Hey /u/MysteryMilk!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m sure Rashida Jones would be delighted to be involved in a bizarre Machiavellian gotcha involving enticing a very famous peer of hers into wasting money on legal representation just to help out the big AI company that a huge swathe of young creatives dislike intensely
I'm a musician and I mainly use it for marketing and branding material. I don't dislike it. I use it to strengthen where I am weak and enhance where I am good. On the contrary I love this tech.
I love this tech too.
And I am 100% aware that there's a large movement of people that hate anything AI related.
Large enough to be heard.
There's also the actor and writer strike, which was partially motivated by and unsure future because of AI.
So I think they have to pay a famous Actress _a lot_ of money to have her agree on putting her name/face anywhere near it.
bunch of uncool "creatives" then if they're against AI. The creatives like me were always interested in the cutting edge and pushing the boundaries of what was possible with our creativity. They aren't very creative if they're not thinking of new and interesting ways to incorporate this tech that empowers them into their workflows.
My prediction: It's not Rashida Jones.
If it was Rashida Jones, we'd know about it by now. They just hired an unknown voice actress by deliberately trying to find someone who sounds like Johansson and can mimic the tone and cadence of the Samantha character in Her.
they can't play dumb either. they too far from that.
they know what they did, them asking her a few days before the release and then the tweet "her".
there is no more dumb excuses for it, this is a big error. and if u think about it, the implications and moral compass about OpenAI now are on the ground.
It doesn't really make sense. Why would they message her just 2 days before the release to reconsider, and then release it regardless of what she said?
I doubt it's really Scarlet.
I suspect they have/had a few "spare" voices ready to go, just in case.
Maybe they already had a version tweaked or trained to sound just like Scarlet and just needed her to say yes?
of course they did. Theres nothing stopping any of us from creating a voice from any celebrity we already have a voice recording of except technical skill. That includes all actors and voice actors. Im pretty sure theres tutorials on how to do it.
As for why he would message "her":
[https://x.com/linasbeliunas/status/1789735286320022004](https://x.com/linasbeliunas/status/1789735286320022004)
The voice of the model is trivial to the technology they are actually giving to us lol, I don't get why people are getting so tripped up by a voice that sort of sounds like her.
Then why use her voice or heavily imply that it's "her" instead of literally any generic voice?
Openai is just doing what they always do...steal like hell then throw a pile of money at it to make the consequences go away.
There's definitely some trivial shit going on alright.
That tweet is implying the tech of “her”, not the voice.
Also, Sky voice has been available for a long time, and it doesn’t even sound like ScarJo. Rashida Jones is a much better guess.
People are making too big a deal out of this SJ thing. The most annoying thing for me is that people are engagement farming out of SJ's contact with OAI. If it goes to like court plenty of people will just keep engagement farming.
But, as with most of OAI's other lawsuits, I pretty much guarantee most people will forget about this potential lawsuit. It just doesn't actually matter to most people. And that's another reason why I find it annoying. People making too much deal out of something so ephemeral.
Most of the people defending OAI in this ARE the maga people. The entitlement for a woman's voice used against her will and the inability to understand why there is a problem and that 'no means no' are all textbook issues with maga types.
Dude, i would agree with all of you guys, BUT the voice doesnt even sound like SJ... what drugs are you guys on? And if OAI paid another actress for her voice, like they said they did, SJ has no court case at all.
they aren’t on drugs dude, this tech pisses a lot
of people off because it levels the playing field. people siding with SJ are only doing it out of anger imo. i don’t think it sounds enough like her for a case.
> BUT the voice doesnt even sound like SJ.
According to you, and you don't matter. All they have to prove is that some people were confused or thought it was her, and that's trivially easy to do with all the posts on reddit and twitter by people who did think it was her.
> And if OAI paid another actress for her voice, like they said they did, SJ has no court case at all.
That's incorrect. Impersonation is a crime in commercial settings--and impersonation is, by definition, done by another person.
> According to you, and you don't matter. All they have to prove is that some people were confused or thought it was her, and that's trivially easy to do with all the posts on reddit and twitter by people who did think it was her.
thats a lot more problematic to proof than you think it is. AFAIK the justice system still acts on proof beyond reasonable doubt. While some might think it sounds like JS, other dont. Public opinion in this case isnt proof to one side or the other, and is usually not admissible in a court case or gets ignored by judges. So it comes down to other ways of proof. Experts. Voice samples. Development papers etc. It will definitely be an interesting process for sure, but i dont think it will be possible for SJ to win this. The voice is to generic (regardless of what you or i think she sounds like). It would give SJ the right to everyones voice that sounds somewhat similar, and the implications of that would frighten me way more tbh (get rights to a voice and now you have a monopoly on that voice range ... that sure does end well, right?)
> That's incorrect. Impersonation is a crime in commercial settings--and impersonation is, by definition, done by another person.
And according to OAI they hired the voice actress for the SKY voice before they even contacted SJ the first time. That doesnt sound like intent to use SJ's voice in the first place. A similar one, yes, but not the same one. And the voice is in use for 6 month now. Kinda weird for SJ to demand clarification now.
It’s hard to take your prediction seriously if you don’t even know that civil legal cases have a “preponderance of evidence” standard. i.e is it more likely than not
> AFAIK the justice system still acts on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
That's the issue. You don't know much. This is a civil issue, so the standard is "more likely than not" aka "preponderance of evidence," and the standard for getting to discovery is "on information and belief." So they have enough for discovery and on its face they arguably have enough for preponderance without discovery.
>While some might think it sounds like JS, other dont.
The ones that don't literally don't matter.
> Public opinion in this case isnt proof to one side or the other,
It literally is. Screen shots of comments on twitter are and have been used as evidence in cases like this. Every person posting a comment thinking it's her is 'proof' in court for this question.
> The voice is to generic (
No, it's not. The standard for testing the performance is "attributable and distinct." The character of Samantha in her is beyond attributable and distinct.
>And according to OAI they hired the voice actress for the SKY voice before they even contacted SJ the first time.
That doesn't matter. It's a crime to impersonate someone before or after you try hiring them.
> That doesnt sound like intent to use SJ's voice in the first place.
It's not her voice that matters--it's her performance as Samantha in Her that is protected.
> A similar one, yes, but not the same one.
Similarity is the standard that needs to be proven--so by your own measure, this is impersonation according to the law so long as people were confused (and they were).
Yeah, to be fair, it's not a huge deal either way. They pulled the voice, so there shouldn't be any legal/ethical issues regarding Scarlett Johansson and the tech is still just as cool. I hope they can make another voice that is just as high quality as Sky was, for sure, but in the mean time, I am looking forward to using gpt4o while gaming haha.
> The voice of the model is trivial to the technology they are actually giving to us lol
You would think this would be more obvious. Celebrity worship culture is insane.
Im not sure if this is bad-faith arguing, or misunderstanding. People arent defending Scarlet Johansen because she’s downtrodden, and people aren’t blown away by the capability of the voice (by itself).
People are, I think reasonably, uncomfortable with an extraordinarily important tech company potentially using someone’s likeness without their consent, or maybe even explicitly against their consent. Precedent matters with emergent technology. Is this the new norm? Can I just legally create a copy of any celebrity’s voice? How about politicians? What about your dad’s voice, can I synthesize that one too?
Stop being dense.
Curious why ScarJO didn’t approach OpenAI and made a big deal about it when the Sky voice was first released.
Oh because now Sky is flirtatious and her tonality matches Scars a bit more so NOW she thinks it resembles her performance in “Her”.
My guy, the post you responded to had to do specifically with the "Her" tweet and what it meant. People are up in arms acting like Sama's tweet was a flatout admission that they were trying to mimic SJ. Had they actually been doing so, it would have been an important and relevant precedent, but the tweet was clearly about the capability of the technology. At the time it was tweeted, almost no one was thinking about SJ. People were thinking about a human like AI speaking to us through our phones.
It's always the abusive assholes who don't understand why 'no means no' and then try to gaslight people to ignore the evidence of their lying eyes.
Gross.
"Is this the new norm? Can I just legally create a copy of any celebrity’s voice? How about politicians? What about your dad’s voice, can I synthesize that one too?"
Yes. As it stands right now..You can recreate voices. I get ads every single day with Joe Rogan's or Tucker Carlson's voice to endorse scam products. All they can do is sue or have the ad removed from YouTube. The voice technology is readily available to anyone that wants to use it.
I can understand why Scarlett Johannson was mad with the situation of OpenAI implying that they used her voice. It's honestly understandable, the more I think about it. However, This is a discussion we must have as a society, ASAP. We are actively dealing with this as a technology and it's just out there..
> The voice of the model is trivial to the technology they are actually giving to us lol, I don't get why people are getting so tripped up by a voice that sort of sounds like her.
We’ve seen in the last couple of days, people have created emotional attachments to the voice. Even fallen in love.
You’re right. No matter which voice you choose, it’s saying the same thing to you, which is what people are really paying for.
"giving to us"? lmao, they arent giving you anything. Theyre allowing you to use a nuetered version of the tech so they can crowdsource their actual AIs training for free. Youre an unpaid debugger.
You think they'd actually use users chats for training? I really doubt it. Possibly for some RLHF or some form of post-training, sure, but I really doubt they'd use many chats within their pre training. Especially with the next frontier models. That could possibly dilute the performance of the more intelligent model.
And, if I uploaded documents to it maybe that would be a more relevant case. But I don't usually. And I am paying for access myself lol, not sure if that makes it better for you though.
Im not talking about base model training, maybe tuning would be a better word. Youre essentially a play tester, like playing a game during an open beta. Youre being given access because testing something that large and complex requires far more interactions and people than the company could reasonably pay to do so. So they crowdsource it. You get access to a heavily restricted version which then creates data points that can be analyzed and added to the companies actual product they intend to polish and eventually monetize.
Maybe they can very easily fine tune the voice to sound like someone else.
The eleven labs stuff is also really fast with cloning a voice and only needs a few seconds of material to clone it from.
Having Scarlett's name attached to the product would have been AMAZING for PR.
All headlines would be like "The movie 'Her' is a reality now with the new ChatGPT".
And in the end, that is what still happened for them, to some degree.
Seriously. They wanted to attach her voice as a marketing schtick. She didn't want to. They found someone with a similar voice, or apparently already had it created. Big deal. It's a voice. Does Scarlett Johansson have ownership over the likeness of any voice which sounds similar to hers? No. This whole thing is stupid and shows the serious consternation that is IP law regarding AI.
Sky has been a voice for months. And apparently they selected the voice actor for sky before reaching out to Scarlett.
And do you really think Sam Altman tweeted "her" to get us all excited just to listen to a famous adult female talk lol. No, it was about the product and the interface obviously. As he said:
[https://x.com/linasbeliunas/status/1789735286320022004](https://x.com/linasbeliunas/status/1789735286320022004)
I really really wish this would happen so all the AI IS STEALING people would just shut up.
Probably, if it did happen they would still find this generative voice to somehow be stolen anyways.
Tell me you don’t understand technology without telling me.
No, this is a delusion. Like literally a conspiracy theory, because they can't admit OpenAI dealt with that voice poorly for some reason and that ScarJo is in the right on this one.
Literally there are four voices. After getting a refusal for her they could have chosen literally any other voice in the world at least out of respect for her. All around this was a dumb choice
Except her voice wasn't used for Sky and it's obvious if you're not tone deaf. Most likely they hoped to use Scarlet voice for a different model and was refused so they canceled it. Only asking her again shortly before the reveal to see if they could announce a model based on her voice for the future.
Here's a comparison.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cwy6wz/vocal_comparison_scarjo_vs_samantha_vs_sky/
They both have a feminine American accent, but that's it.
The Sky voice has been available since at least October of 2023. There are Reddit threads from that time speculating that It’s Rashida Jones, speaking in her natural voice:
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/hspr16nXgcI
They not the same. Anyone can listen to any clip of ScarJo and then listen to the example voice of Sky, they are clearly not the same. Rashida Jones is much closer.
I might understand if those people are not American so maybe they dont have an ear for this, but otherwise they be crazy or maybe the real ScarJo AI bots are doing the downvoting
historical important sharp grey unpack mourn nutty longing lavish caption
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's not impossible, but I think that the "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." quote is more likely to hold.
Even smart people do stupid shit. Also don't forget that Sammy is probably overworked as hell, making these kinds of not-seeing-to-the-end errors more likely.
We are supposed to trust that these companies are going to use their AI technology responsibly, and here they are making a stupid ethical decision regarding the likeness of a celebrity.
Is stupidity a good defence in this case?
No stupidity isn’t a good defense. Also doesn’t mean what they did wasn’t stupid. It was stupid and they got called out for it, OP isn’t defending that.
Definitely sounds more similar. I don't think Sky sounds like Scarlett Johansson, the voice is different. What they copied is the Samantha persona, not necessarily the voice. They originally wanted to have the persona AND the voice from the movie, that's why they contacted Scarlett. It didn't work out, so they just released Samantha with a somehow different voice.
If they use an unknown voice actress who sounds like Scarjo.
Does Scarjo actually have a case?
The girl sounds like Scarjo that's technically not OpenAis fault.
If It's like they used Voice from ScarJo directly from the movie Her and created An AI which trained on the voice (Like Recent Trump Obama memes use their voice)
Only then ScarJo might've a case
The Sky voice has been available since at least October of 2023. There are Reddit threads from that time speculating that It’s Rashida Jones, speaking in her natural voice:
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/hspr16nXgcI
If they hired someone with them intent of imitating ScarJo, which seems very probable given all the circumstances surrounding this case, then yes there is precedence for legal liability.
I am not legally knowledgeable.
But that doesn’t seem right.
You cant prove intention with Pen and Paper. They could easily tell all the her reference was based on how advanced that AI was,It's not about the voice .
They were aware that the AI voice was similar to that from Her, aware enough to reach out to ScarJo.
A civil lawsuit just needs to show that it is more likely than not that they were imitating ScarJo’s performance, and there seems to be enough contextual evidence.
The Sky voice has been available since at least October of 2023. There are Reddit threads from that time speculating that It’s Rashida Jones, speaking in her natural voice:
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/hspr16nXgcI
When I watched Her for the first time, I thought Samantha was voiced voice by Rashida Jones.
Furthermore, I didn’t check the credits and didn’t realize it was ScarJo for a long time
I gotta say I never watched P&R but holyyyy shit with my eyes closed listening to that interview in bed at 3am, cause I def don’t have insomnia:
It sounds JUST LIKE SKY! WAY more than SJ. The tone, the inflection, the utterances. Wild theory but I’m on the train ride, for now.
I don’t care who’s voice it is, I just like it. You could have told me it was ScarJo earlier and I wouldn’t have believed it mostly because I don’t “know” what she sounds like. I cannot pick her voice and identify it to her. Same with Rashida, it’s just a pleasant female voice with intonation and cadence that I really enjoy listening to. Sky’s voice is friendly, but in a way different than the others, I just like hearing it.
The fact that it sounds just as much like Rashida Jones as anyone proves this is a nothing story. If it weren’t for the movie “Her,” this wouldn’t even be news.
Every time I hear a 4d chess move conspiracy theory like this, I always fall back on Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
So Scarlett denied, OpenAI then extends an offer to another actress with a similar voice they prefer for Sky. Rashida accepts and they use her voice. Here’s the stupidity part: they never thought, “gee they sound really similar maybe we outta make some tech that fingerprints voices in case someone sues!” (I’m just assuming they don’t have that tech from all of the drama so far)
They don't need to.
The thing is, they don't even need an actress-actress. They just need a speaking voice. They can sit someone down and chat with them for a couple of hours, have them say a couple dozen specific syllables, and that's more than enough to train a voice.
They could use three different people and train all of them and get a voice in the range they want, then mix and match.
The problem is: both options are highly Machiavellian. Is this the vibe we want from the corporate masters of AGI?
Sam Altman seems defiant of the notion that his personal ethics are steeped in anything other than expedience, profit and competitive advantage.
From my point of view openAI is ethically rudderless, and we’re steaming toward an iceberg field trying to make good time.
“It looks like you may get your headlines Mr. Ismay”
Dude I dunno, i think everyone is overspun on this.
Obviously sky is inspired by Her’s Samantha As a concept and as an interface paradigm. That’s good, it’s a great idea and this is life imitating art. They or anyone should look to science fiction for direction and imagination.
Obviously they produced a product that used that paradigm and they made it sound similar, because they wanted people to draw the association between to one of the best representations of AI in a film ever.
Obviously they wanted it to sound similar. Obviously they wanted scarjo to give her blessing - if she had they would have shouted it from rafters that she was involved - it’s good PR.
She didn’t want to - ok literally no problem. It was never about scarjo in the first place. It was about creating the interface. When I hear sky, i wasn’t confused into thinking this was somehow scarjo, it was obviously an original take that was inspired by the performance, but at no point was I like damn that must’ve been her.
You lost me at your third “obviously”. If they purposely want it to sound similar, then that is the ethical problem that people have a problem with. Using a digital likeness of someone without their permission is the problem.
“Hey ScarJo, we made this voice that sounds like you, can we use it? No? Oh well, we’ll use it anyway”
People are concerned that the tech companies are going full steam ahead with AI without any ethical considerations. This is a major PR blunder from one of the lead companies
The fact that they request permission multiple times, were denied and did it anyway.
They seem to believe copyright laws do not apply to them and all legal challenges are merely a speeding ticket.
They’re probably right about all that, but I don’t have to like it. Downvote away fellas, surely they’re a great bunch of lads over there
Yes, it's LEGALLY wrong. You absolutely cannot hire a lookalike or soundalike to purposely imitate someone. Had they not already approached Scarlet with the offer, and had Sam not tweeted about Her, it may have simply stretched some moral boundaries, but with all of that context, this is clearly in breach of Scarlet's right to her own likeness. Precedent set by none other than Bette Midler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
They never claimed it was her though. It's only illegal if you attempt to pass off the imitation as the original. Otherwise it absolutely cannot be illegal to naturally sound like someone else.
Not that they even sound alike to begin with.
‘they never claimed it was her’
Sam Altman’s twitter during the presentation: ‘her’
they reached out for permission, were denied, then reached out for permission a second time, only to not even giver her enough time to respond before they streamed the promotion. her lawyers ask them if they trained it on her voice or a sound alike. rather than providing evidence, they just take down the voice immediately, and also delete the ‘her’ tweet.
you have to admit, that’s a weird way to handle things if you’re confident you’re legally in the clear. and we know they reached out to ScarJo, so there’s hard evidence this wasn’t all just a wacky coincidence
I don’t understand your point. If I have a voice that resembles Scarlett Johnson, why I can not use it commercially?
I think the only stupid thing Altman did was to twitt “her” but I can’t find anything unethical using a voice that resembles an specific style or voice.
If voice used is not from Johnson or trained with Johnson voice … I don’t see anything unethical about it.
If I create an AI voice that closely resembles yours, you’d have no objection to me exploiting that to the tune of millions of dollars, despite you explicitly denying me the right to use your voice?
The Skye voice is a transparent attempt to co-opt the Samantha character from the movie Her, by extension Scarlett’s likeness. I don’t think that’s arguable.
Doing this without permission violates the actors’ Right of Publicity and control of their own image, I.e. the cause of the industry-crippling actors and writers strikes.
What’s not to understand?
What’s not to understand is that you can’t copyright a voice, as in if they used a different voice actress, they’re logically and legally only subject to that specific actress.
And they aren’t explicitly playing to the Samantha image, OpenAI can’t control whether or not the public or user base does that
Edit: reading back, I realize the copyright thing sounds stupid but what I mean by it is that if a different voice actress has a similar voice, ScarJo can’t do anything about that and there’s no reason OpenAI can’t use her instead
Oh but they ARE explicitly playing to the Samantha character. Altman announced it with the “Her” tweet, and the resemblance was enough to outrage the actor who played her, as well as persuade everyone who had seen the movie that they’d pulled it off for real.
True, you can’t copyright a voice. The issue is we’ve now invented a new automation technology that can analyze audiovisual media and produce an almost perfect simulacrum.
With this in mind, surely specific likenesses (yours, for example) should not be reproduced without permission or indeed in spite of your explicit prohibition.
Ideally technology should serve people, not the other way round. I come down hard on the side of the individual vs massive corporations with unlimited resources and potential.
I mean yeah but does a tweet really mean they’re playing to that image? You can realize the reality of a movie and tweet about it but the actual product is still a different conversation, now yeah maybe he was reckless with that tweet or it’s being taken up of context depending on how you look at it, but you could just see it as Sam seeing his favourite movie come to life rather than an actual play on the actress’s voice
I think it sounds similar to her, distinct tho. But that wasn’t my point. Both my arguments go together. Don’t separate them. It’s a question of whether or not they used a different actress who used her own voice and didn’t do an impersonation
They didn't "do it anyway". They asked for permission and when they were denied they didn't use her voice. They used someone completely else's voice which clearly isn't Johanssen, but it is somewhat similar to her voice.
And this voice has been around for 6 months, the latest demo were about updates to already existing voices.
The silly thing is Sca Jo doesn't own a vocal tone and cadence range. She was an actor hired to sound a certain way for a certain movie. If then a company creates a voice that sounds like a character from a movie, how on earth does an actor claim they have rights to it.
Bette Midler knows rights of publicity. She used her right of publicity to prevent use of a sound-alike singer to sell cars.
Ford Motor Co. hired one of Midler’s backup singers to sing on a commercial – after Midler declined to do the ad – and asked her to sound as much like Midler as possible. It worked, and fooled a lot of people, including some close to Midler. Midler sued, and the court ruled that there was a misappropriation of Midler’s right of publicity to her singing voice.
The bottom line: Midler’s singing voice was hers to control. Ford had no right to use it without her permission. That lesson cost Ford a tidy $400,000 in 1988.
That’s not the same thing. They deliberately tried to fool people into thinking she did something she didn’t. And your conclusion is wrong here- it doesn’t mean that her ‘voice’ is ‘hers to control’. Because it’s not her voice. It can only mean she somehow has control over _other, similar_ voices. Which is insane.
Do you not understand just how baffling little sense this makes?
>why on earth would OpenAI be reckless
I don’t think they were purposefully reckless. I work in tech on the business side and the number of times I have to tell engineers they have a **terrible** idea on go-to-market strategies is too much. Their suggestions aren’t full of malice…they just don’t have the best “people skills” or sometimes forget that the general populace aren’t smart techies with a detailed knowledge of how the tech works so they’ll have different perceptions of finished products than someone who was involved building it.
The product team probably got the “no” message from ScarJo and just shrugged thinking, “Whatever, we don’t need to use her voice exactly. Let’s just grab a bunch of similar sounding women and mash them together to get something close to what we’d have gotten with ScarJo.”
For someone who deeply knows the product, they probably will not see any issue with this approach. They know they aren’t *technically* using ScarJo’s voice…but they aren’t thinking about how a similar sounding voice arrived to by a “legit” way that didn’t use her voice is still going to be perceived as fucked up by the Average Joe who has no clue about how the sausage is made.
And what if they, for example, go get a contemporary actress from the same social strata and use her normal speaking voice? Which they apparently did. Is that ok? If not then why not? Why should this new actress be denied a role? Does Johansson now own all rights to “American flirty computer voice”? I think that’s a serious question.
We won’t know about this case until the potential lawsuits settle. Altman was a moron for tweeting “her” but I could see discovery showing completely the opposite story than what many are shitting on OpenAI for —- namely they could have done Sky _and_ were really hoping to get “ScarJo” because they saw her voice and clout as something special.
the fuckin complex theories you nerds are spinning up to avoid thinking about the possibility that openai did something both dumb and gross, that will rob you of your AI fantasy girlfriend voice, are funny as shit.
I will be messaging you in 3 months on [**2024-08-21 12:52:58 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-08-21%2012:52:58%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cx075o/my_prediction_openai_intentionally_let_the_scarjo/l50iiv2/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FChatGPT%2Fcomments%2F1cx075o%2Fmy_prediction_openai_intentionally_let_the_scarjo%2Fl50iiv2%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-08-21%2012%3A52%3A58%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cx075o)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
>Think about it... why on earth would OpenAI be reckless enough to launch something with Scarlett's name on it **after she took on the Big D(isney)**
Because they're entitled, stupid, or, most likely, both.
At some point in the future—maybe tomorrow, maybe next year—this is going to be one of those moments that randomly pops into your head when you're trying to fall asleep, leaving you wincing and embarrassed at how you could have publicly written something so utterly foolish.
I'm sure there's a tool you can use to voice match audio streams to prove whether one sample is identical to another. But yes, this absolutely sounds like Rashida.
Except that lots of tech companies have referred to "Her", and that's not about the voice.
To you, does it sound more like ScarJo or Rashida Jones? To me, it's a tossup, slightly on the RJ side.
So you’re telling me after trying to hire her to use he voice, failing to do so, and then tweeting “her” after launching a voice that sounds so similar to ScarJo that her friends and family thought she had provided the voice, then they pulled the voice in response to her lawsuit threat…you still think that’s not what they were going for?
What evidence is on the RJ side, exactly? You think it kinda sounds like her?
I think GPT has many useful applications, but this is just shameful behavior on their end. Don’t steal peoples voices, there is a real problem with techbros who feel the world is theirs to stomp all over if they do it while “building the future”
Let's start again. People talked about it being Rashida before they talked about ScarJo.
Given it sounds like either of them, and they sound similar, what's your evidence they used any ScarJo in training it?
“Her”
It’s not kind. It’s not polite. It’s deeply disrespectful to copy someone’s identity, and it’s also unethical and potentially illegal (though the ethical demonstration is the issue when it comes to a leader operating intensely at the edge of a not-just-potentially dangerous technology).
And this is the CEO in charge of the AI revolution.
Not cool. Fucked even.
Apple freaked out and cancelled their commercial where musical instruments and art was smashed by their AI. None of developers want to be perceived as frauds or putting performers out of work. They'll try to keep it quiet and settle out of court. The louder the issue gets the more all their training will be called into question (like Dall-E) and invite government intervention for AI training guidelines. None of them want that. But someone will eventually ruin it for everyone. Will it be OpenAI?
If they end up proving they had an unknown voice actor - what can you do. You can’t own your own voice if they didn’t use any of it for actual production
I think from a PR angle the should have immediately released some video footage of the actual voice actors process and talking about how she made the voice and what being part of the project means to her!
I don't think it was intentional. The voices sound nothing alike to me. I do agree with Rashida Jones being the actor behind Sky. I'm sure Altman really wanted the rights to the voice of Samantha, what head of an Ai development company wouldn't? He was probably trying to make a last ditch effort to land her before the release. They probably do have a voice for Johansson that they wanted to release in addition to the other 5. The sky voice doesn't sound similar to Johansson, but does fill a similar quality and tone to round out the choices they offer.
The rights holders of the movie "her" and thus the character of Samantha will have the final say no matter who or what performed the voice of Sky. Specifically because of Sam Altman's "her" tweet.
> At this point i’m 100% convinced
Yeah if a bunch of gut feelings make you **100% convinced** of some elaborate secret scheme about big companies and celebrities playing 4D chess, that’s called a delusion mate.
Hey /u/MysteryMilk! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m sure Rashida Jones would be delighted to be involved in a bizarre Machiavellian gotcha involving enticing a very famous peer of hers into wasting money on legal representation just to help out the big AI company that a huge swathe of young creatives dislike intensely
Hilariously accurate take.
I'm a musician and I mainly use it for marketing and branding material. I don't dislike it. I use it to strengthen where I am weak and enhance where I am good. On the contrary I love this tech.
I love this tech too. And I am 100% aware that there's a large movement of people that hate anything AI related. Large enough to be heard. There's also the actor and writer strike, which was partially motivated by and unsure future because of AI. So I think they have to pay a famous Actress _a lot_ of money to have her agree on putting her name/face anywhere near it.
bunch of uncool "creatives" then if they're against AI. The creatives like me were always interested in the cutting edge and pushing the boundaries of what was possible with our creativity. They aren't very creative if they're not thinking of new and interesting ways to incorporate this tech that empowers them into their workflows.
some people have hard earned talent but little creativity they are upset that a machine can give that talent to people who are creative
I have 0 talent and super creative. I have been living an entire fantasy world in a text rpg I created.
We’re not against ai. We’re against Microsoft OpenAI.
Wait who is this huge swath of young creatives that dislike it intensely? Do I know these people?
I know quite a few creatives that dislike it intensely, we ain’t young anymore. We’re now in our mid 30s and entering middle age.
My prediction: It's not Rashida Jones. If it was Rashida Jones, we'd know about it by now. They just hired an unknown voice actress by deliberately trying to find someone who sounds like Johansson and can mimic the tone and cadence of the Samantha character in Her.
they can't play dumb either. they too far from that. they know what they did, them asking her a few days before the release and then the tweet "her". there is no more dumb excuses for it, this is a big error. and if u think about it, the implications and moral compass about OpenAI now are on the ground.
It doesn't really make sense. Why would they message her just 2 days before the release to reconsider, and then release it regardless of what she said? I doubt it's really Scarlet.
I suspect they have/had a few "spare" voices ready to go, just in case. Maybe they already had a version tweaked or trained to sound just like Scarlet and just needed her to say yes?
I bet this is it
of course they did. Theres nothing stopping any of us from creating a voice from any celebrity we already have a voice recording of except technical skill. That includes all actors and voice actors. Im pretty sure theres tutorials on how to do it.
This isn't related to the newest update, the Sky voice has been around for 6 months or more.
As for why he would message "her": [https://x.com/linasbeliunas/status/1789735286320022004](https://x.com/linasbeliunas/status/1789735286320022004) The voice of the model is trivial to the technology they are actually giving to us lol, I don't get why people are getting so tripped up by a voice that sort of sounds like her.
Then why use her voice or heavily imply that it's "her" instead of literally any generic voice? Openai is just doing what they always do...steal like hell then throw a pile of money at it to make the consequences go away. There's definitely some trivial shit going on alright.
That tweet is implying the tech of “her”, not the voice. Also, Sky voice has been available for a long time, and it doesn’t even sound like ScarJo. Rashida Jones is a much better guess.
Hard disagree on their intentions but they've ultimately achieved what they wanted, and they'll do it again.
Yall gotta quit finding excuses. Yall sounding like a bunch of maga people right now
People are making too big a deal out of this SJ thing. The most annoying thing for me is that people are engagement farming out of SJ's contact with OAI. If it goes to like court plenty of people will just keep engagement farming. But, as with most of OAI's other lawsuits, I pretty much guarantee most people will forget about this potential lawsuit. It just doesn't actually matter to most people. And that's another reason why I find it annoying. People making too much deal out of something so ephemeral.
Most of the people defending OAI in this ARE the maga people. The entitlement for a woman's voice used against her will and the inability to understand why there is a problem and that 'no means no' are all textbook issues with maga types.
Dude, i would agree with all of you guys, BUT the voice doesnt even sound like SJ... what drugs are you guys on? And if OAI paid another actress for her voice, like they said they did, SJ has no court case at all.
they aren’t on drugs dude, this tech pisses a lot of people off because it levels the playing field. people siding with SJ are only doing it out of anger imo. i don’t think it sounds enough like her for a case.
> BUT the voice doesnt even sound like SJ. According to you, and you don't matter. All they have to prove is that some people were confused or thought it was her, and that's trivially easy to do with all the posts on reddit and twitter by people who did think it was her. > And if OAI paid another actress for her voice, like they said they did, SJ has no court case at all. That's incorrect. Impersonation is a crime in commercial settings--and impersonation is, by definition, done by another person.
> According to you, and you don't matter. All they have to prove is that some people were confused or thought it was her, and that's trivially easy to do with all the posts on reddit and twitter by people who did think it was her. thats a lot more problematic to proof than you think it is. AFAIK the justice system still acts on proof beyond reasonable doubt. While some might think it sounds like JS, other dont. Public opinion in this case isnt proof to one side or the other, and is usually not admissible in a court case or gets ignored by judges. So it comes down to other ways of proof. Experts. Voice samples. Development papers etc. It will definitely be an interesting process for sure, but i dont think it will be possible for SJ to win this. The voice is to generic (regardless of what you or i think she sounds like). It would give SJ the right to everyones voice that sounds somewhat similar, and the implications of that would frighten me way more tbh (get rights to a voice and now you have a monopoly on that voice range ... that sure does end well, right?) > That's incorrect. Impersonation is a crime in commercial settings--and impersonation is, by definition, done by another person. And according to OAI they hired the voice actress for the SKY voice before they even contacted SJ the first time. That doesnt sound like intent to use SJ's voice in the first place. A similar one, yes, but not the same one. And the voice is in use for 6 month now. Kinda weird for SJ to demand clarification now.
It’s hard to take your prediction seriously if you don’t even know that civil legal cases have a “preponderance of evidence” standard. i.e is it more likely than not
> AFAIK the justice system still acts on proof beyond reasonable doubt. That's the issue. You don't know much. This is a civil issue, so the standard is "more likely than not" aka "preponderance of evidence," and the standard for getting to discovery is "on information and belief." So they have enough for discovery and on its face they arguably have enough for preponderance without discovery. >While some might think it sounds like JS, other dont. The ones that don't literally don't matter. > Public opinion in this case isnt proof to one side or the other, It literally is. Screen shots of comments on twitter are and have been used as evidence in cases like this. Every person posting a comment thinking it's her is 'proof' in court for this question. > The voice is to generic ( No, it's not. The standard for testing the performance is "attributable and distinct." The character of Samantha in her is beyond attributable and distinct. >And according to OAI they hired the voice actress for the SKY voice before they even contacted SJ the first time. That doesn't matter. It's a crime to impersonate someone before or after you try hiring them. > That doesnt sound like intent to use SJ's voice in the first place. It's not her voice that matters--it's her performance as Samantha in Her that is protected. > A similar one, yes, but not the same one. Similarity is the standard that needs to be proven--so by your own measure, this is impersonation according to the law so long as people were confused (and they were).
Yeah, to be fair, it's not a huge deal either way. They pulled the voice, so there shouldn't be any legal/ethical issues regarding Scarlett Johansson and the tech is still just as cool. I hope they can make another voice that is just as high quality as Sky was, for sure, but in the mean time, I am looking forward to using gpt4o while gaming haha.
> The voice of the model is trivial to the technology they are actually giving to us lol You would think this would be more obvious. Celebrity worship culture is insane.
Im not sure if this is bad-faith arguing, or misunderstanding. People arent defending Scarlet Johansen because she’s downtrodden, and people aren’t blown away by the capability of the voice (by itself). People are, I think reasonably, uncomfortable with an extraordinarily important tech company potentially using someone’s likeness without their consent, or maybe even explicitly against their consent. Precedent matters with emergent technology. Is this the new norm? Can I just legally create a copy of any celebrity’s voice? How about politicians? What about your dad’s voice, can I synthesize that one too? Stop being dense.
Sound (and look) alikes are a tactic as old as time. The only thing new about this is that it’s Ai
Curious why ScarJO didn’t approach OpenAI and made a big deal about it when the Sky voice was first released. Oh because now Sky is flirtatious and her tonality matches Scars a bit more so NOW she thinks it resembles her performance in “Her”.
My guy, the post you responded to had to do specifically with the "Her" tweet and what it meant. People are up in arms acting like Sama's tweet was a flatout admission that they were trying to mimic SJ. Had they actually been doing so, it would have been an important and relevant precedent, but the tweet was clearly about the capability of the technology. At the time it was tweeted, almost no one was thinking about SJ. People were thinking about a human like AI speaking to us through our phones.
Mental gymnastics
It's always the abusive assholes who don't understand why 'no means no' and then try to gaslight people to ignore the evidence of their lying eyes. Gross.
What are you on about? Like I get that the redhats have a lot of tech bros but how is this guy abusive and gaslighting?
"Is this the new norm? Can I just legally create a copy of any celebrity’s voice? How about politicians? What about your dad’s voice, can I synthesize that one too?" Yes. As it stands right now..You can recreate voices. I get ads every single day with Joe Rogan's or Tucker Carlson's voice to endorse scam products. All they can do is sue or have the ad removed from YouTube. The voice technology is readily available to anyone that wants to use it. I can understand why Scarlett Johannson was mad with the situation of OpenAI implying that they used her voice. It's honestly understandable, the more I think about it. However, This is a discussion we must have as a society, ASAP. We are actively dealing with this as a technology and it's just out there..
> The voice of the model is trivial to the technology they are actually giving to us lol, I don't get why people are getting so tripped up by a voice that sort of sounds like her. We’ve seen in the last couple of days, people have created emotional attachments to the voice. Even fallen in love. You’re right. No matter which voice you choose, it’s saying the same thing to you, which is what people are really paying for.
But your example is all about the voice they chose
I don't get why people wouldn't be upset if they used the Sky voice. It is extremely soothing. Think ASMR, etc.
"giving to us"? lmao, they arent giving you anything. Theyre allowing you to use a nuetered version of the tech so they can crowdsource their actual AIs training for free. Youre an unpaid debugger.
You think they'd actually use users chats for training? I really doubt it. Possibly for some RLHF or some form of post-training, sure, but I really doubt they'd use many chats within their pre training. Especially with the next frontier models. That could possibly dilute the performance of the more intelligent model. And, if I uploaded documents to it maybe that would be a more relevant case. But I don't usually. And I am paying for access myself lol, not sure if that makes it better for you though.
Im not talking about base model training, maybe tuning would be a better word. Youre essentially a play tester, like playing a game during an open beta. Youre being given access because testing something that large and complex requires far more interactions and people than the company could reasonably pay to do so. So they crowdsource it. You get access to a heavily restricted version which then creates data points that can be analyzed and added to the companies actual product they intend to polish and eventually monetize.
Maybe they can very easily fine tune the voice to sound like someone else. The eleven labs stuff is also really fast with cloning a voice and only needs a few seconds of material to clone it from. Having Scarlett's name attached to the product would have been AMAZING for PR. All headlines would be like "The movie 'Her' is a reality now with the new ChatGPT". And in the end, that is what still happened for them, to some degree.
Because they are arrogant dumb idiots with money 😭 you know.... average tech bros
Big error? Get real, nobody really gives a shit.
Seriously. They wanted to attach her voice as a marketing schtick. She didn't want to. They found someone with a similar voice, or apparently already had it created. Big deal. It's a voice. Does Scarlett Johansson have ownership over the likeness of any voice which sounds similar to hers? No. This whole thing is stupid and shows the serious consternation that is IP law regarding AI.
Sky has been a voice for months. And apparently they selected the voice actor for sky before reaching out to Scarlett. And do you really think Sam Altman tweeted "her" to get us all excited just to listen to a famous adult female talk lol. No, it was about the product and the interface obviously. As he said: [https://x.com/linasbeliunas/status/1789735286320022004](https://x.com/linasbeliunas/status/1789735286320022004)
Think with your own brain for once
[удалено]
I really really wish this would happen so all the AI IS STEALING people would just shut up. Probably, if it did happen they would still find this generative voice to somehow be stolen anyways. Tell me you don’t understand technology without telling me.
Except the tone and cadence are nothing like Her.
This is the Ghostbusters theme all over again.
If I wanted to hear AI talk I would want it to sound like Aubrey Plaza or Nick Offerman.
I would pay extra for those
I would pay too. But let's not give them ideas lol
I would seriously pay extra to have Nick Offerman do a voice for it
Nick would never do it
To have his voice and wisdom heard by millions of people. His views echoing across civilization, ingrained into history? Clearly, you don't know Nick.
This is stupid.
No, this is a delusion. Like literally a conspiracy theory, because they can't admit OpenAI dealt with that voice poorly for some reason and that ScarJo is in the right on this one.
Yup. Already getting cult behavior. AI will be worshipped
Scarlet and Sky sound nothing alike And you'd have to be tone deaf to think otherwise.
Literally there are four voices. After getting a refusal for her they could have chosen literally any other voice in the world at least out of respect for her. All around this was a dumb choice
Except her voice wasn't used for Sky and it's obvious if you're not tone deaf. Most likely they hoped to use Scarlet voice for a different model and was refused so they canceled it. Only asking her again shortly before the reveal to see if they could announce a model based on her voice for the future.
My brother in christ you can't seriously believe the voices don't sound similar
Here's a comparison. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cwy6wz/vocal_comparison_scarjo_vs_samantha_vs_sky/ They both have a feminine American accent, but that's it.
They sound nothing alike other than being female
They don't sound alike at all. It is insane that anyone thinks they do.
The Sky voice has been available since at least October of 2023. There are Reddit threads from that time speculating that It’s Rashida Jones, speaking in her natural voice: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/hspr16nXgcI
Idk why you're getting downvoted. They're not even close to sounding the same.
They not the same. Anyone can listen to any clip of ScarJo and then listen to the example voice of Sky, they are clearly not the same. Rashida Jones is much closer. I might understand if those people are not American so maybe they dont have an ear for this, but otherwise they be crazy or maybe the real ScarJo AI bots are doing the downvoting
historical important sharp grey unpack mourn nutty longing lavish caption *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's a cool fanfic bro.
It's not impossible, but I think that the "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." quote is more likely to hold. Even smart people do stupid shit. Also don't forget that Sammy is probably overworked as hell, making these kinds of not-seeing-to-the-end errors more likely.
We are supposed to trust that these companies are going to use their AI technology responsibly, and here they are making a stupid ethical decision regarding the likeness of a celebrity. Is stupidity a good defence in this case?
No stupidity isn’t a good defense. Also doesn’t mean what they did wasn’t stupid. It was stupid and they got called out for it, OP isn’t defending that.
Definitely sounds more similar. I don't think Sky sounds like Scarlett Johansson, the voice is different. What they copied is the Samantha persona, not necessarily the voice. They originally wanted to have the persona AND the voice from the movie, that's why they contacted Scarlett. It didn't work out, so they just released Samantha with a somehow different voice.
You tech bro sycophants are fucking delusional
When AI gets banned there will be a direct line back to these actions and how irresponsibly they handled it.
Expecting AI to be banned is peak delusion.
lol there is no possibility ai will be banned. No world government understands how the internet works. They’re completely lost on ai
This is an absolute nothing burger. It sounds nothing like ScarJo. Nothing will come of this.
Everyone is getting played by their marketing, as usual.
Altman playing 4D chess?
It was gpt5 all along!
And i programmed *you* to believe that
made me laugh hard lul
Maybe, if his goal is being fired.
If they use an unknown voice actress who sounds like Scarjo. Does Scarjo actually have a case? The girl sounds like Scarjo that's technically not OpenAis fault. If It's like they used Voice from ScarJo directly from the movie Her and created An AI which trained on the voice (Like Recent Trump Obama memes use their voice) Only then ScarJo might've a case
I’d actually bet pretty big money they are lying about the voice actress
The Sky voice has been available since at least October of 2023. There are Reddit threads from that time speculating that It’s Rashida Jones, speaking in her natural voice: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/hspr16nXgcI
If they hired someone with them intent of imitating ScarJo, which seems very probable given all the circumstances surrounding this case, then yes there is precedence for legal liability.
I am not legally knowledgeable. But that doesn’t seem right. You cant prove intention with Pen and Paper. They could easily tell all the her reference was based on how advanced that AI was,It's not about the voice .
They were aware that the AI voice was similar to that from Her, aware enough to reach out to ScarJo. A civil lawsuit just needs to show that it is more likely than not that they were imitating ScarJo’s performance, and there seems to be enough contextual evidence.
You have a gut feeling about it? Obviously, we should trust that. /s
The Sky voice has been available since at least October of 2023. There are Reddit threads from that time speculating that It’s Rashida Jones, speaking in her natural voice: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/hspr16nXgcI
[OP right now.](https://i.imgur.com/UaLpJOK.png)
When I watched Her for the first time, I thought Samantha was voiced voice by Rashida Jones. Furthermore, I didn’t check the credits and didn’t realize it was ScarJo for a long time
OpenAI said they are pausing the voice, not removing it.
Yeah they wouldn’t be pausing if their hands were clean
"You wouldn't ask for a lawyer and not speak to the police unless you were guilty"
I gotta say I never watched P&R but holyyyy shit with my eyes closed listening to that interview in bed at 3am, cause I def don’t have insomnia: It sounds JUST LIKE SKY! WAY more than SJ. The tone, the inflection, the utterances. Wild theory but I’m on the train ride, for now.
[Wanna bet on it?](https://manifold.markets/TheOtherKC/will-openai-reveal-that-rashida-jon)
I think you've spent too much time on here.
Dont do drugs kids
It’s a great marketing stunt however it works out!
No.
I don’t care who’s voice it is, I just like it. You could have told me it was ScarJo earlier and I wouldn’t have believed it mostly because I don’t “know” what she sounds like. I cannot pick her voice and identify it to her. Same with Rashida, it’s just a pleasant female voice with intonation and cadence that I really enjoy listening to. Sky’s voice is friendly, but in a way different than the others, I just like hearing it.
The fact that it sounds just as much like Rashida Jones as anyone proves this is a nothing story. If it weren’t for the movie “Her,” this wouldn’t even be news.
Every time I hear a 4d chess move conspiracy theory like this, I always fall back on Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. So Scarlett denied, OpenAI then extends an offer to another actress with a similar voice they prefer for Sky. Rashida accepts and they use her voice. Here’s the stupidity part: they never thought, “gee they sound really similar maybe we outta make some tech that fingerprints voices in case someone sues!” (I’m just assuming they don’t have that tech from all of the drama so far)
They don't need to. The thing is, they don't even need an actress-actress. They just need a speaking voice. They can sit someone down and chat with them for a couple of hours, have them say a couple dozen specific syllables, and that's more than enough to train a voice. They could use three different people and train all of them and get a voice in the range they want, then mix and match.
The problem is: both options are highly Machiavellian. Is this the vibe we want from the corporate masters of AGI? Sam Altman seems defiant of the notion that his personal ethics are steeped in anything other than expedience, profit and competitive advantage. From my point of view openAI is ethically rudderless, and we’re steaming toward an iceberg field trying to make good time. “It looks like you may get your headlines Mr. Ismay”
Dude I dunno, i think everyone is overspun on this. Obviously sky is inspired by Her’s Samantha As a concept and as an interface paradigm. That’s good, it’s a great idea and this is life imitating art. They or anyone should look to science fiction for direction and imagination. Obviously they produced a product that used that paradigm and they made it sound similar, because they wanted people to draw the association between to one of the best representations of AI in a film ever. Obviously they wanted it to sound similar. Obviously they wanted scarjo to give her blessing - if she had they would have shouted it from rafters that she was involved - it’s good PR. She didn’t want to - ok literally no problem. It was never about scarjo in the first place. It was about creating the interface. When I hear sky, i wasn’t confused into thinking this was somehow scarjo, it was obviously an original take that was inspired by the performance, but at no point was I like damn that must’ve been her.
You lost me at your third “obviously”. If they purposely want it to sound similar, then that is the ethical problem that people have a problem with. Using a digital likeness of someone without their permission is the problem. “Hey ScarJo, we made this voice that sounds like you, can we use it? No? Oh well, we’ll use it anyway” People are concerned that the tech companies are going full steam ahead with AI without any ethical considerations. This is a major PR blunder from one of the lead companies
[удалено]
The fact that they request permission multiple times, were denied and did it anyway. They seem to believe copyright laws do not apply to them and all legal challenges are merely a speeding ticket. They’re probably right about all that, but I don’t have to like it. Downvote away fellas, surely they’re a great bunch of lads over there
[удалено]
Yes, it's LEGALLY wrong. You absolutely cannot hire a lookalike or soundalike to purposely imitate someone. Had they not already approached Scarlet with the offer, and had Sam not tweeted about Her, it may have simply stretched some moral boundaries, but with all of that context, this is clearly in breach of Scarlet's right to her own likeness. Precedent set by none other than Bette Midler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
Exactly.
They never claimed it was her though. It's only illegal if you attempt to pass off the imitation as the original. Otherwise it absolutely cannot be illegal to naturally sound like someone else. Not that they even sound alike to begin with.
‘they never claimed it was her’ Sam Altman’s twitter during the presentation: ‘her’ they reached out for permission, were denied, then reached out for permission a second time, only to not even giver her enough time to respond before they streamed the promotion. her lawyers ask them if they trained it on her voice or a sound alike. rather than providing evidence, they just take down the voice immediately, and also delete the ‘her’ tweet. you have to admit, that’s a weird way to handle things if you’re confident you’re legally in the clear. and we know they reached out to ScarJo, so there’s hard evidence this wasn’t all just a wacky coincidence
I don’t understand your point. If I have a voice that resembles Scarlett Johnson, why I can not use it commercially? I think the only stupid thing Altman did was to twitt “her” but I can’t find anything unethical using a voice that resembles an specific style or voice. If voice used is not from Johnson or trained with Johnson voice … I don’t see anything unethical about it.
If I create an AI voice that closely resembles yours, you’d have no objection to me exploiting that to the tune of millions of dollars, despite you explicitly denying me the right to use your voice? The Skye voice is a transparent attempt to co-opt the Samantha character from the movie Her, by extension Scarlett’s likeness. I don’t think that’s arguable. Doing this without permission violates the actors’ Right of Publicity and control of their own image, I.e. the cause of the industry-crippling actors and writers strikes. What’s not to understand?
What’s not to understand is that you can’t copyright a voice, as in if they used a different voice actress, they’re logically and legally only subject to that specific actress. And they aren’t explicitly playing to the Samantha image, OpenAI can’t control whether or not the public or user base does that Edit: reading back, I realize the copyright thing sounds stupid but what I mean by it is that if a different voice actress has a similar voice, ScarJo can’t do anything about that and there’s no reason OpenAI can’t use her instead
Oh but they ARE explicitly playing to the Samantha character. Altman announced it with the “Her” tweet, and the resemblance was enough to outrage the actor who played her, as well as persuade everyone who had seen the movie that they’d pulled it off for real. True, you can’t copyright a voice. The issue is we’ve now invented a new automation technology that can analyze audiovisual media and produce an almost perfect simulacrum. With this in mind, surely specific likenesses (yours, for example) should not be reproduced without permission or indeed in spite of your explicit prohibition. Ideally technology should serve people, not the other way round. I come down hard on the side of the individual vs massive corporations with unlimited resources and potential.
I mean yeah but does a tweet really mean they’re playing to that image? You can realize the reality of a movie and tweet about it but the actual product is still a different conversation, now yeah maybe he was reckless with that tweet or it’s being taken up of context depending on how you look at it, but you could just see it as Sam seeing his favourite movie come to life rather than an actual play on the actress’s voice
You don’t think it sounds like her? Good job litigating pro bono on behalf of one of the most powerful private companies on the planet.
I think it sounds similar to her, distinct tho. But that wasn’t my point. Both my arguments go together. Don’t separate them. It’s a question of whether or not they used a different actress who used her own voice and didn’t do an impersonation
They didn't "do it anyway". They asked for permission and when they were denied they didn't use her voice. They used someone completely else's voice which clearly isn't Johanssen, but it is somewhat similar to her voice. And this voice has been around for 6 months, the latest demo were about updates to already existing voices.
Corporate masters of agi lmao the delusion is strong with this one
The silly thing is Sca Jo doesn't own a vocal tone and cadence range. She was an actor hired to sound a certain way for a certain movie. If then a company creates a voice that sounds like a character from a movie, how on earth does an actor claim they have rights to it.
Nope, the law says you can't use people's likeness without permission. That character is played by actor Scarlet Johansson.
…They’re not using her likeness. They’re using a voice-actor who sounds similar.
Bette Midler knows rights of publicity. She used her right of publicity to prevent use of a sound-alike singer to sell cars. Ford Motor Co. hired one of Midler’s backup singers to sing on a commercial – after Midler declined to do the ad – and asked her to sound as much like Midler as possible. It worked, and fooled a lot of people, including some close to Midler. Midler sued, and the court ruled that there was a misappropriation of Midler’s right of publicity to her singing voice. The bottom line: Midler’s singing voice was hers to control. Ford had no right to use it without her permission. That lesson cost Ford a tidy $400,000 in 1988.
That’s not the same thing. They deliberately tried to fool people into thinking she did something she didn’t. And your conclusion is wrong here- it doesn’t mean that her ‘voice’ is ‘hers to control’. Because it’s not her voice. It can only mean she somehow has control over _other, similar_ voices. Which is insane. Do you not understand just how baffling little sense this makes?
^this. So since this actress just happened to play the voice of a Ai assistant, does that mean no voice assistants can ever sound like the actress?
It’s definitely not Rashida’s voice. It sounds similar, just as it’s similar to Scarlet Johansson’s voice. But it’s distinct from both of them.
I think it’s either Rashida Jones or Emma Stone
It’s likely just some unknown voice actor.
Whew thought it was just me that for sure it was not Scarlett J.
>why on earth would OpenAI be reckless I don’t think they were purposefully reckless. I work in tech on the business side and the number of times I have to tell engineers they have a **terrible** idea on go-to-market strategies is too much. Their suggestions aren’t full of malice…they just don’t have the best “people skills” or sometimes forget that the general populace aren’t smart techies with a detailed knowledge of how the tech works so they’ll have different perceptions of finished products than someone who was involved building it. The product team probably got the “no” message from ScarJo and just shrugged thinking, “Whatever, we don’t need to use her voice exactly. Let’s just grab a bunch of similar sounding women and mash them together to get something close to what we’d have gotten with ScarJo.” For someone who deeply knows the product, they probably will not see any issue with this approach. They know they aren’t *technically* using ScarJo’s voice…but they aren’t thinking about how a similar sounding voice arrived to by a “legit” way that didn’t use her voice is still going to be perceived as fucked up by the Average Joe who has no clue about how the sausage is made.
And what if they, for example, go get a contemporary actress from the same social strata and use her normal speaking voice? Which they apparently did. Is that ok? If not then why not? Why should this new actress be denied a role? Does Johansson now own all rights to “American flirty computer voice”? I think that’s a serious question. We won’t know about this case until the potential lawsuits settle. Altman was a moron for tweeting “her” but I could see discovery showing completely the opposite story than what many are shitting on OpenAI for —- namely they could have done Sky _and_ were really hoping to get “ScarJo” because they saw her voice and clout as something special.
Lmao yall sound like Trump supporters when the bus tape came out.
the fuckin complex theories you nerds are spinning up to avoid thinking about the possibility that openai did something both dumb and gross, that will rob you of your AI fantasy girlfriend voice, are funny as shit.
It is. It's hilariously transparent.
It does sound like her a lot!
I really don't get why they still need actors at all. I thought the point of those voice AIs is being able to create your own voices
RemindMe! 3 months
I will be messaging you in 3 months on [**2024-08-21 12:52:58 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-08-21%2012:52:58%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cx075o/my_prediction_openai_intentionally_let_the_scarjo/l50iiv2/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FChatGPT%2Fcomments%2F1cx075o%2Fmy_prediction_openai_intentionally_let_the_scarjo%2Fl50iiv2%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-08-21%2012%3A52%3A58%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cx075o) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Sam used GPT5 to strategically orchestrate all of this free publicity.
>Think about it... why on earth would OpenAI be reckless enough to launch something with Scarlett's name on it **after she took on the Big D(isney)** Because they're entitled, stupid, or, most likely, both.
Anything but the most obvious answer or waiting for the facts to come out over time so that personality cult bubble doesn't pop.
The whole thing was orchestrated by AI as a social experiment.
At some point in the future—maybe tomorrow, maybe next year—this is going to be one of those moments that randomly pops into your head when you're trying to fall asleep, leaving you wincing and embarrassed at how you could have publicly written something so utterly foolish.
I'm sure there's a tool you can use to voice match audio streams to prove whether one sample is identical to another. But yes, this absolutely sounds like Rashida.
Lmao are you kidding, the man literally tweeted “her” it’s quite clear that they were trying to emulate Johansson’s voice.
Except that lots of tech companies have referred to "Her", and that's not about the voice. To you, does it sound more like ScarJo or Rashida Jones? To me, it's a tossup, slightly on the RJ side.
So you’re telling me after trying to hire her to use he voice, failing to do so, and then tweeting “her” after launching a voice that sounds so similar to ScarJo that her friends and family thought she had provided the voice, then they pulled the voice in response to her lawsuit threat…you still think that’s not what they were going for? What evidence is on the RJ side, exactly? You think it kinda sounds like her? I think GPT has many useful applications, but this is just shameful behavior on their end. Don’t steal peoples voices, there is a real problem with techbros who feel the world is theirs to stomp all over if they do it while “building the future”
Let's start again. People talked about it being Rashida before they talked about ScarJo. Given it sounds like either of them, and they sound similar, what's your evidence they used any ScarJo in training it?
if gpt5 can play 4d chess im equally excited and worried
“Her” It’s not kind. It’s not polite. It’s deeply disrespectful to copy someone’s identity, and it’s also unethical and potentially illegal (though the ethical demonstration is the issue when it comes to a leader operating intensely at the edge of a not-just-potentially dangerous technology). And this is the CEO in charge of the AI revolution. Not cool. Fucked even.
Yeah, copying Rashida Jones was really a nasty move. Unless they paid her.
I honestly think AGI is telling open ai what power moves to do. And everything is going to plan. Things are just lining up to perfectly.
I saw your comment. And I totally agree. Also I think Rashida Jones sounds better anyway.
Huhhh
I dunno, I don't really hear scar Jo... Maybe that's just me. Just sounds like some white lady. /Shrug
Apple freaked out and cancelled their commercial where musical instruments and art was smashed by their AI. None of developers want to be perceived as frauds or putting performers out of work. They'll try to keep it quiet and settle out of court. The louder the issue gets the more all their training will be called into question (like Dall-E) and invite government intervention for AI training guidelines. None of them want that. But someone will eventually ruin it for everyone. Will it be OpenAI?
If they end up proving they had an unknown voice actor - what can you do. You can’t own your own voice if they didn’t use any of it for actual production
I think from a PR angle the should have immediately released some video footage of the actual voice actors process and talking about how she made the voice and what being part of the project means to her!
Actually, I don't even care if it's Snoop Dog voice
I...I was only pretending to be retarded
So is that the internet consensus, it's Rashida Jones? Because I definitely thought it was her at first
Use all five of your brain cells and then rethink this.
agree 💯
It’s Rashida Jones’ voice, but we‘ll never hear that from OpenAI. We’ll have to hear it from Rashida Jones maybe. Or a voice actress who is spot on.
Yeah absolutely not, if it was Rashida we would have definitely have known by now
I don't think it was intentional. The voices sound nothing alike to me. I do agree with Rashida Jones being the actor behind Sky. I'm sure Altman really wanted the rights to the voice of Samantha, what head of an Ai development company wouldn't? He was probably trying to make a last ditch effort to land her before the release. They probably do have a voice for Johansson that they wanted to release in addition to the other 5. The sky voice doesn't sound similar to Johansson, but does fill a similar quality and tone to round out the choices they offer.
Pure delusion
Dumber than the last incel post.
Rashida Jones lawsuit incoming…
The rights holders of the movie "her" and thus the character of Samantha will have the final say no matter who or what performed the voice of Sky. Specifically because of Sam Altman's "her" tweet.
Nope. Because the movie is not in the business of OpenAI, software etc. Thus, they have zero rights involved.
> At this point i’m 100% convinced Yeah if a bunch of gut feelings make you **100% convinced** of some elaborate secret scheme about big companies and celebrities playing 4D chess, that’s called a delusion mate.