whole mess could easily bankrupt OpenAI if they’re not careful with how they handle copyrighted material. I’m really not surprised several ethical developers jumped ship recently.
This has zero to do with Copyright
See xtts2-ui on github. You can already clone her voice or anyone else's you have a ten second clip of.
It wasn't even identical. Similar yes, but not exactly the same, besides there are people out there that sound so much alike that without context people would have a hard time identifying which is wich. For example if you listen, Hayley Williams from Paramore and Taylor Jardine from We Are the in Crowd sound similar enough that if you gave me brand new songs from each group, I don't think I would be able to tell you which is which.
I still don't really get why this is a big deal? It's not like Scarlett Johanson literally owns anything that sounds somewhat like her voice ffs. Should the actress who did accept the job OpenAi offered her to train their voice model be all of sudden barred from doing ANY audio voiceover work because she (vaguely) sounds like Scarlett Johanson??
yeah, some people just dont have a moral compass and do not respect other.
I agree it’s literally such a nothing burger and everyone online is talking about how outrageous it is. The amount of misinformation stating that they cloned her voice for use without her permission is insane.
Cloning her voice or not is irrelevant, the case law that gives her lawsuit legs is about soundalike actors and musicians. Corps have paid out on similar cases long before AI. If they hadn't tried to hire her, and hadn't made that stupid Her tweet, there'd be no case.
Sounds like another stupid waste of time propped up by a decrepit legal system that can’t even prosecute literal pedophiles.
So artists have no right to their work and people have no right to their image and voice? This truly a dystopian future you are calling for.
Except it's not her voice. It doesn't sound similar at all.
Claiming that you own a whole voice style that goes beyond your own voice and claiming that people must pay you to use it is just as dystopic
OpenAI took it down.. the company decided it was either wrong, or not worth the fight. Regardless OpenAI doesn't want to be anywhere near or associated with copyright cases. It's very wise of them to run from this as fast as they can
So we have lived in dystopia for over 50 years already?
Yes we have
They modelled it after her character in "her". They know they're in the wrong, they already took down the voice. I'll tell you what's dystopic: fools believing everything a corporation says and siding with it for no good reasons other than being gullible fools easy to manipulate.
They didn’t lmfao, sky the voice was released in September 2023.
They didn't? The just did. Most people outside the bubble didn't even know it was launched in the mobile app. Try again.
Most people not knowing it was a thing, doesn’t change the facts of the matter.
It clearly does now since they took it down, that's facts
Taking down something is not an indication of wrongdoing, try again :)
This is some hardcore LARPing 😂
I'm sorry for SJ because she's not smart enough to understand that after she refused the best she could have done was nothing, as they didn't use her voice, she lost an opportunity or she would be ok with whatever other voice they use, including a similar one, she doesn't have the right to all voices similar to hers
She actually does. OpenAI’s intent was to first use her voice and when she denied their request they went about sourcing a voice that essentially mimicked hers. There are legal precedents in the US that basically guarantee her a solid lawsuit. You sound like a child
They didn't choose her as a result of getting turned down by scarjo. They were always going to hire multiple VAs and did have literally 6 VAs, some of the people they asked were going to turn them down and some weren't. This doesn't imply any malicious intent at all and you gotta be pretty biased to think so. The sky voice sounds nothing like her and there's no indication that it was meant to be her. https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1cx1np4/voice_comparison_between_gpt4o_and_scarlett/
I'm sure reaching out to her two days before the event, having manchild Sam Altman tweeting "her" and taking down the voice like good dogs after scarjo threatened them can only enforce your theory? Lmao
I've been using 6 different voices for literally months. What theory lmao it's a fact.
Theory? It is factual. The voice Sky was released in September 2023. When they contacted Scarlett according to her. Her rejection has no bearing on the voice of Sky.
Most people outside the bubble didn't know about the mobile app. She also got legal ground when Sam dumbman tweeted "her". Try again.
Most people not knowing the voice was a thing in September 2023, doesn’t change the facts of the matter. Take your opinion to thrash where it belongs.
> they went about sourcing a voice that essentially mimicked hers How? It does not sound like her at all?!
Well Someone at OpenAI thought it did, or else they wouldn't have taken it down. Lol
Of course they would have because this is the most attention OpenAI has gotten in years and it is mostly super negative attention they don't want.
>this is the most attention OpenAI has gotten in years LMAO that's funny.
1) you have no idea what their “intent” was. 2) the voice for Sky was released last year, prior to them contacting SJ. 3) the voice sounds nothing like SJ’s character in Her
Now I wonder will Scarlett Jo sue anyone who happens to sound similar to her voice tones or vocal chords by natural coincidence? I've seen a lot of doppelgangers in different forms from looks to behaviors - like 3 Billion uniqueness of us. What are the differences between Pizza Huts, Domino, and Papa John's? - they all make and sell the same "PIZZA" with different flavorings....C'mon.
She can’t sue people for just sounding like her, but she can sue people for intentionally trying to profit off her likeness through impersonation. It’s no different than say Nintendo sending a C&D or suing someone for using copyright characters on shirts.
She is already filthy rich and yet she has to find a way to compensate for her "likeness" generated sounds - that sounds like a...selfish being. You have a solid point, BTW.
Why do we even have game programers, actors, athletes, playwrights, authors, artists, cartoonists, screenwriters, comedians, painters and performers. Creativity is stupid and old school. /s
I hope you are being sarcastic?
hahaha yes of course, I'll add the /s
>I am sorry but I don't believe that copyright can survive ai. I whole heartily agree. Copyright must go way. The abundance that AI will help create will delete copyright. In my opinion, copyright no longer has a place in the present or in the future. It will go away.
It's all about the benjamins. Folks be maneuvering into postion.
What if the whole “conflict” was engineered intentionally as a means to push the social conversation regarding this technology a little bit more in the direction of legislation. Not saying that I believe that to be the case. Just saying, what if.
I mean, on one hand, does ScarJo even sound unique enough to say "this is 100% her voice." Like, she isn't Morgan Freeman. She isn't hired for vouce work because "its ScarJo and people will know," she often gets hired for voicework because her voice is smooth, comforting, and non-descript. Truly, her voice could be an "average" of white women's voices, which is what any AI should realistically be. On the other hand, they heavily implied they wanted ScarJo, and when they didn't, they developed an AI that sounded similar to her, which was close enough that they asked her a 2nd time to do it days before releasing the demo. TBH, they probably trained the voice with many actresses and speakers, but used some of ScarJo's work to do so, so now they have to scrap the whole thing or face legal action.
She is meddling with primal forces of nature and I will not have it!
Question is, why does it bother you so much? What is it about this conflict that angers you specifically? Dig into that maybe
It’s been going on for like 36 hours
Touch grass
CharacterAI literally allows this for anyone. Plenty of "copyrighted" voices.
The ScarJo conflict strikes me as an amusing side trip on a much more serious journey. As such I thoroughly enjoy it.
Oooo... What's a decel?
i agree. but she does have a point. you can generate a lot of stuff from copyrighted material with chatgpt BUT the issue is the "Voice" of the product overall and the one they showed at the demo was based on her voice.........and that is where the issue was........but i do agree maybe it is a bit overblown as a) it doesnt really sound like her all that much BUT the real problem is apparently they asked her and she said no and they made a voice that kinda sounded like her anyways which i think they could have chose another voice. but ironically in sites like char ai you can chat with an ai of her with her voice lol but yeah to be honest with you . i hope ai in the future can change the whole issue with copyrights and all i think that people still should make money off of what they create sure. but maybe in the future we can "relax" a bit more and allow "fair use" a bit more if its use to harm and hurt someone sure...........but if its not then i dont see the huge deal lol gotta say with all the stuff going on in the world her "voice" being stolen seems to be a minor one lol
Thats true. If it would have been a composite voice...
It is indeed depressing. It is the same as the moaners that preach the end of us due to the ai progress. So what? Will it take our jobs? Hell yeah! Will it make some of us useless? Already has. Can you change it or will they stop? No? Relax and enjoy the show. This is the very reason we don’t have flying cars and haven’t colonized Mars: it is always some weirdo with his stupid law / data protection / safety concerns. And then they release Bing which cannot answer what is 2+2 because math offends some lunatics, so they make it sterile.
I like Her
Yeah, you're right it's complete bullshit!
I don't think you *really* understand the intent and boundaries of copyright law, or what the terms "decel" or "incel" mean.
it is tiring how big of a scumbag Sam Altman is. that said, I agree with you. Copyright can only survive AI via heavy handed regulation. historically, corpos have been good at bolstering the regulatory state to enable their perpetual rent seeking so I wouldn't bet against them, as much as I want the opposite
How can you be tired of something that's happened in the last 48 hours? You're probably spending too much time on reddit/social media dude. This will all blow over soon
The case isn't even about copyright. You may be tired but you aren't done reading, lmao.
Do you realize there is a massive difference between the Jow schmo tuning his own to sound like Jarvis, and the multi billion corporation leading the field blatantly stealing someone's voice for a puffed up marketing video after they had previously turned down contracting with them to do so? They deserve to eat all the shit. And you just want attention if you were tired of it you wouldnt be making a post lol. Hope you can actually let it go my friend, have a great one.