> We’ve heard questions about how we chose the voices in ChatGPT, especially Sky. We are working to pause the use of Sky while we address them.
Why?
They take it for granted that there is obviously something wrong here. Are users actually concerned about this? I think most people would not care. Is this just manufactured for the exposure? Is this just another example of OpenAI's condescending moral superiority complex?
My guess is that they’ve received a cease and desist letter. It’s not a hill they’re willing to die on, so they removed the voice and issued a public statement.
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
> In this case, openai says they got a voice actor though so I'm not sure if IP applies here
The effect of the DMCA on youtube has shown that IP seems to apply even if something vaguely looks or sounds like the original. "Apply" not meaning "is true", but "has consequences".
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..?
Sorry, did you deliberately skip over a bunch of comments to read mine or something? It feels like you missed some context. The person I was replying to was saying that ScarJo should be happy and grateful that the OpenAI voice was chosen to sound like hers, and that she should feel honored. With that context in mind, my question was whether she should also feel honored when she’s chosen as the subject for somebody’s Deep Fake porn — something she similarly has no control over and is only selected for due to her appearance/voice. I brought up Deep Fake porn specifically because it’s something she has been a victim of in the past.
Why?
They take it for granted that there is obviously something wrong here. Are users actually concerned about this? I think most people would not care. Is this just manufactured for the exposure? Is this just another example of OpenAI's condescending moral superiority complex?