News OpenAI forced to drop 'Scarlett Johansson voice'

[cordoba]

OpenAI have been forced to drop the female voice of its flirty new 'Her' like AI assistant, as it sounds too like Scarlett Johansson.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51188y6n6yo

It's also been revealed that Sam Altman personally begged Johansson last year to let him use her voice, but she refused.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm559l5g529o

She is likely going to sue him for millions of dollars. It would be funny if OpenAI's AI then sued her for impersonating the voice of an AI in the movie.

Anybody who hasn't seen the OpenAI demos should, because it's genuinely crazy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvFTeAVMmAg

Her trailer :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJTU48_yghs

Not sure it's me or this 90's style forum, but I can't work out how to embed YouTube videos.

[Huggles]

He should have never asked her because she would have never put 2+2 together.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Huggles

He should have never asked her because she would have never put 2+2 together.

Why do you say that?

[Huggles]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Why do you say that?

Plausible deniability that it was just a coincidence that they sound alike.

[cordoba]

Yes, and he also tweeted the single word 'her' the day before the release.

According to 'The Briefing' :

Altman and OpenAI can breathe a little easier about one thing: For the moment, at least, Johansson has no plans to sue the company over the affair, according to a person familiar with her thinking. But if she changes her mind, would she have a case? I asked Ryan Calo—a law professor at the University of Washington, who specializes in the legal implications of AI and other technologies—and his answer was unequivocal. “This is a very strong case of appropriation of likeness,” he said.

Appropriation of likeness involves the unauthorized use of a person’s name, physical likeness or voice. Celebrities like Johansson, for obvious reasons, are particularly sensitive to companies using their identities in ad campaigns and products without their permission, including in cases where the companies employ impersonators. Long before AI made computerized imitation possible, celebrities had successfully sued companies for using soundalikes of them in commercials. For example, the singer and actress Bette Midler won $400,000 in damages from an ad agency after it used a copycat voice in a 1986 Ford commercial. In 1990, the singer Tom Waits won $2.48 million in damages from Frito-Lay and its ad agency for using a singer who imitated Waits’ gravelly voice in a Doritos radio commercial.

According to Calo, it doesn’t matter whether OpenAI hired a ScarJo soundalike or used AI to create a synthetic version of her voice. “What matters exclusively is: Were they trying to make it sound like ScarJo?” he said. “The evidence that they were is very strong.”

Calo says that evidence includes the fact that Altman asked Johansson to voice ChatGPT last September and she said no, according to Johansson; that Altman has publicly raved about how ‘Her’ nailed its representation of AI voice assistants; that the ChatGPT voice at issue does, in fact, sound like Johansson’s voice; and that OpenAI removed the voice after Johansson’s lawyers complained to them. OpenAI, for its part, says the voice in question is the “natural speaking voice” of an actor, not an imitation of Johansson. It would likely take the discovery process from a lawsuit to shed more light on this saga (my colleague Kaya explores some of the other legal issues around such a case here). But it’s up to Johansson whether that’s worth the hassle.—Nick Wingfield

[blackmonsters]

AI on the internet is just scraping websites and taking their content and then pretending to
be intelligent creators.

They create nothing except a montage of other peoples's hard work.
It's like when tube sites used to just steal content from pay sites.

[Huggles]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

They create nothing except a montage of other peoples's hard work.
It's like when tube sites used to just steal content from pay sites.

Yeah but the AI music is so good?!?!

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by cordoba

OpenAI forced to drop 'Scarlett Johansson voice'

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but this is what I see in my ChatGPT settings...

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

AI on the internet is just scraping websites and taking their content and then pretending to
be intelligent creators.

It writes code for me. According to my specifications and my rules. How come?

[King Mark]

Originally Posted by just a punk

It writes code for me. According to my specifications and my rules. How come?

2 things can be right. In this instance, you both are correct.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by just a punk

It writes code for me. According to my specifications and my rules. How come?

Yes, it scrapes tech sites like stackoverflow and matches your specification and rules to
what they scraped.
It's sad that you think this shit has a brain?

[The Porn Nerd]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Yes, it scrapes tech sites like stackoverflow and matches your specification and rules to
what they scraped.
It's sad that you think this shit has a brain?

Most people don't have a brain, just a fleshy reaction machine inside their minds.

I am wondering where the class action lawsuits are for AI because AI needs to scrape/use other people's work. How is this legal? Is AI actually 'creating' music and images without scraping, just 'taking inspiration' (like real artists who study past creators) and thus manufacturing (creating) something 'new'?

[King Mark]

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Yes, it scrapes tech sites like stackoverflow and matches your specification and rules to
what they scraped.

No, it's not just because there's no code for my tasks on stackoverflow.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

It's sad that you think this shit has a brain?

A neural network can exist without a brain. Just as a cart can move without a horse. Technology...

[mechanicvirus]

Legally she owns the company now.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Most people don't have a brain, just a fleshy reaction machine inside their minds.

I am wondering where the class action lawsuits are for AI because AI needs to scrape/use other people's work. How is this legal? Is AI actually 'creating' music and images without scraping, just 'taking inspiration' (like real artists who study past creators) and thus manufacturing (creating) something 'new'?

Why did OpenAI bitch out and remove her voice then?

Also, no artist is getting "inspiration" from a billion other artist and doling it out for free for another billion people. (billion is hyperbole)

[King Mark]

Little mirco-example of what happens when "civilization" is defined by who can be the most prolific parasites.

Gotta take the good with the bad and use it all to your advantage in order to be successful in this type of civilization.

Being anti-AI will get you as far as it got the anti-Tube people. Sortie, I know you're a script guy, but we're here now... so choose your path forward wisely.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by King Mark

Little mirco-example of what happens when "civilization" is defined by who can be the most prolific parasites.

Gotta take the good with the bad and use it all to your advantage in order to be successful in this type of civilization.

Being anti-AI will get you as far as it got the anti-Tube people. Sortie, I know you're a script guy, but we're here now... so choose your path forward wisely.

I'm not against AI; I'm just saying what it is.

I am against using something in AI that is basically the voice/image of a live person that earns a living with their voice/image. To me this falls under trademark and copyright issues.

AI voice overs have been around since "Microsoft Sam"; but people got paid for their voice, or it was completely synthesized, it wasn't just copied off TV, Video, movies of known people for free.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by King Mark

Yeah, you can't copyright an idea. Fucking Duh.

https://www.google.com/search?q=you+... rome&ie=UTF-8

Read the AI answer, then tell me AI invented the law rather than scrape the law sites.

If I copied this rapper's shit he'd whine to the end of his law suit against me.

[King Mark]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Yeah, you can't copyright an idea. Fucking Duh.

https://www.google.com/search?q=you+... rome&ie=UTF-8

Read the AI answer, then tell me AI invented the law rather than scrape the law sites.

If I copied this rapper's shit he'd whine to the end of his law suit against me.

I ain't your enemy bro. And I feel you. I just see the writing on the wall, and I choose to adapt than sit around crying and dying.

I predicted this: https://m.gfy.com/fucking-around-and...s-lot-fun.html

[CaptainHowdy]

Scarlett Johansson's best asset ain't her voice . . .

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by King Mark

I ain't your enemy bro. And I feel you. I just see the writing on the wall, and I choose to adapt than sit around crying and dying.

I predicted this: https://m.gfy.com/fucking-around-and...s-lot-fun.html

So I'm your new potential enemy because I said fucking duh?
Stop it Kang.



I'm not crying; I'm seeing that it doesn't do what I want without me correcting what it puts out. So I end up still writing my own code.
If you want a "hello world" script then AI hit's it; but when I get into deeper code, it doesn't deliver like the genius it's billed to be.