← Back to context

Comment by tangentstar

2 years ago

I interpret it completely differently given that the voice actor does not sound like SJ.

1. OpenAI wants to make a voice assistant. 2. They hire the voice actor. 3. Someone at OpenAI wonders why they would make a voice assistant that doesn’t sound like the boss’s favorite movie. 4. They reach out to SJ who tells them to pound sand.

Accordingly, there is no misappropriation because there is no use.

14 comments

tangentstar

Reply
qarl  2 years ago

I understand that the voice actor does not sound like ScarJo to you.

But you need to understand that it does sound like ScarJo to a lot of people. Maybe 50% of the people who hear it.

Those kinds of coincidences are the things that make you lose in court.

  • throwthrowuknow  2 years ago

    The voice is different enough that anyone who listens to samples longer than 5 seconds side by side and says they can’t tell them apart is obviously lying.

    All the reporting around this I’ve seen uses incredibly short clips. There are hours of recorded audio of SJ speaking and there are lots of examples of the Sky voice out there since it’s been around since September.

    • qarl  2 years ago

      To elaborate on the other comment -

      It doesn't even need to sound like the person. It's about the intent. Did OpenAI intend to imitate ScarJo.

      Half the people of the world thinking it's ScarJo is strong evidence that it's not an accident.

      Given that "Her" is Sam's favorite movie, and that he cryptically tweeted "her" the day it launched, and that he reached out to ScarJo to do the voice, and that the company reached out to her again to reconsider two days before the launch -

      I personally think the situation is very obvious. I understand that some people strongly disagree - but then there are some people who think the Earth is flat. So.

      8 replies →

    • foobarqux  2 years ago

      That's a different standard: "Can you tell them apart side-by-side" vs. "does this sound like person X" or "is this voice exploiting the likeness of person X". It's the latter question that is legally relevant.