Possibly, but that is not what their statement suggests to me, unless those 'questions' came from her/her legal team. I suppose they could also be worried about future legal action from her. Maybe it just isn't worth getting sued, even if you technically did nothing wrong. But I also have a hard time believing they went thru this careful process of voice selection and it never occurred to them that the voice sounded like her, and didn't think about the legal repercussions
> But I also have a hard time believing they went thru this careful process of voice selection and it never occurred to them that the voice sounded like her, and didn't think about the legal repercussions
You do know the whole modus operandi of AI companies is "screw laws, take it all we'll see what happens" right ? That they actively lobby to not respect IP laws because they couldn't exist if they were enforced ? That they do not care about the negative impact they might have on anything ?
I'm no proponent of IP myself but I don't take from others to redistribute for my sole profit.
> You do know the whole modus operandi of AI companies is "screw laws, take it all we'll see what happens" right ? That they actively lobby to not respect IP laws because they couldn't exist if they were enforced ? That they do not care about the negative impact they might have on anything ?
Yeah, for sure, I agree with all that. In this case, openai says they got a voice actor though so I'm not sure if IP applies here. Because of the movie SJ was in, I could honestly see a lawsuit going either way I guess
She should be happy she was selected as the voice of such a revolutionary piece of technology. It's a honor for her voice to be selected, she should show some humility and better social awareness in these matters.
So, a completely different actor voluntarily performs voice acting (a job) in exchange for money, using her natural voice (not mimicking Scarlett) and because there are some similarities, this situation is comparable to... Deep fake porn? What the..?
Possibly, but that is not what their statement suggests to me, unless those 'questions' came from her/her legal team. I suppose they could also be worried about future legal action from her. Maybe it just isn't worth getting sued, even if you technically did nothing wrong. But I also have a hard time believing they went thru this careful process of voice selection and it never occurred to them that the voice sounded like her, and didn't think about the legal repercussions
https://openai.com/index/how-the-voices-for-chatgpt-were-cho...
> But I also have a hard time believing they went thru this careful process of voice selection and it never occurred to them that the voice sounded like her, and didn't think about the legal repercussions
You do know the whole modus operandi of AI companies is "screw laws, take it all we'll see what happens" right ? That they actively lobby to not respect IP laws because they couldn't exist if they were enforced ? That they do not care about the negative impact they might have on anything ?
I'm no proponent of IP myself but I don't take from others to redistribute for my sole profit.
> You do know the whole modus operandi of AI companies is "screw laws, take it all we'll see what happens" right ? That they actively lobby to not respect IP laws because they couldn't exist if they were enforced ? That they do not care about the negative impact they might have on anything ?
Yeah, for sure, I agree with all that. In this case, openai says they got a voice actor though so I'm not sure if IP applies here. Because of the movie SJ was in, I could honestly see a lawsuit going either way I guess
1 reply →
How about this statement from Scarlett Johansson herself?
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2024/05/20/openai-johansso...
Yes, I just saw this. Looks like the 'questions' did come from her and her legal team after all
She should be happy she was selected as the voice of such a revolutionary piece of technology. It's a honor for her voice to be selected, she should show some humility and better social awareness in these matters.
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. Do you say the same thing when she’s “selected” for deep fake porn videos?
So, a completely different actor voluntarily performs voice acting (a job) in exchange for money, using her natural voice (not mimicking Scarlett) and because there are some similarities, this situation is comparable to... Deep fake porn? What the..?
1 reply →