The OpenAI board was right

https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/the-openai-board-was-right

by isaacfrond • 2 years ago

340 335 2 years ago

garymarcus.substack.com

sanxiyn2• 2 years ago

Sam Altman is a grifter. We all should boycott Sam Altman.

Repeat after me: Sam Altman is powerless if we all ignore him. Sam Altman is nothing without his people. He can't do anything himself.

https://x.com/OpenAI/status/1727236805182026159

kunley• 2 years ago

Altman playing a wannabe god, geez...

moffkalast2• 2 years ago

Always has been.

ChildOfChaos5• 2 years ago

This article is terrible.

There is a lot of nonsense and drama about all of this, but the voice is clearly not Scarlet, even though they were clearly trying to get someone to sound like her. So much drama over nothing.

isaacfrond• 2 years ago

On this one, it is OpenAI who are terrible and acting like spoiled kids.

They approached Ms. Johansson, she said no, and they went ahead and did it anyways.

ChildOfChaos5• 2 years ago

No they didn't though.

They hired a voice actor who had a similar voice profile to her, a similar voice to what they were looking for. If you just hear the voice they used, it sounds very similar, but if you actually play them side by side, you can hear they are very clearly different.

How is that different from anything else? You ask someone to do something you want them to do, they say no, so you then go and find someone else that will do what you need which is what they did.

DonHopkins5• 2 years ago

That's just your opinion that it's clearly not Scarlet, but you don't know her, and she and her family and friends who do think it is, and the fact that you say "even though they were clearly trying to get someone to sound like her" is kind of the whole point: even YOU admit they were "CLEARLY TRYING" to steal her voice after being told TWO TIMES not to. Trying to steal something and not quite stealing 100% of it perfectly is STILL THEFT. You're the one being dramatic trying to defend what even you admit is outright theft.

And Sam Altman's lower case single word tweet "her" clinches it. Clearly he was not just announcing his new pronoun.

ChildOfChaos5• 2 years ago

Wow.

Having something similar to someone else does not equal theft. What is wrong with people? Why are they acting so weird about this.

What about the voice actor that did this? Is her voice 'theft'?

sebzim45003• 2 years ago

Problem is there aren't 8 billion clearly distinguishable voices in the world, so some people are going to sound a bit like other people.

Should the voice actor who sounds a bit like Scarlet just quit working?

_3u10• 2 years ago

That’s how it works in Hollywood:

The voice, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this AI are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.

drpossum3• 2 years ago

Glad you brought this up because that is, in fact, not how it works at all! With legal precedence even! It turns out you can't just say some magic words to make your legal problems go away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclai...

SilverBirch• 2 years ago

It really is incredible how something as small and simple as this gives such incredible bad vibes. This is like early 2010s facebook vibes. It's just... if they're going to steal her voice, what would they do to yours?

But it also points to a wider problem in OpenAI's existence. They're built on theft. If you wrote something on the internet in the last 20 years, they've stolen it. They've stolen it, they're put it into their little magic box and now they want to sell it back to you. OpenAI is amazing technology, and once the equity of the company is redistributed back to the content owners who actually provided the value, it'll be great to see what they can do from there.

amelius4• 2 years ago

"Good artists copy, great artists steal."

aredox• 2 years ago

Another thought-terminating cliché.

https://bookriot.com/do-great-artists-steal/

jamil72• 2 years ago

This isn't an artist building on the work of previous artists, this is a for-profit company repurposing people's work and mass producing it without permission or paying royalties.

xiwenc• 2 years ago

Exactly. And the name “Open” in OpenAI implies it is open. Open to the world. Open to humanity. Nothing of that came to be. It should have remained non-profit; be good for humanity (yes i know this is up for interpretation).

sanxiyn2• 2 years ago

I think the board should fire Sam Altman again. If the board does not fire Sam Altman it is not doing its duty, so someone should sue the board, or convince attorney general to sue.

Attorney general of Delaware is Kathy Jennings <attorney.general@delaware.gov>. Mail your argument now. Do your civic duty.

cqqxo4zV46cp2• 2 years ago

I’m sick to death of hearing this. It’s the antithesis of a substantive argument, in a topic where there’s no shortage of substantive points to be made. Why are we still trotting it out on HN. Arguing about the name basically amounts to “I believe that when you use the word ‘open’ in your company name, they should act like $this”…which is, frankly, absurd. If you want to talk about how they’ve gone back on their word or whatever, can we just stick to that? Getting one’s knickers in a twist over “open” in the name just dumbs down the conversation and gets everyone arguing about semantics.

klyrs12• 2 years ago

Open as in open legs, even if you say no?

https://futurism.com/researcher-openai-sex-drug-parties

https://www.themarysue.com/annie-altmans-abuse-allegations-a...

chx2• 2 years ago

OpenAI is amazing technology,

Erm... no. https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/112006855076082650

You might be surprised to learn that I actually think LLMs have the potential to be not only fun but genuinely useful. “Show me some bullshit that would be typical in this context” can be a genuinely helpful question to have answered, in code and in natural language — for brainstorming, for seeing common conventions in an unfamiliar context, for having something crappy to react to.
Alas, that does not remotely resemble how people are pitching this technology.

IshKebab• 2 years ago

That is a dumb low effort take that doesn't even try to refute the statement that this is amazing technology, which it very clearly is.

He said "amazing technology" not "AGI that can replace humans". They are not the same.

cqqxo4zV46cp2• 2 years ago

It’s absurd that you think that the benefit that I and others get from, say, Copilot, is somehow thwarted by some ranty social media thread that you’re a fan of. It’s some blogger’s theory arguing with empiricism. It’s a completely empty argument. I’m not sure how you’d expect that this would add to the conversation at all. It certainly doesn’t warrant your snarky tone.

kolinko4• 2 years ago

They didn’t steal her voice, they paid someone with a similar voice. It’s still not nice, but not stealing.

saberience3• 2 years ago

How do you know that? The timeline of events makes it seem fairly clear that they were in fact using her voice. If it was just a soundalike, why suddenly take it down?

splatzone• 2 years ago

They passed off Sky as Johansson’s voice though. It’s highly misleading and passing off is a kind of theft of her persona.

harryf2• 2 years ago

A technical audit would clear that up.

Because the most obvious thing for OpenAI do would be training the voice on Scarlett Johansson's available body of work, from movies, audiobooks, podcasts etc. Why bother hiring a voice actor?

mvdtnz• 2 years ago

They absolutely stole her voice. I don't know if you're being intentionally naive or you really are this way, but either way you need to stop it.

ZiiS2• 2 years ago

Image rights are complex and separate from stealing.

If they deliberately used an actress that looks like her in an advert. A bit of makeup, a latex mask, digital touch up, full deep fake; at some point most people can no longer tell the difference.

onel• 2 years ago

Using an impersonator is still stealing. There was this Ford case

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

JumpCrisscross7• 2 years ago

it also points to a wider problem

Look at the comments, even in this thread, defending Sam. I thought this could be dealt with by the courts. But it clearly needs stronger medicine; there is simply too much hubris. Congress may need to act; let’s start with states’ AGs. (Narrow clarifications on copyright and likeness rights, to start. Prosecution from there. The low-hanging fruit is anyone in Illinois who was enrolled in WorldCoin.)

We, as a community, have been critical of crypto. AI is different—Altman is not. He is a proven liar, and this episode demonstrates the culture he has created at a multibillion-dollar firm that seems destined, in the long run, for—at best—novel conservatorship.

We have a wider problem. It isn’t “alignment.” It’s 19th-century fast-talking fraudsters clothing themselves in the turtlenecks of dead founders.

robertlagrant• 2 years ago

We aren't a community. Please stop this constant attempt to create tribes and then (presumably) become the tribe's representative. We are individuals with different opinions. The individuals on HN are more amenable to reason than the average discussion; persuade them into a way of thinking.

grugagag• 2 years ago

Sam Altman is a shameless weasel. Guy has no sense of decency. He got caught redhanded a few times already, what does it takes to unseat him? And whoever defends Altman for their love of ChatGPT, it wasn’t Altman who was behind it, it was a large team that is now dissipating away. Altman just wants to enrich himself at your expense

bsenftner• 2 years ago

It is Sam and it's not Sam; it's that attitude that "no" is just "no right now", and that attitude that whittles down people against their will.

I've been working long enough, serious ageism kicks in if I say how long, but in this situation my decades of experience point at Sam as toxic, I can say all it takes is one idiot like Sam to destroy the work of a their entire organization. That "no for now" attitude destroys far far more than the issue they are pushing, it destroys basic trust.

okr• 2 years ago

Who are you? Leave me out of your bullshit.

vbo2• 2 years ago

I don't want to defend Altman. He may or may not be a good actor. But as an engineer, I love the idea of building something magical, yet lately that's not straightforward tinkering - unless you force your way - because people raise all sorts of concerns that they wouldn't have 30 years ago. Google (search) was built on similar data harvesting and we all loved it in the early days, because it was immensely useful. So is ChatGPT, but people are far more vocal nowadays about how what it's doing is wrong from various angles. And all their concerns are valid. But if openai had started out by seeking permission to train on any and every piece of content out there (like this comment, for example) they wouldn't have been able to create something as good (and bad) as ChatGPT. In the early search days, this was settled (for a while) via robots.txt, which for all intents and purposes openai should be adhering to anyway.

But it's more nuanced for LLMs, because LLMs create derivative content, and we're going to have to decide how we think about and regulate what is essentially a new domain and method and angle on existing legislation. Until that happens, there will be friction, and given we live in these particular times, people will be outraged.

That said, using SJ's voice given she explicitly refused is unacceptable. It gets interesting if there really is a voice actor that sounds just like her, but now that openai ceased using that voice, the chances of seeing that play out in court are slimmer.

JeremyNT• 2 years ago

Look at the comments, even in this thread, defending Sam. I thought this could be dealt with by the courts. But it clearly needs stronger medicine; there is simply too much hubris.

The courts are a lagging indicator.

This is the entire "move fast break things" play, it's legislative arbitrage. If you can successfully ignore the laws, build good will in the public, and brand yourself in an appealing way, then the legal system will warp around whatever you've done and help you pull the ladder up behind you.

On the other hand, if you break a bunch of stuff that people actually like and care about, politicians might feel like they need to do something about that. If you burn all your good will such that both political parties agree that you're a problem, that is when the play can go sideways.

yellowapple2• 2 years ago

Look at the comments, even in this thread, defending Sam.

The comments are overwhelmingly less defending Sam specifically and more pointing out that the voices don't really sound similar enough to definitively conclude theft from a specific person. Having heard a couple samples, I'm inclined to agree with them.

We, as a community, have been critical of crypto.

"We" as a community have come to no such consensus. Speak for yourself.

zigzag3123• 2 years ago

They've stolen it, they're put it into their little magic box and now they want to sell it back to you.

In a way, it's similar to how cable TV started. Early cable relayed free terrestrial channels and charged a fee for it. The selling point was better picture quality in some areas. Cable operators did not pay broadcasters for the content they retransmitted.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/cable-television

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute

b1124• 2 years ago

They also didn't chop up the broadcasts, store them, rearrange and put together frames from different broadcasts, and then charge an additional fee for help videos, and rebroadcast them upon demand.

It's not even remotely the same.

baq5• 2 years ago

This is like early 2010s facebook vibes.

Was just thinking that sama managed to frame himself in opposition to the good guy Zuck.

This sounds absurd, but we're here, this is the timeline.

ulfw2• 2 years ago

A lot can be an amazing company if you're dealing with unlicensed instead of licensed content.

Anyone could beat Netflix or HBO or Disney or whoever if they just could take films and series and sell them without ever having paid licensing fees.

Anyone could beat Spotify or Apple Music if they just could take songs andsell them without ever having paid licensing fees.

etc etc you get the idea

chrisjj2• 2 years ago

such incredible bad vibes. This is like early 2010s facebook vibes

What's saddest is they will probably impede OpenAI no more than they did Facebook.

barfbagginus• 2 years ago

We must seize or copy the magic black box and make it free for everyone. It represents a great potential to reduce suffering and knowledge scarcity. It would be a massive injustice to do anything but make it part of the universal human legacy.

1vuio0pswjnm73• 2 years ago

"They're built on theft."

The "Big Tech" companies trying to compete with OpenAI were built on theft, too.

They do not produce content. They collect data about people and usurp others' content for advertising purposes. This comes at the cost of privacy, "data breaches", teen mental health, journalism, perhaps even civil, democratic society, to name just a few sacrifices.

OpenAI is pushing those companies to be as bad as they can be. As we are seeing, they have no problem going there. It is "in their DNA". Always has been.

This forced showing of "true colors" is the effect of a potential competitor that cannot be merged and acquired.

People from all walks of life are noticing. It's a great time.

1vuio0pswjnm73• 2 years ago

Energy waste, water waste, the list of sacrifices is ugly.

swat535• 2 years ago

Of course people on HN are going to defend Sam, why wouldn't they? He has promised us all salvation through AI revolution: The one where finally mankind is saved through technology, hunger is no more and diseases have been cured thanks to ChatGPT; We will have AGI and rogue Terminators are capable of roaming free in the wild.

Altman is a master magician, he has even convinced the Vatican to write a document regarding the dangers of AI; in his path to reach bigger piles mountains of cash, he has thrown out all sense of ethics and integrity.

He has replaced entire board, solidified his position as the CEO, is actively attempting to silence any possible whistle blower or negative feedback internally through legal agreements, attempted regulatory capture to stop opposition, stolen other people's content to train his chat bot and of course now yet another scam, passing on someone else's voice as Scarlet.

It won't end here, he will keep on going and his followers will defend him, because they are truly convinced the man is a revolutionary.

I for one, fear for a world where openAI (open in lowercase is intentional) dominates with Sam at the helm.

tim3332• 2 years ago

If you wrote something on the internet in the last 20 years, they've stolen it.

I don't really expect any person or AI to be influenced by what I've written but if were I'm quite pleased. I wouldn't call it stealing.

Is everyone on this forum a thief because they learnt English and much culture without getting permission from those who came up with it?

mountainriver• 2 years ago

How is it stolen if it’s public information?

actuallyrizzn• 2 years ago

It isn't theft.

Nothing was removed from anyone to train the model.

If I do a Christopher Walken impression, what have I taken away from the actor?

Nothing.

I stg it's so silly the contortions you anti-ai ppl go thru.

Falkvinge• 2 years ago

It is reasonably common in the voicing part of the acting industry, when a famous name turns you down, that you instead turn to a voice imitator to give a performance that's reminiscent of a number of factors (kind of sounding like this other person, for example).

This way, legally you're in the clear, because you didn't use the voice of X. Not on any occasion did you use the voice of X. You even paid a voicer to make your recordings, and it's their voice.

Morally, it can be - and probably is - a different matter.

wokwokwok• 2 years ago

I think, as with most things, it’s slightly more legally ambiguous if the person you’re copying/whatever is rich enough to have good lawyers and a strong media presence.

You can argue about these morality of that, but I think it’s reasonably true, practically.

Thus, it got taken down.

gizajob8• 2 years ago

Especially given the very clear cut case here of the AI company deliberately cloning the voice of the most recognisable and human-like AI voice from fiction. And also tweeting that they’d done exactly that. And then lying that it was a coincidence. It wouldn’t stand up in court which is why they got rid of it – I’m sure that if Sam Altman and his counsel believed that they could beat ScarJo in court then we’d still be listening to “Sky”.

eqvinox5• 2 years ago

It is reasonably common in the voicing part of the acting industry, when a famous name turns you down, that you instead turn to a voice imitator

Citation needed.

Even when VAs are recast for reasons beyond control (death, unavailability, aging child voice, health, etc.), they are only similar, not imitations. Happened in a lot of anime.

Fiahil• 2 years ago

Yet, legal opinions seems to differ : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40423224

twobitshifter2• 2 years ago

Why do people think they need an actor? You can recreate a voice from just a few seconds of audio today. Do that and then mix in some fair use modifiers to CYA.

AJRF• 2 years ago

Am I right in saying that this voice has existed in the app for the voice feature for ~6 months now? I remember hearing it and thinking "Sounds like Scarlett Johansson"

Havoc2• 2 years ago

Unless she can prove that it’s directly derived somehow I don't see much of a case here.

Questionable ethically perhaps but OpenAI doesn’t seem to care about that

drpossum3• 2 years ago

This was posted up-thread, but there is a clear legal argument known as "passing off" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off. It turns out your "intuition" isn't actually a basis for a legal system nor a way to position yourself as a legal scholar.

Havoc2• 2 years ago

Where have they passed this off as her?

pseudalopex6• 2 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

camillomiller3• 2 years ago

Sam Altman’s personality is another proof of the theory that startup/Silicon Valley hyperinnovation culture has a massive problem of incentivizing manipulative narcissists to rise to the top. The entire culture clearly has a set of filters in place that favor individuals with extreme manipulative god-complex-style traits, who are convinced their mission is so supreme and important that any other rule shouldn’t apply to them.

The fact that the future of AI is in the hands of one of these individuals is an utter disaster.

cromka• 2 years ago

I couldn't but instantly thought of WeWork.

padjo• 2 years ago

For me this speaks to the arrogance and disconnect from reality that some people in tech operate under.

It seems they never considered it possible that someone would say no to them and would protect their IP against them, because who wouldn’t want to be part of their glorious mission, right?

mschuster91• 2 years ago

In the end, it's business, it's purely about money. When you got untold billions in the bank account, or have someone backing you who has the billions, you can do whatever you want as long as it's not a violation of criminal codes. Hope that no one discovers what you did, and in the case they do and have the financial resources to fight back, drag the case along for as long as you can, and eventually settle for pennies.

As long as you don't commit crimes, this strategy will always work out. Hell even if you do commit crimes, as long as you have willing "fixers", you got to piss off a lot of powerful people to face justice. Just look at the 45th - that guy has a history of decades of stiffing contractors, lenders and employees (including those who actually went behind bars for him), but it took a pretty flimsy constructed case to finally charge him with a crime and I'm not certain that the case is clear enough for a conviction.

edflsafoiewq• 2 years ago

Tech has a consent problem, no doubt. The popup which won't let you decline but instead asks you again and again forever is just the lowest manifestation of a deeper issue.

maeln• 2 years ago

Eh, it's not just Tech, most company has a consent issue, and you could easily argue that capitalism as a consent issue (not saying that alternative also don't have one). Rarely do businesses have any incentive to care about consent. In many case they actually have a vested interest in not caring about your consent, as it can remove one big barrier to profit. It is easier to illustrate these days with all the IA company harvesting data with 0 consent, it is true, but you find the same behavior in most industry. Consent is seen as a customer service issue, something extra, not something that is due.

Y_Y4• 2 years ago

sama is a chancer, no doubt, but I take issue with this article's angle.

Clearly they wanted something reminiscend of the film "Her". Since Scarlett Johansson didn't want to do they voice they hired someone else. The voice they used is that of their voice actor, not Scarlett Johansson. She owns her own voice, but I don't think she has any rights to voices that merely sound like hers, when they're not being used to fraudently imply that she's involved.

So movies are really influential on culture, and I think there should be broad scope for "taking inspiration" as long as it stops short of plagiarism. Think how many works you've seen that are obviously heavily inspired by e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey. I don't think the vibe of "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that" as belonging to the voice actor Douglas Rain, or Kubrick or Clark. And that's what a good thing! Producing cultural works must feed the production of future works and I'd like to permit all but the most blantant ripoffs.

camillomiller3• 2 years ago

Why isn’t anyone stopping for a minute to think what happens in that darn movie? Why is it even ok to want your AI to sound like the AI from her? Why are the people leading AI and tech today so shallow when it comes to cultural depictions of their role? Unless they would actually like to be the villain.

gizajob8• 2 years ago

Because they’re not as creative as they think they are.

tidenly• 2 years ago

I've seen this take quite a lot around Twitter recently, which is confusing to me. Do you read Her as a "AI assistants are bad" story? I thought it was a much more subtle exploration of what our world would be like if such things existed, rather than outright condemning it, but it seems like lots of people saw only horror start to finish.

dTal2• 2 years ago

This observation is so widespread it now has a handy shorthand in the form of a meme, the "Torment Nexus":

Sci-Fi Author: In my book I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale

Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/torment-nexus

CipherThrowaway3• 2 years ago

This is the thing that is so wild to me. Outside of tech, everyone I encounter in day-to-day life intuitively understands that tech dudes inventing AI voices to flirt with them is not awesome or cool.

At this point, I have to assume that being out-of-touch is deliberate branding from OpenAI. Maybe to appeal to equally out-of-touch investors.

baq5• 2 years ago

Don't forget Frank Herbert is rolling in his grave, too. Dune's first two books could be called 'Paul is bad' and 'I guess I wasn't clear the first time'.

eqvinox5• 2 years ago

The voice they used is that of their voice actor, not Scarlett Johansson.

If this is the case, why did they pull it?

And why ask Scarlett again, just a few days before release?

szundi• 2 years ago

Someone from OpenAI wrote on Twitter that pulling this voice was in the works for a month already. Must be true, it was on the Internet.

drpossum3• 2 years ago

You're seeing a pattern of bad faith "beg forgiveness instead of asking permission" and they got their hand caught in the cookie jar when someone insisted they didn't want part. Reddit, Stack Overflow, etc were just happy to roll over and accept the check after the fact.

kolinko4• 2 years ago

Stopping behaviour is not an automatic admission of guilt.

gwd2• 2 years ago

And why ask Scarlett again, just a few days before release?

For one, because it's obviously better to have the exact voice rather than an imitation. For two, because it avoids exactly this kind of sticky situation: even if you believe you have a legal and moral right to do something, it's always nice to have the question completely air-tight.

Also, remember that OpenAI isn't a single person, but a large organization with different people and viewpoints. Not unlikely somebody in the organization foresaw the potential for this kind of reaction, knew they couldn't convince the right people to pull the voice completely, but thought they could maybe convince people to reach out again.

I mean, suppose they had a Darth Vader-y voice for some reason and had approached James Earl Jones to do it, and Jones had said no. Is it really so terrible to have someone else try to imitate the Darth Vader character? Jones, along with Lucas, made Darth Vader a cultural phenomenon; I don't think Jones should have the right to dictate forevermore all references to that phenomenon. The same goes for Scarlett Johansson and the author / director of 'Her'.

gizajob8• 2 years ago

There’s a thing in intellectual property called “passing off” - if your logo and branding is so similar to McDonalds that consumers are likely to think that your product comes from McDonalds, then you’re in breach and will be sued.

Regardless of whether they hired a different actress for the voice model, enough consumers would be convinced “ohhh it’s the same as ScarJo in Her!” which should point to there being an issue with ScarJo’s image rights and likeness, and although the law right now doesn’t explicitly cover AI voice modelling, as soon as this is tested in court it would likely set a precedent. Unless ScarJo lost that case, which seems unlikely.

throwawaymaths8• 2 years ago

Think about the voice actor they hired (presuming they did so). Does she not have the right to use her own voice for money merely because she sounds like another, more famous persons?

fl0id4• 2 years ago

Yeah and especially in combination with the additional inquiry directly before release and the her tweet… looks awfully deliberate

simion314• 2 years ago

I agreed with your argument before the latest revelations, so now I want a judge to order OpenAI to get clean, did they do use any second of Scarlet voice ?

Because they could be lying, they could have used a different actress and also mixed some Scarlet voice into the mix.

DonHopkins5• 2 years ago

But the clone of her voice IS being used to fraudulently imply that she's involved.

https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666?lang=en

"her" -Sam Altman

chrisjj2• 2 years ago

No party to this matter has claimed it us a clone of her voice.

klausa2• 2 years ago

but I don't think she has any rights to voices that merely sound like hers

She might!

https://mcpherson-llp.com/articles/voice-misappropriation-in...

Y_Y4• 2 years ago

Good point and good reference. I see that in the first case Better Miller won a case against Ford motor company who had a "sound-alike" sing one of her songs for a commercial when she refused. The other cases are similar and my reading of the article is that the cases hinged on 1) a deliverate and explicit imitation of the famous voice concerned and 2) the voice in question being quite distinct, such that it would be very unlikely to approximate it by coincidence. In the case at hand here I think a strong argument could be made either way I both of these points and reasonable people will certainly differ.

CipherThrowaway3• 2 years ago

but I don't think she has any rights to voices that merely sound like hers, when they're not being used to fraudently imply that she's involved.

IANAL but it's actually not that simple. There are laws and precedents around soundalikes.

I think the cultural defense for this is really lame. Was there really cultural value in evoking "Her"? Because outside of the narcissistic male nerd culture of laughing at your own jokes, and fixating on your own cleverness, there doesn't seem to be. No one outside of this bubble actually thinks it's super cool and culturally valuable for tech companies to attempt reinvent - seemingly without a trace of irony or self-awareness - the cautionary tales and trappings of dystopian sci-fi.

From what I have seen, the demos struck the average person as cringey and left women in particular with a deep sense of revulsion.

fl0id4• 2 years ago

This so much

Y_Y4• 2 years ago

Just to say, I think the demo is lame too, and the film was fine but no Black Mirror. I still think there's cultural value, even if it's not the kind of culture that appeals to me.

jacknews2• 2 years ago

Isn't this the 'look and feel' argument?

Especially if you then post references bragging that your thing either is, or is basically the same as, that other thing.

tomthe3• 2 years ago

I would love to play some board games with Sam Altman. He is smart, strategic and very persuasive (I heard). He would excel especially at games like Risk or Mafia, where you have to persuade your opponents to collaborate with you.

But after a few rounds, no one would help him anymore and he would loose all the games.

surfingdino• 2 years ago

No wonder they get along with Microsoft just fine. Here's what Tim O'Reilly said about MSFT years ago, and I think it applies to OpenAI today:

"Microsoft gets a lot of heat for not leaving enough on the table for others. My mother, who’s English, and quite a character, once said of Bill Gates, “He sounds like someone who would come to your house for dinner and say, ‘Thank you. I think I’ll have all the mashed potatoes.’”"

Replace Gates with Altman.

source: https://daringfireball.net/2013/05/all_the_mashed_potatoes (the original post is gone from the O'Reilly website)

whamlastxmas3• 2 years ago

He seems to be winning all the games in real life

tomthe3• 2 years ago

Not all (look up how he got fired from ycombinator). But as long as there are enough new people who want to play with him, he might do fine (and there are a lot of willing VCs). Once the word starts to spread about him, through stories like this, he might experience some backslash.

cryptozeus• 2 years ago

I think the lies are catching up...feeling less conf. about Sam now..his statement to CNBC in response

https://twitter.com/haydenfield/status/1792748249272795348

largbae• 2 years ago

The first order problem is how do we compensate those whose performances and art were unique and recognizable before computers could imitate them.

However we solve for that will tell us if and how we can motivate people to make all the tradeoffs needed to stand out and bring new unique art into the world.

I am hoping we land somewhere in between the extremes of "no copyright use" and "what's a copyright" and create a royalty system that can trace your content's influence on the weights used at inference and cut you in according to your contribution.

onhacker• 2 years ago

Extremely concerning.

Think she is a prominent actress that's why this news is all over the internet but every individual has the right to their voice and face shouldn't be cloned, for them it's not concerning on internet but definitely in their family, relatives and society

IMTDb2• 2 years ago

Does that mean that the voice actress that was hired to sample "sky" has to stop working since her voice is "too similar to another famous person" ? So Scarlett Johansson owns her voice, and every single one that is "too similar to hers" (by what metric) and gets to dictate what can and cannot be done.

It's a slippery slope.

jamil72• 2 years ago

No, there is wider a context and nuance to the whole topic, as there always is. Jumping to hyperbolic "slippery slope" arguments doesn't add anything interesting to this discussion and instead tries to deflect it.

gorbypark• 2 years ago

Do we know that these voices are backed by real people? I kind of assumed that given AI tech in voice cloning, they could make a voice sound like anyone they want and don't need to go out and find someone that sounds like "the target" voice. I think it's more fair game if they actually found another human that could sound like someone famous, but if they just ran the audio of some of her movies through some AI and out popped a voice, that's a little bit less clear.

SiempreViernes2• 2 years ago

It's probably fair game if they got a similar voice by coincidence, but here they intentionally want to copy someone's voice as performed in a well known IP for pure business profit.

h4kor• 2 years ago

No. There is an interview/documentary about South Park where they talk about celebrity appearances in the show. They said that they never request celebrities to play themselves in the show. If the person declines the offer, they can get into legal trouble for imitating them. If they don't ask it is fine.

The problem here is that they wanted Scarlett Johansson and imitated her when she said no.

There is also a big market for "celebrity sound alikes" in voice acting.

IanCal3• 2 years ago

But in south park they would be seen to be imitating a person - there would be a character called "George Clooney" who sounded like George Clooney.

The case here is that there's a voice that sounds like Scarlett Johansson, but OpenAI are saying that its isn't her.

mrweasel2• 2 years ago

That's a really good explanation. The South Park team works in the field and understands the rules of Hollywood and their details, OpenAI clearly does not.

The problem for OpenAI is probably that this is the first time that someone with a bit of standing caught them with their fingers in the cookie jar and not only have the balls to tell them no, but also have established rules to go after them.

lolc2• 2 years ago

They said that they never request celebrities to play themselves in the show.

Satire has protections that other fields lack.

nicce• 2 years ago

Issue is that they asked Scarlett beforehand and even CEO advertised it based on the fame of Scarlett. It is not about the possible voice actress anymore. It was all about Scarlett, not about the voice actress. The voice actress is just an excuse at this point.

If they would have never mentioned Scarlett or asked her, it might be different situation.

IMTDb2• 2 years ago

It was all about a character.

They wanted someone that would be able to perform a specific character (the AI in the movie "her"). They were looking for the right person for the fit, they got their eyes on Scarlett (of source, she played the character, originally), and when she refused they found someone else who would be able to deliver a close performance. It happens all the time.

To me, the "sky" voice is way closer to Rashida Jones rather than Scarlett Johansson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJmRaTogqrM&t=370s

SiempreViernes2• 2 years ago

It always takes more effort to sound like someone else than just being born dude, stop pretending otherwise.

kamaal2• 2 years ago

Lets say this goes to the court. I wonder how would they prove if a 'voice' belongs to a person. This is such a grey area, how does some one own a 'voice'. Also similar doesn't mean same.

Plus this opens the door for all kinds of things. Say tomorrow some one makes a AI that sings. And they make any lyrics, and make a AI sing it, say in a voice that's very close to their favorite singer. Would that qualify as illegal?

Would be interesting to see how that legal side of things in this regards unfolds.

kolinko4• 2 years ago

That is quite easy - you show the training data and provide the details of a person whose voice it was.

With purely synthetic voices, it’s gray area just like with most of the other genai.

kamaal2• 2 years ago

How is this any different than text, photographs or anything for that matter. By this definition all AI is illegal.

Besides, how does one prove a recording is of a particular person's voice? The AI might be generating voice similar to that of Scarlett Johnson, but its still not her voice. Similar != Same.

KoolKat233• 2 years ago

If it was an exact copy fine, but it's not. This is ridiculous. Imagine Margot Robbie sued a film producer for using Jamie Presley when she turns down a role or Michael Cera for Jessie Eisenberg.

consp• 2 years ago

If it was an exact copy fine, but it's not.

This is not the point, as stated by Ms Johansson's statement, her own friends could not tell the difference which is the point. If a reasonable person cannot tell the difference, there is none. In combination with seeking a prior agreement to use her voice this sounds quite dubious at best, malicious at worst.

KoolKat233• 2 years ago

Of course she's going to say that, either that or her own friends don't know her very well.

There's a nice comparison here. https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1cx1np4/voice_...

I bet OpenAI took it down for the free PR, when life hands you lemons...

unraveller• 2 years ago

Suddenly all the media companies and social media pundits have forgotten how to upload audio media samples alongside accusations in text, they might not want to reach reasonable people. The outrage is proof enough.

ChatGPT using Sky voice (not 4o - original sept. release): https://youtu.be/JmxjluHaePw?t=129

Samantha from "Her" (voiced by ScarJo): https://youtu.be/GV01B5kVsC0?t=134

Rashida Jones Talking about herself https://youtu.be/iP-sK9uAKkM

sigwinch28• 2 years ago

There are clauses in many Hollywood contracts which prevent the use of an actor’s likeness.

See what happened in Back to the Future Part 2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II#R...

KoolKat233• 2 years ago

Yes, but this doesn't sound like her, it's merely similar to her, and there is no contract between her and OpenAI.

futurecat• 2 years ago

Never forget sama is also behind the Worldcoin dystopian absurdity. It tells a lot.

lavezzi• 2 years ago

https://x.com/anniealtman108

ollysb• 2 years ago

Interested to see how this plays out. Given the level of mimicry that AI can now achieve how do actors, musicians and artists safeguard the likeness, sound or style that they've developed?

can16358p5• 2 years ago

OpenAI wanted a tone in their demo, they contacted Scarlet, and she refused.

If this is OK (and of course it is, no one has to accept any offer), how is OpenAI working with someone with a similar voice tone not OK?

If Sam used someone's voice without consent, that's illegal and immoral, but I see nothing wrong with Sam paying someone with a similar voice and using that voice instead.

eschaton4• 2 years ago

Because they are using her likeness without her permission. If they just wanted a “similar” voice they could have hired one from the start. They wanted her voice and when she said “no” they used it anyway.

The “her” tweet makes it exceptionally clear that it was always intended to be Johanssen’s likeness, not some other voice actor’s that happens to sound similar; OpenAI is just betting they can get away with it.

It seems like OpenAI were also betting on Johanssen not knowing her rights _de jure_in that area, which it appears they were quite wrong about. (And even if she didn’t, she would have quickly learned of them in this hyper-connected world, making the bet utterly incompetent…)

can16358p5• 2 years ago

It's clear that they wanted her voice (by contacting her first, and the "her" tweet), and they aren't denying it.

What's wrong with using a similar voice to the one in your vision of the demo/service, as it's the closest voice that you can (legally) use it?

omnicognate3• 2 years ago

The moral issue is that Scarlett Johansson's voice is famous and to many people the fact that it sounds like her specifically is the source of much of the value of that voice, so one can argue that the benefit of that should accrue to her, not to an unknown person who happens to (or can make herself) sound like her or to the company she refused to allow to use her voice.

The legal issue is that there are specific, established laws based on ideas like the above, known as "right to publicity" laws.

tibanne• 2 years ago

I agree, if someone else was asked and they used their voice to train this is more than acceptable. What is this fuss about.

WrockBro• 2 years ago

Maybe Sama tweeted/ex-posted "her" because that was a trending topic related to the demo? I guess everything has to be some grand conspiracy nowadays.

fsniper2• 2 years ago

I don't condone using a replacement voice with bad intentions,And this is clearly what it is.

However!

With this mentality, the mentioned paid voice actresses voice is not hers anymore because another one's voice is similar and it's used in a movie? So she can't work and voice any other work without Scarlet Johansson's permission?

iamacyborg• 2 years ago

You’re assuming that the VA’s voice (assuming there even was one) was their natural voice, rather than an acted one.

fsniper2• 2 years ago

With the recent news, I am more inclined to think this voice is forgery than it's another voice actress.

tanvach• 2 years ago

Are LLMs basically ‘pirating humanity’ at this point?

The unauthorized use or reproduction of humanity's work.

spuz• 2 years ago

Today, under pressure, OpenAI pulled the ScarJo-like voice, alleging that the resemblance was purely a coincidence.
I probably don’t have to tell you, but that’s complete bullshit. And stupid, obviously refuted bullshit at that.

This article is quoting the linked Tom's Guide article but nowhere in the original OpenAI statement do they claim that their voice's resemblance to Scarlett Johansen was "purely a coincidence". It's kind of important to actually quote the original source before you call it out as "complete bullshit".

Original OpenAI statement: https://openai.com/index/how-the-voices-for-chatgpt-were-cho...

jprete• 2 years ago

https://twitter.com/haydenfield/status/1792748249272795348

Not the exact wording, but close.

oneeyedpigeon• 2 years ago

Before we could connect, the system was out there.

I.e. they asked for permission (which they presumably felt they needed), then launched not only without it, but without a response either way.

As a result of their actions, I was forced to hire legal counsel, who wrote two letters to Mr. Altman and OpenAI, setting out what they had done and asking them to detail the exact process by which they created the ‘Sky’ voice. Consequently, OpenAI reluctantly agreed to take down the ‘Sky’ voice.

Strongly suggests OpenAI had something to worry about regarding their own process.

csharpminor• 2 years ago

I truly wonder if this is an “any publicity is good publicity” tactic on their part. It’s now national news that OpenAI supports conversational voice. Buying this level of publicity would likely have cost more than the lawyers and damages.

hathawsh• 2 years ago

Just a matter of curiosity: do people really think the Sky OpenAI voice is similar to ScarJo? While they both vary pitch a lot, Scarlett also adds great dimension by shifting rapidly between different tone qualities. Tone variation seems to be only barely detectable in Sky. Sky sticks to a pure tone, while Scarlett starts on a mildly harsh (but pleasant) tone.

rossant• 2 years ago

Is there an objective, quantitative metric to compare two voices, including pitch, tone variations etc?

logicchains• 2 years ago

You train a neural network to distinguish between them and measure its accuracy. If they were the same voice, the accuracy in the eval dataset wouldn't be better than chance.

dandanua2• 2 years ago

Moral bankrupt as a leader of an AGI development. What could go wrong.

But of course, all this is not about only one man. Corporatocracy will prevail, if not actively confronted.

x-complexity2• 2 years ago

In most of the discussions about this fiasco, I have yet to see anyone point out the following:

- There is a finite number of distinct human voices.

- The # of desirable human voices (D) < The # of distinct human voices (A)

Where D := A - (All unwanted / undesirable human voices)

- Two voices that sound alike are treated as if they are alike

The fact that people say that it sounds like Scarlett Johansson means that there IS a region of multi-dimensional vector space that is claimed to be "owned" by the actress and that actress alone.

I HATE the end conclusion that came resulting from this mob spectacle: That people with voices that sound like hers have effectively no agency with what they can do with their own voices. That they are eternally marked as "that person that sounds like Scarlett Johansson", and that whatever they do with their own voice (including consent to be used for ML training) is met with the ire of the online mob.

lijok2• 2 years ago

You're trying to engineer a way out of a sociology problem. Never gonna happen.

Whoever voiced Sky didn't lose their agency over their own voice. The issue at hand is Sama not taking No for an answer.

lm28469• 2 years ago

Legality vs morality, the problem is as old as the humanity. Legally they can perfectly use a sound alike, morally it's a shit move to ask the actress who voiced a very similar product, get a "no" and still decide to find a sound alike voice actress. If it was a non profit health care company you can be sure people would be much less outraged, but silicon valley's tech companies burned the little trust people had in them a long time ago, it's hard to have empathy for sociopath

_heimdall2• 2 years ago

Legally it becomes a problem if it can be shown that the intent was to copy the voice. In this case, it seems like Sam made that pretty clear with only a few bits of public info. If a case was brought against them I can only assume discovery would find internal emails or chats that spell out they were absolutely trying to replicate Scarlett Johansson's voice after she turned down their offer.

schroeding• 2 years ago

Isn't the main problem that they wanted to explicitly use Johansen's voice, didn't get permission and then (maybe[1]) circumvented it by using a voice imitator, while still publicly entertaining the idea that it's her voice?

Yes, OpenAI did not explicitly say it's her voice, but Altman tweeting "her", it being called "Sky", them asking her for permission twice, they definitely wanted this connection (and her real voice), IMO, and like so many tech companies, they just did not accept "no".

They could have used the same voice, called it "Moon" or whatever and stopped Altman from tweeting, and it probably would have been fine.

In this context, I understand the result. Without this context, I would not, and would agree with your points.

[1] Or maybe just used her voice samples anyway in some form, that's hard to proof / disproof without an external audit - depends on whether or not you give OpenAI the benefit of the doubt

x-complexity2• 2 years ago

Admittedly, the actions of SamA didn't help with the dumpster fire that is the discourse surrounding this.

However, the principle still stands.

laborcontract• 2 years ago

I don’t think this is the argument. The whole thing is that they’re trying to pass it off as scarjo in “her”, which they’ve been very vocal about.

If Sam was less vocal about his love for her, we wouldn’t be out here thinking that OpenAI is trying to ride off the back of the movie.

willis936• 2 years ago

There are only so many combinations of 160x160 pixel arrangements but Adobe will still protect theirs.

Context matters. Adobe cannot defend its logo in all contexts. The laws make this clear. You are ignoring the context of Scarlet Johansen portraying an AI character in a movie then her likeness being used in another AI character without her consent. Had she never starred in Her, had she never been approached by OpenAI, this would not be a story.

https://www.engadget.com/adobe-threatens-to-sue-nintendo-emu...

lijok2• 2 years ago

Sama should've asked ChatGPT 4o what it thinks about this idiotic move before proceeding; https://chatgpt.com/share/5cfa921c-fde9-4e4b-ac97-4f256d2413...

dkdbejwi383• 2 years ago

LLMs don't think, they just regurgitate text tokens based on a probability + randomness model.

stevenhuang2• 2 years ago

I hope the irony of repeating this tired phrase much like a stochastic parrot would is not lost on you.

Madmallard• 2 years ago

how are we not sacking the company? this is so antisocietal it’s unreal

throwawaycities• 2 years ago

OpenAI's Original Mission Statement:

Advance digital intelligence in a way that benefits humanity, without the need to generate financial return.

That bit about financial return has since been removed.

Until now no one could point to a human story of what that meant, instead pointing to the shift from a 501(c)(3) to a for profit model which people don’t understand so it just doesn’t resonate.

But now, we have a human story of someone that makes a living on their likeness, the CEO approaching them for licensing rights, then allegedly just training the AI on their likeness and stealing it for financial gain without compensation when the CEO couldn’t get a deal done.

AI is dystopian to start with, which is why the initial model was created as a non-profit to benefit everyone, but now we have a human story validating the danger and dystopian beliefs surrounding AI.

On top of everything the Founder was personally involved in making these decisions and even Tweeted “her” as a sick joke referencing the actress’ movie where she voiced an AI.

jeegsy2• 2 years ago

Good luck finding a voice that doesnt sound like anyone else

ed_elliott_asc• 2 years ago

https://youtu.be/2kV2EVWNqXQ?si=HmhGULskIe3-idmr

klyrs12• 2 years ago

Good luck shooting a gun into a crowd of people without hitting anybody!

... because not pulling the trigger clearly isn't an option.

jeegsy2• 2 years ago

Oh, so no voice then?

gmerc• 2 years ago

Given that the next step is to use the data trail of employees across all kind of professions, for example sales, design, etc and use it to replace them at scale this is a very timely conversation

https://youtu.be/U2vq9LUbDGs?si=2GFBPE-XdHU8Fsk2

whamlastxmas3• 2 years ago

The personal attacks on Sam are disappointing when anyone making those comments don’t actually know him. I think speculation on trustworthiness as the OpenAI CEO is fine but some stuff here is just being shitty towards him.

I feel bad for the voice actor OpenAI hired. She was probably really excited about this and then SJ had to make it weird and claim she was ripping her off

It wasn’t SJ’s natural voice in Her, it was a performance that is nothing like her regular speaking. The idea that she can claim giggly/pitchy as only her domain, or that she owns the rights to the character in the movie, feels really silly to me

CatWChainsaw• 2 years ago

When it comes to the tech industry, assume malice unless proven otherwise - open source code, maximum transparency, proven history of ethical conduct. We're way past the point where anyone who achieves any level of fame in tech deserves the benefit of the doubt. They've optimized for maximum abuse of public trust.

The OpenAI board was right

Related Stories