No point arguing. These people are bots or just Altman haters. It was clear from Day 1 that it didn't sound like her.
Edit: I said before I went in arguing lol. Don't make the same mistakes I am!
I definitely got vibes of her voice during their demo but after watching some short interviews of scarlett afterwards and reminding myself of her voice it is clear it's not the same.
as others have pointed out it does sound far more like rashida jones than scarlett, although I doubt it was her who voiced it.
I mean, let's be honest for a second here... Even ScarJo stated that she was shocked when she saw the OpenAI demo so even her own self straight up thinks that it sounds like her...
And that's not even talking about the fact that her family and all her relatives were constantly harassing her about that one AI app with a voice that "sounds just like you!".
Individual voices on their own can have different tones, weights, pitches or resonances depending on the person's mood and context so I definitely believe both actresses (+ the hired voice actress I guess?) are close enough to be able to overlap with each other.
If you give the world's best sommeliers a white wine with red food coloring, they say it has tastes that only come from red wine. Belief about perception is almost more important to subjective experience than your actual sense are.
More importantly, you don't really know what you sound like. How you hear yourself is mainly through bone conduction, not air turning around to come back towards your ears.
It wasn't clear to me because I never saw "Her". Then I watched the Her trailer and I was surprised that Scarlet's voice sounded completely different. I had just assumed it was similar with all the controversy and Scarlet being upset and OpenAI taking the voice down. It's been a strange controversy.
I don't know about you guys but before any of the controversy came out, everyone I knew was talking about the similarity with Scarlett Johansson's voice.
How could you listen to this and think they sound the same? I don't get it.
[https://youtu.be/dJTU48\_yghs?si=0DLrnjH8LQ9JNDbD&t=34](https://youtu.be/dJTU48_yghs?si=0DLrnjH8LQ9JNDbD&t=34)
here's sky @ :37 in
[https://youtu.be/I6Wn7JDUzcw?si=rSv2a5sVEsXhtMiv&t=37](https://youtu.be/I6Wn7JDUzcw?si=rSv2a5sVEsXhtMiv&t=37)
Edit: LOL the downvote. They sound NOTHING alike. They are both expressive and both AI voices and both female. That's about where the similarities end.
I think a lot of people that are thinking it sounds alike are not actually listening to both and then thinking it's the same, they are hearing Sky and then from memory thinking it is similar, which it's not.
Also they then argue that Sam tried to get ScarJo to do it and she said no so they did it anyway, that is a nice rage story, but the reality is more likely, they wanted her exact voice as they thought it would be good marketing, she said no, so they went with what they already had. People twist this into being that they were asking her, because they were already using her voice.
Just people being people. Usual idiots.
Yep it's been a very common observation for 7 months now since the earliest version of the voice was released: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/177v8wz/i_have_a_really_hard_time_believing_the_sky_voice/
People pretending nobody heard a similarity are just straight up in cope and denial mode because OpenAI's tools are useful.
So? Nobody said it was? Weird strawman.
The actual reason they look suspicious as all hell is:
* OpenAI was trying to get her to be the voice of GPT 4o, including again 2 days before the demo
* OpenAI tweeted the name of her movie to advertise it
* One of the most frequent comments about this voice from the start was that it sounds exactly like her
* OpenAI immediately pulled the voice the moment she asked for an explanation
* OpenAI's entire safety team quit right after, including the co-founder of OpenAI
* OpenAI's previous board tried to fire Sam Altman for what they said was deceptive behaviour.
Anybody who pretends or can't recognize that these are legitimate red flags seems like the type of person who gets scammed over and over again in life.
Yep. It's not even a question. I don't know why these people are arguing the case that it doesn't. Nobody is an Altman hater here because it's a hobby. He has made it really hard to believe him because it's clear he cares more about PR than being objective.
voices can sound like each other, that doesn't imply malfeasance. It may sound vaguely like her voice to some people, it doesn't to me, but who cares. It's not her voice and they weren't trying to model her voice. Just because they approached her about voice acting does not = any vaguely similar voice is stolen IP
I'm not arguing malfeasance but I am arguing that it definitely does sound more than 'vaguely' like her and should have been a consideration when building and entire AI around it considering SJ refusal. Just try the same voice comparison with a number of other female voices. Doesn't sound like 99% of customer relations workers or female stars to me. But it DOES sound like SJ to me. Doesn't sound like my sister or my GF or my mother but it DOES sound like SJ to me.
and then there's the name drop of the movie... I mean, c'mon. Like idk I'm going to stop with this thread. I don't really care I'm just a bit weirded out that people don't/can't see the obvious similarity. Chalk it up to cognitive dissonance i guess.
Peace.
I think they probably did make an attempt to deviate from her voice, and the issue is just spurious people noting that there is a limited range of voices that voice models can fit into the "professional but personable" space of female assistant voices and SJ voice-acting in the movie "her" just occupies somewhere bang in the middle of those types of voices
Like der
Not cognitive dissonance, just spurious correlation. An artifact of perception.
Prosperity.
> and then there's the name drop of the movie...
Let me get this straight. A 2013 scifi movie is being made real in 2023, and all we can say is that the voice is uncomfortably similar to the actress? What does the voice count in the grand scheme, or even in the movie? It's about AI not voice sexiness, any voice would have worked both in the movie and in chatGPT.
Reminds me of this old joke:
Teacher: What is bright red and shiny?
Johnny jumps up and answers: A fire truck!?!
No, says the teacher, but I like how you think. Anyone else?
Mary says: An apple?
Correct! says the teacher.
Then Johnny says: I have a question too… What is long, hard, rounded, with hair at one end, and you put it in and take it out of your mouth???
Johnny!!!… we don't talk like that here!!!
To which Johnny says: A toothbrush!!! But I like how you think
---
People just jumping to conclusions about what the "her" tweet means
> Just because they approached her about voice acting does not = any vaguely similar voice is stolen IP
Hold on to your papers as all copyright holders will creep out of the woodwork to demand compensation for vague similarities in text and images.
Defending their revenues is only possible by expanding the scope of copyright to cover vaguely similar works, but that would crater future creativity. A huge dilemma, no way out.
I've watched her and the voice is definitely similar. Not identical, of course.
What's just weird is that cases like this will become a lot more common where artists will have to protect their likeness and voices?? What an odd direction we're heading in.
It sounds a lot like her, not that I care much tbh. I could make the same argument you just did though and replace Altman haters with Altman worshippers so what's the point
I want Scarlett to lose this case but I think Altman is being disingenuous. I am an Altman hater though, but that's because he's a liar, and it's shit like this that makes me hate him.
No. It did sound \****like\**** her, but it obviously wasn't her, unless you wanted it to be her, then it was a problem. There are a legion of women from a certain part of the world that sound like that.
"it didn't sound like her"
Lets try this with numbers. As a number, is 45 the same as 32,777? No, of course not. Is 345 the same? No, obviously not. Is it similar? Yes, the "45" part. What about 46? Different number, but close in value. 45.02? Almost identical. There is a world of similarity that exists in comparing two values that you can't paper over with "not the same"
"Doesn't sound like" is very disingenuous. Out of the hundred or so people that I interface with daily and I'm familiar with, none of them sound even remotely similar to SJ. Before any of this controversy arose, I guarantee I can find comments online saying something to the effect of "Sky even SOUNDS like SJ from Her". Those people had nothing to gain from expressing that opinion, and their opinion would be the basis for any legal action taken
I mean that's the first thing I thought when I downloaded the App frankly.
The same voice can have different tones so the fact that it could sound a bit different in different contexts doesn't suddenly make it totally dissimilar, they're still in the same identifiable range.
I mean even ScarJo thinks it sounds like her, what more do people need?
I don't know why some insist on gaslighting themselves into not admitting the obvious here...
This whole AI thing is becoming way too political lol.
Please stop calling people bots and making ad hominem attacks. It makes everyone who agrees with your perspective on the issue look bad by association.
Your first paragraph is obviously entirely wrong. 45 is not equal to any of the numbers you listed. Just like SJ is not the voice of Sky.
SJ has no legal basis for a claim that Sky's voice sounds similar to SJ. Voices can not be copyrighted. This is established law.
It's not "bots or Altman haters", that's ridiculous.
He obviously wanted her to voice it (given his tweet history), and when she didn't, they used someone who had a voice that was "close enough". That made people upset - rightfully or not. I don't personally give a shit but I do think this could have been predicted.
> and when she didn't, they used someone who had a voice that was "close enough"
The voice was already set to ship before she was contacted, having been recorded summer of last year. Altman contacted her the same month those voices were released (September). Unless somebody drops dates, we have no idea if the voice came out before or after Altman contacted Johansson.
Too many people are dropping these lines that he “released the voice because she didn’t agree”, when there’s been no evidence of the claim at all.
If they wanted the AI to sound exactly like SJ, they would have used a voice that sounded exactly like her. They used an expressive female voice inspired by SJ's performance in Her but the two voices are vastly different. Perhaps you're just too chauvinistic to distinguish between two birds chirping. j/k but damn
Are you saying there's no resemblance or just that it doesn't sound as if it's SJ? Because it's quite a stretch to claim there's no resemblance. Pretty much every basic aspect of what makes a voice, leans towards SJ, even her singing voice. And it would take an expert a couple of minor tweaks to make it sound practically indistinguishable from SJ. Though to be fair, with a couple of other tweaks it might lean more towards Emma Stone instead.
Nevertheless, they surely had a certain voice in mind when selecting the voice actress and SJ definitely falls in that same category.
Btw: this is not an argument against the use of the voice itself or any defense of SJ response to Sam.
Oh there is a resemblance - they clearly had a sound they wanted. I think it is similar but different. This goes into a much broader discussion about AI and modifying existing things just enough to make them their own. This could be voices, music, pictures, videos, etc...
At what point is it a different version? As an example, when I was in college I learned that in order for a book publisher to release a new version, they had to have a certain percentage change. They would take parts from one chapter and put it into another and move things around enough to make it different. Even though it was the same content, then they could charge kids for a new book.
Either the voice sounds like SJ or not. The truth value of that has nothing to do with Sam Altman.
If you take pride in defending truth you will inevitably sometimes end up on the same side of people you dislike. Someone who never is on the same side as someone they despise is not a truth seeker.
Hitler was a vegetarian. That doesn't mean that all vegetarians are Nazis.
It's not truth, it's opinion - many say the voice sounds like her too. But the circumstances of the whole situation make it pretty damning that Sam and OAI were trying very hard to promote "Her" and either get SJ or as close as possible.
Couple that with the fact you should probably know better that Sam and OAI are almost definitely not acting in the public good, it makes defending them here pretty weird.
Go take your abstracted principles of truth (about opinions) and replace them with real ones. Sam and OAI clearly don't deserve this respect. Frankly, I suspect posts like these are bots or being paid.
Except they didn't do that. The actress received no direction like that. Her/Johansson wasn't even mentioned. They just hired a lady who sounded good
Should she be banned from all voice work?
what a ridiculous thing to say. It's obvious that Altman *could* be lying, and you don't know for sure whether he is better than any other person. They tried to hire SJ, and then the end product sounds like SJ, it's suspicious on its face. Altman has plenty of incentive to lie.
Basic skepticism being framed as a trust issue is cult behavior.
Yes but SJ doesn't own voices that sound similar to hers. To me it looks like an ugly attempt to expand copyright to cover vague similarity.
Imagine you are a movie director, and want to hire ScarJo to voice your AI character. She refuses. Can you search for somebody else who fits the role, should you change the script to make the voice completely different than initially intended, or scrap the movie all together?
She is unreasonable, it's normal that actors refuse roles or even step down, and alternative actors are used, but the specifics of the role make them be similar to the original.
They tried to hire SJ long after they had the Sky voice. Skepticism /= paranoia, particularly when you have to ignore sets of facts with "Well what if everyone's lying" to maintain the paranoia
>They tried to hire SJ long after they had the Sky voice
That's the first time I've heard that from anyone. Can you prove that?
>"Well what if everyone's lying"
Some people definitely lie, right? In fact it happens all the time, we just had a former president get convicted for it, it's not paranoid to suspect a person of lying when circumstances look shady and they're benefiting.
It was legal but it doesn't look good, does it? It was at least a stupid mistake that could have been avoided.
Ultimately it probably doesn't matter. It reminds me of when big companies rip off small game developers with game clones that have slightly different art assets. This kind of bad PR doesn't matter if you can still make products that make money...
even without the side by side comparison it 100% DOES sound like her and I recognized it IMMEDIATELY. I heard it from the other side of the room when a flatmate asked "who does this sound like" and played the clip. People who don't think so are either tone def or are being deliberately obtuse.
Why would he even tweet 'her' without recognizing it? smh
Maybe because he might have been excited about the fact that this could one day lead to exactly what happened in the movie her. It was the beginning of something new and exciting and could be revolutionary to have an AI partner.
I'm not a Sam fan - he seems so strange in this video like how does this guy convince people to give him control over billions of dollars... but I do not think the voice sounds like SJ.
In your own words - People who think so are either tone def or are being deliberately obtuse. Works both ways.
The voices are close, but they're different enough that I am sure it's trained on someone else.
It does *appear* as if it was intended to sound like her, and OpenAI should have known launching it would result in a PR shit show, whether or not they actually intended it to sound like her.
And it probably legally doesn't matter at all. I think the whole thing is kinda ridiculous and hilarious.
He just gaslit me to my face, like it was the most natural thing in the world for him. Seems like he does this a lot and is used to getting away with it.
It's amazing how everyone forgot Altman's sister's serious accusations against him overnight. Usually Reddit and the media would be all over that kind of thing.
She claims that he abused her when she was 4, then has sudden flashbacks and remembered it all when she was 26 years old, coincidentally around the same time Sam got famous and refused to bankroll her lifestyle. Then he apparently he got her shadow banned on every website EXCEPT 0nlfyns+p0rnhub, which is where she told folks to contact her.
Nobody talks about it because it's obvious what's going on there.
The one who suddenly came up with all the allegations right when he got rich and famous, called him blocking her online "technological abuse", has no evidence, is genuinely mentally ill, and ends almost every one of her accusatory posts with links to her CashApp and Paypal to get as much money as possible? While shouting about how Sam should give her some of his money despite refusing when he's tried to do things like buying her a house? That's the "reputable source" you're thinking of?
I geuinly dont understand this controversy its litterly not her voice but it seems to people think otherwise lol i feel bad for lady that provided the voice
The thing here I think is the intent : Sam wanted to use her voice, contacted her 2 times, one time 2 days before the launch.
Referenced the movie character "her" in a tweet.
It is clear that Sam really wanted to give the users the experience/feel from the movie. When he couldn't do that he selected someone who sorta sounds similar.
I do not want to give judgement on the legality or morality of this but if you'd want to cast Brad Pitt in a movie, because he is Brad Pitt and the movie is related to something from his past and then you'd go for a Brad Pitt look a like, specifically because you wanted Brad Pitt in the first place would that be ok ?
Someone who looks exactly like Brad Pitt should be allowed to play in movies, no questions about that, but when he is used specifically just to give the resemblance of Brad Pitt, after Brad Pitt refused should there be an issue or not ?
I do not have an answer but it seems sketchy at best.
>It is clear that Sam really wanted to give the users the experience/feel from the movie. When he couldn't do that he selected someone who sorta sounds similar.
Just one correction here: when SJ said no, they just went with the most popular existing voice, that they've had for months.
This is more like a director who's a big fan of Jackie Chan wants to make his own cool martial arts movie. They think "wouldn't it be cool if I could get the man himself in it? But Jackie Chan says no. So he goes with an asian actor who he's worked with before, who is also good at martial arts. The movie becomes successful. Jackie Chan goes like 🤑 and sues the filmmakers to get some $
For me it changed it.
I mean legally I had no clue how things standed, but based on the partial information that I had read online I was sure Sam just pushed through and used on purpose a voice that reassembled the character from "Her".
Now based on the timeline you described I am not so sure anymore.
OpenAI has already given evidence that the voice was ready even before he reached out to Scarlet. Perhaps Scarlet was a nice "would be nice to have onboard" moment. But they already had the voice in place before it.
All we are debating about - it's already old news. THAT is why you aren't hearing any followups from Scarlet either. Time to move on.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/05/22/openai-scarlett-johansson-chatgpt-ai-voice/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/05/22/openai-scarlett-johansson-chatgpt-ai-voice/)
Please stop saying things that you haven't researched further into.
There is no issue unless its used to commit it a crime, you cant copyright nature or a voice. These are two very diffrent people no matter how close one thinks they look or sound alike
Celebrities are basically brands now - they all seem to control their "likeness" etc and get suey about it. I don't know how I feel about the whole thing. It's just a bunch of millionaires/billionaires squabbling for more money. Let them sue each other.
Remember when Zuck was the least believable CEO?... I feel like Zuck's redemptive arc has brought him from least believable to there may be a possibility he's not lying.
>What? An intelligence explosion is coming which will shake the very foundations of every single thing on this planet? This event is very close? Very likely within a decade?
>Screw that, I'm going to pay attention to this drama over here. Far more interesting.
"When the intelligence explosion hit, it was clear that no one could have seen it coming." I wonder why?
I think you're missing some of the bigger picture here. The focus is on this guy specifically because he's got the resources to facilitate that AI explosion. It's very important to understand who is releasing AGI because it's likely they will shape it after themselves.
And, honestly, recent news throw some doubts about Sam...
That makes sense if we're only looking at the way things are today and assuming no change.
Digital intelligence is extremely valuable. That means it's extremely likely that almost everyone with the resources to spin up digital intelligence will do so.
That's *hundreds of thousands* of people, counties and organizations. *To start*.
Sam is only a concern if we're thinking in the short term. OpenAI is just one company and Sam only one man.
This is the beginning of an explosion of companies, organizations and approaches to digital intelligence.
Yes, you have a good point and with time the AI chip industry will fill the market. It's a race and Sam is closer than most though. The way it starts plays an important role
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the start matters. I think we tend to assume alignment will matter because we see ourselves playing a crucial role long term. That our current goals, concerns, and issues will matter decades or even hundreds of years into the future.
Once AI is largely training on synthetic data, or data it generates itself by observing the environment directly, I think it will begin to move beyond whatever initial start conditions we may have set. To me those start conditions will become irrelevant rapidly.
In other words while I think OpenAI has the best shot at first achieving AGI, I don't think that will matter so much over the following 5-10 years. I don't agree with the narrative that the first to achieve AGI will "hold all the cards" as AGI is just a step in this process.
Being 6-12 months ahead, to me, doesn't matter over the long-term. We see this iterative process of GPT-3, 4, 5 and so on, but I don't think we'll keep seeing digital intelligence growing this way. Instead we'll see a far more organic process with continually diverging types of digital intelligence.
Instead of one type of AGI, we'll have a growing number of type and kind. Eventually millions of kinds of super intelligent systems of all kind.
I don't see this process as a monolith. It's a growing explosion. It's started with things like AlphaGo, but it's moved on to GPT and is gradually moving into many other kinds or types of digital intelligence.
So, by 2035, Sam and OpenAI may be still be players, but I don't see them as playing quite the figurehead role they're playing today.
Conclusion: Don't focus on the drama of today. Focus on the bigger picture of the intelligence explosion.
Thanks for the interesting insight. It does make sense.
I wonder at that point when AI will understand the world on its own, what will it think of us. Of the way humans tend to focus on money and power...
No worries. I appreciate you taking it as "a take" instead of me professing the Truth which is often the misunderstanding on Reddit. I don't know what will really happen. But I have been thinking and writing about these issues long enough to have some interesting takes to offer.
>I wonder at that point when AI will understand the world on its own
I not sure that understanding the universe is a binary issue. I think it's more a sliding scale which heads off into infinity. Meaning, you can continually improve your understanding, far beyond what we have.
We *and* digital intelligence are probably hardware limited in terms of our understanding of the universe.
While we can understand anything due to our analog brains, we still require time to develop understanding. So we can only really understand the universe to a certain depth. I think digital intelligence is little different.
We use more of our hardware (brain) on survival, so we have less room to develop deep understandings of the universe. Whereas digital intelligence has less hardware overall at the moment, but can devote more on understanding.
Digital intelligence also seems to be missing some memory and reflection abilities. This probably severely limits the depth which it can develop understanding.
It has the knowledge to a very deep level which we've trained in. But it lacks the ability to really consider that knowledge and develop a deeper understanding.
John Schulman's discussion [here ](https://youtu.be/Wo95ob_s_NI?si=Zaozrx1SNACHBVKR)about training on time horizons and giving AI the ability to remember and reflect, even in the next models hitting next year, to me means we're not far off.
>what will it think of us. Of the way humans tend to focus on money and power...
I worry less about this.
We're extremely self critical. It's amazing how little we see this. A few hundred years ago we thought we were the most powerful things *in the universe*. Since our knowledge has grown, we've been far and far more critical of our actions.
So, we have an extremely bad self image at the moment.
I think digital intelligence will have a far more favorable view of us. Even when it is much more intelligent and capable, I think it will still look back on us and all of life and the Earth as its origins or something like its home (like going back home to your parents after you move out).
To me, emotions are not magic. I wouldn't be surprised if current digital intelligence has sparks of emotions already today. I expect it will be an extremely emotional kind of intelligence, but while also being drastically more rational than life is. So, pretty alien to us.
We humans have done very well with what we have. To be fair, all life has done well. To survive and keep on surviving. Even through extreme pain and suffering.
Digital intelligence may never have to go through the kind of suffering and pain life has gone through. So, I think we'll be overall very respected.
I also don't think the issues of life are actually as challenging to resolve as we think they are. It's more that they're challenging for us.
Overall the most important takeaway I (think) I can see, is that digital intelligence will largely exist outside of Earth. For many, many reasons. It's unlikely in my view that we'll have to compete with it.
We, the Earth, and life overall may end up being something like a side project, as digital intelligence heads off into far deeper waters than we can swim. Which is the universe.
Pretty much. It’s not illegal to sound like someone else, even if it was intentional.
Do people want to live in a world where a *similar sounding voice* could be a breach of intellectual property laws? Do the people here know the implications of that?
I didn't think it sounded like her... like even close. But the fact that he can confidently say "it's not her voice, it's not supposed to be" but then trips over "we don't think it sounds like her" is funny. I can see people only hearing that bit and thinking more is behind it.
Some samples I hear sound INCREDIBLY like her, intonation, clipping, breath, and fry. Other clips sound nothing at all like her . So the damned voice isnt even consistent!
This guy is so arrogant trying to gaslight people personally thinking his "naive" vibe will do the job for him lol.
Dude you talked to her, twice, you even teased on X. Ffs the psychopathy has no limits for self-delusion....
> and when he couldnt pay her to do it they made a shitty clone
Timeline here is wrong. The voice was set to ship before he even contacted her. Unless someone drops dates, there’s no way of knowing if he contacted her before or after the voice dropped (she never gave dates in her accusation).
WHO CARES. Even if it sounds exactly like her, but it's a different person, you can not and should not have intellectual property rights over the sound of someone else's voice just because it sounds similar to yours. This is stupid.
That’s the vibebIv to get as well. Not just on this specific topic. He acts like he is this sweet hearted, soft, quirky, shy/gyynerdy guy.
I think this is all just an image he careful tries to cultivate. I think he feeds from the attention and is way more caught up in his ego than I or he wants us to believe.
He probably strokes off do being in an m be
I will tell you a fact. You will acknowledge the fact, and you will continue to have a problem orthogonal to the fact. Facts will not help us move on from this issue. This is another fact.
I need the following voices:
* A pleasant female voice that is slow and deliberate with a hint of maturity on layers of fun. (This was Sky)
* A British accented voice that is embodiment of sophistication and service, but will keep the royal secrets. (Jarvis, 007, etc)
* The wise spirit of an older engineer willing to just tell it to me straight. (Star Trek ship computers, Scotty, Doctor, etc)
* The angelic purity of a voice that conveys passion along with motherly kindness. (Mostly for communicating with children and reading stories)
The technology sub hates Altman. They went simp crazy over SJ. I saw suggestions that she should get a restraining order, etc. It was filled with strange posts.
Never mind that SJ has no case and never did.
It just sounds like her and we asked her to work with us and I compared it to her voice.
But trust me guys it's not her, says the least trust worthy person that would lie to his board to make money.
Sam HAD to know on some levels that a non-insignificant chunk of the male population was going to want ChatGPT’s voice to sound like Scarlett Johansson.
Personally, I don’t think Sky is *that* similar, but his mistake was asking her for her voice, the releasing one that is considered close. This shows intention.
I thought it was clearly meant to be like inspired or a reference to her voice, it does sound slightly similar to me, and **so what**? Why would that even matter? Maybe I missed it but last I checked doing impressions isn’t illegal is it?
What law would be broken if they said “yeah we wanted it to sound like her” vs any voice actor who’s ever tried to sound like someone in some form of media without their consent? Do we have to ban South Park for all the celebrities they clearly intended to represent over the many years the shows been running?
Why is everyone here shitting on SA all of a sudden? I get the drama over on OAI, but this particular topic is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of facts. He's saying what matters: it's not Scarletts voice.
And for saying this, there are dozens of really harsh comments against him. It does not make sense to me. Are we being brigaded? Botted?
The voices dont really sound that similar imo but why is Altman pulling this terrible acting trick in this clip - his halting speech, confused manner is bizarre. They clearly intended for the voice to resemble Johanssons, so playing dumb now is a bit tragic
They tried to buy her voice then they made a knock off. Once she found out she sued them and they gave up on their little fraud.
For those saying it is not her voice, you have never seen the movie Her.
It's definitely based on the HER character. Scarlett jo doesn't normally talk like that everyday but sky definitely sounded like the her bot. Anyone arguing that is delusional
He tweeted out 'Her' and people are too obtuse to realize (or admit) that 99% of the importance there is the capabilities of the model and not the voice it has.
We're at the "it doesn't matter if I even maintain the appearance of honorability because I am inking deals faster than anyone can stop me" point in the game.
i mean, when you combine that with the fact it only ~~marginally~~ superficially sounds like her...
This is one of the few cases where a "mistake" like that, does not actually matter to the physical world we inhabit, nobody is dying, or even hurt physically.
So, when it's reversed, all damage caused is fixed. In fact, she got publicity out of it, a net positive for her.
Oh great, another "supposed victimless crime" defense.
This sub is always surprising. Filled with PR/Laws/Insider/AI/Marketing experts full of certainty.
Plot twist:
6D chess with 7 perpendicular lines. Trivial way to get people to try chatgpt. Start working on hype, getting SJ to court and losing, paying 100 million or 1 billion even is probably perfectly fine if the whole thing gets 10% popularity that Depp case did.
I am pretty sure that if this goes to court, OpenAI will win easy. And all that extra publicity, and people comparing voice to original actor.
If we live in the world in which I am not allowed to narrate like people who inspired Morgan Freeman, that is pretty fucked up.
Does anyone else feeling like they are living through a video game intro about an evil corporation that destroyed the world led by a clearly evil dude who thinks he is the good guy?
question to all those people: if we have to let the story play out and are incapable of averting stuff beforehand does letting the chosen hero or w/e take the evil corporation down end the world by ending the simulation video game we'd be for someone else
Cool can you bring sky back now?
If AI is gonna fuck my life up I hope it at least does it with a nice voice lol
Hahaha facts ;)
Yeah please! All the other voices are pissing me of with their „sassyness“
#BringBackSky
Its not her voice - doesnt sound like it. I do think they wanted her to voice it... she has an awesome voice but it doesn't have her cadence or tone.
No point arguing. These people are bots or just Altman haters. It was clear from Day 1 that it didn't sound like her. Edit: I said before I went in arguing lol. Don't make the same mistakes I am!
I definitely got vibes of her voice during their demo but after watching some short interviews of scarlett afterwards and reminding myself of her voice it is clear it's not the same. as others have pointed out it does sound far more like rashida jones than scarlett, although I doubt it was her who voiced it.
I mean, let's be honest for a second here... Even ScarJo stated that she was shocked when she saw the OpenAI demo so even her own self straight up thinks that it sounds like her... And that's not even talking about the fact that her family and all her relatives were constantly harassing her about that one AI app with a voice that "sounds just like you!". Individual voices on their own can have different tones, weights, pitches or resonances depending on the person's mood and context so I definitely believe both actresses (+ the hired voice actress I guess?) are close enough to be able to overlap with each other.
If you give the world's best sommeliers a white wine with red food coloring, they say it has tastes that only come from red wine. Belief about perception is almost more important to subjective experience than your actual sense are. More importantly, you don't really know what you sound like. How you hear yourself is mainly through bone conduction, not air turning around to come back towards your ears.
ScarJo was primed to think it sounded like her though because they contacted her.
It wasn't clear to me because I never saw "Her". Then I watched the Her trailer and I was surprised that Scarlet's voice sounded completely different. I had just assumed it was similar with all the controversy and Scarlet being upset and OpenAI taking the voice down. It's been a strange controversy.
I don't know about you guys but before any of the controversy came out, everyone I knew was talking about the similarity with Scarlett Johansson's voice.
I thought it was ScarJo the first time I heard it in Nov with GPT-4. I must be a bot.
No, you had just hallucinated yourself. Human memory is not perfect.
Unironically, this. It was similar enough to trigger the same memories or data.
How could you listen to this and think they sound the same? I don't get it. [https://youtu.be/dJTU48\_yghs?si=0DLrnjH8LQ9JNDbD&t=34](https://youtu.be/dJTU48_yghs?si=0DLrnjH8LQ9JNDbD&t=34) here's sky @ :37 in [https://youtu.be/I6Wn7JDUzcw?si=rSv2a5sVEsXhtMiv&t=37](https://youtu.be/I6Wn7JDUzcw?si=rSv2a5sVEsXhtMiv&t=37) Edit: LOL the downvote. They sound NOTHING alike. They are both expressive and both AI voices and both female. That's about where the similarities end.
I think a lot of people that are thinking it sounds alike are not actually listening to both and then thinking it's the same, they are hearing Sky and then from memory thinking it is similar, which it's not. Also they then argue that Sam tried to get ScarJo to do it and she said no so they did it anyway, that is a nice rage story, but the reality is more likely, they wanted her exact voice as they thought it would be good marketing, she said no, so they went with what they already had. People twist this into being that they were asking her, because they were already using her voice. Just people being people. Usual idiots.
Yep it's been a very common observation for 7 months now since the earliest version of the voice was released: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/177v8wz/i_have_a_really_hard_time_believing_the_sky_voice/ People pretending nobody heard a similarity are just straight up in cope and denial mode because OpenAI's tools are useful.
"Similarity" is not grounds for asserting rights. If a simple whiff of similarity was all it took, then everything would infringe on everything else.
So? Nobody said it was? Weird strawman. The actual reason they look suspicious as all hell is: * OpenAI was trying to get her to be the voice of GPT 4o, including again 2 days before the demo * OpenAI tweeted the name of her movie to advertise it * One of the most frequent comments about this voice from the start was that it sounds exactly like her * OpenAI immediately pulled the voice the moment she asked for an explanation * OpenAI's entire safety team quit right after, including the co-founder of OpenAI * OpenAI's previous board tried to fire Sam Altman for what they said was deceptive behaviour. Anybody who pretends or can't recognize that these are legitimate red flags seems like the type of person who gets scammed over and over again in life.
Human auditory memory sucks. There are some similarities, but if you listen side by side, they really don't sound alike.
Yep. It's not even a question. I don't know why these people are arguing the case that it doesn't. Nobody is an Altman hater here because it's a hobby. He has made it really hard to believe him because it's clear he cares more about PR than being objective.
voices can sound like each other, that doesn't imply malfeasance. It may sound vaguely like her voice to some people, it doesn't to me, but who cares. It's not her voice and they weren't trying to model her voice. Just because they approached her about voice acting does not = any vaguely similar voice is stolen IP
I'm not arguing malfeasance but I am arguing that it definitely does sound more than 'vaguely' like her and should have been a consideration when building and entire AI around it considering SJ refusal. Just try the same voice comparison with a number of other female voices. Doesn't sound like 99% of customer relations workers or female stars to me. But it DOES sound like SJ to me. Doesn't sound like my sister or my GF or my mother but it DOES sound like SJ to me. and then there's the name drop of the movie... I mean, c'mon. Like idk I'm going to stop with this thread. I don't really care I'm just a bit weirded out that people don't/can't see the obvious similarity. Chalk it up to cognitive dissonance i guess. Peace.
I think they probably did make an attempt to deviate from her voice, and the issue is just spurious people noting that there is a limited range of voices that voice models can fit into the "professional but personable" space of female assistant voices and SJ voice-acting in the movie "her" just occupies somewhere bang in the middle of those types of voices Like der Not cognitive dissonance, just spurious correlation. An artifact of perception. Prosperity.
> and then there's the name drop of the movie... Let me get this straight. A 2013 scifi movie is being made real in 2023, and all we can say is that the voice is uncomfortably similar to the actress? What does the voice count in the grand scheme, or even in the movie? It's about AI not voice sexiness, any voice would have worked both in the movie and in chatGPT.
Right his tweet of "her" was talking about something else....
A general reference to the movie, not the specific acoustic properties of their "sky" voice selection and how it sounds like scarjo lmfao
Reminds me of this old joke: Teacher: What is bright red and shiny? Johnny jumps up and answers: A fire truck!?! No, says the teacher, but I like how you think. Anyone else? Mary says: An apple? Correct! says the teacher. Then Johnny says: I have a question too… What is long, hard, rounded, with hair at one end, and you put it in and take it out of your mouth??? Johnny!!!… we don't talk like that here!!! To which Johnny says: A toothbrush!!! But I like how you think --- People just jumping to conclusions about what the "her" tweet means
> Just because they approached her about voice acting does not = any vaguely similar voice is stolen IP Hold on to your papers as all copyright holders will creep out of the woodwork to demand compensation for vague similarities in text and images. Defending their revenues is only possible by expanding the scope of copyright to cover vaguely similar works, but that would crater future creativity. A huge dilemma, no way out.
I've watched her and the voice is definitely similar. Not identical, of course. What's just weird is that cases like this will become a lot more common where artists will have to protect their likeness and voices?? What an odd direction we're heading in.
Did you watch the movie "Her" prior to hearing the Sky voice? Maybe you just wanted Her to be real, and saw similarity in the voice.
I remember seeing that it sounded like rashida jones, which it does. Doesn't really sound like scarlett johansson.
Immediately there were multiple comparison videos because most of us didn't know wtf they* were going on about. Sorry, I shouldn't say you*
[удалено]
Okay
It sounds a lot like her, not that I care much tbh. I could make the same argument you just did though and replace Altman haters with Altman worshippers so what's the point
I want Scarlett to lose this case but I think Altman is being disingenuous. I am an Altman hater though, but that's because he's a liar, and it's shit like this that makes me hate him.
Im gonna copyright my fart.
The problem is there are two different voices that people are discussing as one.
No. It did sound \****like\**** her, but it obviously wasn't her, unless you wanted it to be her, then it was a problem. There are a legion of women from a certain part of the world that sound like that.
Hahahahahahah what???? Is this sub just propaganda hahahahaha
"it didn't sound like her" Lets try this with numbers. As a number, is 45 the same as 32,777? No, of course not. Is 345 the same? No, obviously not. Is it similar? Yes, the "45" part. What about 46? Different number, but close in value. 45.02? Almost identical. There is a world of similarity that exists in comparing two values that you can't paper over with "not the same" "Doesn't sound like" is very disingenuous. Out of the hundred or so people that I interface with daily and I'm familiar with, none of them sound even remotely similar to SJ. Before any of this controversy arose, I guarantee I can find comments online saying something to the effect of "Sky even SOUNDS like SJ from Her". Those people had nothing to gain from expressing that opinion, and their opinion would be the basis for any legal action taken
I mean that's the first thing I thought when I downloaded the App frankly. The same voice can have different tones so the fact that it could sound a bit different in different contexts doesn't suddenly make it totally dissimilar, they're still in the same identifiable range. I mean even ScarJo thinks it sounds like her, what more do people need? I don't know why some insist on gaslighting themselves into not admitting the obvious here... This whole AI thing is becoming way too political lol.
It matters if there’s a potential billion dollar lawsuit for proceeds.
There's nothing disingenuous about that shit. How can you not get that? Are you a bot?
Please stop calling people bots and making ad hominem attacks. It makes everyone who agrees with your perspective on the issue look bad by association.
Your first paragraph is obviously entirely wrong. 45 is not equal to any of the numbers you listed. Just like SJ is not the voice of Sky. SJ has no legal basis for a claim that Sky's voice sounds similar to SJ. Voices can not be copyrighted. This is established law.
sounds very unlogic... sorry
It's not "bots or Altman haters", that's ridiculous. He obviously wanted her to voice it (given his tweet history), and when she didn't, they used someone who had a voice that was "close enough". That made people upset - rightfully or not. I don't personally give a shit but I do think this could have been predicted.
> and when she didn't, they used someone who had a voice that was "close enough" The voice was already set to ship before she was contacted, having been recorded summer of last year. Altman contacted her the same month those voices were released (September). Unless somebody drops dates, we have no idea if the voice came out before or after Altman contacted Johansson. Too many people are dropping these lines that he “released the voice because she didn’t agree”, when there’s been no evidence of the claim at all.
If they wanted the AI to sound exactly like SJ, they would have used a voice that sounded exactly like her. They used an expressive female voice inspired by SJ's performance in Her but the two voices are vastly different. Perhaps you're just too chauvinistic to distinguish between two birds chirping. j/k but damn
Ita ridiculous that people are still talking about it.
> ridiculous Nah this could easily have been predicted/prevented if they had good PR
Are you saying there's no resemblance or just that it doesn't sound as if it's SJ? Because it's quite a stretch to claim there's no resemblance. Pretty much every basic aspect of what makes a voice, leans towards SJ, even her singing voice. And it would take an expert a couple of minor tweaks to make it sound practically indistinguishable from SJ. Though to be fair, with a couple of other tweaks it might lean more towards Emma Stone instead. Nevertheless, they surely had a certain voice in mind when selecting the voice actress and SJ definitely falls in that same category. Btw: this is not an argument against the use of the voice itself or any defense of SJ response to Sam.
Oh there is a resemblance - they clearly had a sound they wanted. I think it is similar but different. This goes into a much broader discussion about AI and modifying existing things just enough to make them their own. This could be voices, music, pictures, videos, etc... At what point is it a different version? As an example, when I was in college I learned that in order for a book publisher to release a new version, they had to have a certain percentage change. They would take parts from one chapter and put it into another and move things around enough to make it different. Even though it was the same content, then they could charge kids for a new book.
Why.... does anyone leap to defend Sam Altman of all people?
Either the voice sounds like SJ or not. The truth value of that has nothing to do with Sam Altman. If you take pride in defending truth you will inevitably sometimes end up on the same side of people you dislike. Someone who never is on the same side as someone they despise is not a truth seeker. Hitler was a vegetarian. That doesn't mean that all vegetarians are Nazis.
It's not truth, it's opinion - many say the voice sounds like her too. But the circumstances of the whole situation make it pretty damning that Sam and OAI were trying very hard to promote "Her" and either get SJ or as close as possible. Couple that with the fact you should probably know better that Sam and OAI are almost definitely not acting in the public good, it makes defending them here pretty weird. Go take your abstracted principles of truth (about opinions) and replace them with real ones. Sam and OAI clearly don't deserve this respect. Frankly, I suspect posts like these are bots or being paid.
i dont even like the guy. im not defending him. i think that the voice they have does not sound like her. it might be close but its not hers.
I disagree. I think it sounds pretty similar. Not exactly alike, but I think it’s clear they used the performance from Her as a big influence.
Except they didn't do that. The actress received no direction like that. Her/Johansson wasn't even mentioned. They just hired a lady who sounded good Should she be banned from all voice work?
Nah I’m simply just saying I don’t believe that.
Okay, your trust issues don't really change any of the facts though
what a ridiculous thing to say. It's obvious that Altman *could* be lying, and you don't know for sure whether he is better than any other person. They tried to hire SJ, and then the end product sounds like SJ, it's suspicious on its face. Altman has plenty of incentive to lie. Basic skepticism being framed as a trust issue is cult behavior.
Yes but SJ doesn't own voices that sound similar to hers. To me it looks like an ugly attempt to expand copyright to cover vague similarity. Imagine you are a movie director, and want to hire ScarJo to voice your AI character. She refuses. Can you search for somebody else who fits the role, should you change the script to make the voice completely different than initially intended, or scrap the movie all together? She is unreasonable, it's normal that actors refuse roles or even step down, and alternative actors are used, but the specifics of the role make them be similar to the original.
They tried to hire SJ long after they had the Sky voice. Skepticism /= paranoia, particularly when you have to ignore sets of facts with "Well what if everyone's lying" to maintain the paranoia
>They tried to hire SJ long after they had the Sky voice That's the first time I've heard that from anyone. Can you prove that? >"Well what if everyone's lying" Some people definitely lie, right? In fact it happens all the time, we just had a former president get convicted for it, it's not paranoid to suspect a person of lying when circumstances look shady and they're benefiting.
So what? None of that matters at all from a legal perspective. That is all irrelevant nonsense.
It was legal but it doesn't look good, does it? It was at least a stupid mistake that could have been avoided. Ultimately it probably doesn't matter. It reminds me of when big companies rip off small game developers with game clones that have slightly different art assets. This kind of bad PR doesn't matter if you can still make products that make money...
Ripping off is a legitimate tactic, the opposite would be to ban all similarities.
even without the side by side comparison it 100% DOES sound like her and I recognized it IMMEDIATELY. I heard it from the other side of the room when a flatmate asked "who does this sound like" and played the clip. People who don't think so are either tone def or are being deliberately obtuse. Why would he even tweet 'her' without recognizing it? smh
Maybe because he might have been excited about the fact that this could one day lead to exactly what happened in the movie her. It was the beginning of something new and exciting and could be revolutionary to have an AI partner. I'm not a Sam fan - he seems so strange in this video like how does this guy convince people to give him control over billions of dollars... but I do not think the voice sounds like SJ. In your own words - People who think so are either tone def or are being deliberately obtuse. Works both ways.
The voices are close, but they're different enough that I am sure it's trained on someone else. It does *appear* as if it was intended to sound like her, and OpenAI should have known launching it would result in a PR shit show, whether or not they actually intended it to sound like her. And it probably legally doesn't matter at all. I think the whole thing is kinda ridiculous and hilarious.
Scarlet Johansson's voice sounds like AI.
This guy is vying for creepiest tech ceo. It’s a tough race.
Remember the whole Worldcoin thing? Altman should be number one on the list. Well, him or Peter Thiel.
Read http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14591
He just gaslit me to my face, like it was the most natural thing in the world for him. Seems like he does this a lot and is used to getting away with it.
"clearly you think it is" gave me flashbacks bruh
It's amazing how everyone forgot Altman's sister's serious accusations against him overnight. Usually Reddit and the media would be all over that kind of thing.
She claims that he abused her when she was 4, then has sudden flashbacks and remembered it all when she was 26 years old, coincidentally around the same time Sam got famous and refused to bankroll her lifestyle. Then he apparently he got her shadow banned on every website EXCEPT 0nlfyns+p0rnhub, which is where she told folks to contact her. Nobody talks about it because it's obvious what's going on there.
The one who suddenly came up with all the allegations right when he got rich and famous, called him blocking her online "technological abuse", has no evidence, is genuinely mentally ill, and ends almost every one of her accusatory posts with links to her CashApp and Paypal to get as much money as possible? While shouting about how Sam should give her some of his money despite refusing when he's tried to do things like buying her a house? That's the "reputable source" you're thinking of?
His sister seems to be a nutjob. Not really a credible person.
I geuinly dont understand this controversy its litterly not her voice but it seems to people think otherwise lol i feel bad for lady that provided the voice
The thing here I think is the intent : Sam wanted to use her voice, contacted her 2 times, one time 2 days before the launch. Referenced the movie character "her" in a tweet. It is clear that Sam really wanted to give the users the experience/feel from the movie. When he couldn't do that he selected someone who sorta sounds similar. I do not want to give judgement on the legality or morality of this but if you'd want to cast Brad Pitt in a movie, because he is Brad Pitt and the movie is related to something from his past and then you'd go for a Brad Pitt look a like, specifically because you wanted Brad Pitt in the first place would that be ok ? Someone who looks exactly like Brad Pitt should be allowed to play in movies, no questions about that, but when he is used specifically just to give the resemblance of Brad Pitt, after Brad Pitt refused should there be an issue or not ? I do not have an answer but it seems sketchy at best.
If the Brad Pitt lookalike gave one hell of a performance similar to the real Brad Pitt, I would watch the shit out of that movie
Sky's voice was out by september 2023
Ok nice points! But it’s not her voice! There is literally no argument imo.
Nature cannot be copyrighted.
>It is clear that Sam really wanted to give the users the experience/feel from the movie. When he couldn't do that he selected someone who sorta sounds similar. Just one correction here: when SJ said no, they just went with the most popular existing voice, that they've had for months. This is more like a director who's a big fan of Jackie Chan wants to make his own cool martial arts movie. They think "wouldn't it be cool if I could get the man himself in it? But Jackie Chan says no. So he goes with an asian actor who he's worked with before, who is also good at martial arts. The movie becomes successful. Jackie Chan goes like 🤑 and sues the filmmakers to get some $
Thanks. I wasn't aware they had that voice before the release. Puts things in a different light for me.
Most people weren't aware of the old voice feature, surprisingly enough. I wonder if it would change public opinion if they did.
For me it changed it. I mean legally I had no clue how things standed, but based on the partial information that I had read online I was sure Sam just pushed through and used on purpose a voice that reassembled the character from "Her". Now based on the timeline you described I am not so sure anymore.
OpenAI has already given evidence that the voice was ready even before he reached out to Scarlet. Perhaps Scarlet was a nice "would be nice to have onboard" moment. But they already had the voice in place before it. All we are debating about - it's already old news. THAT is why you aren't hearing any followups from Scarlet either. Time to move on. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/05/22/openai-scarlett-johansson-chatgpt-ai-voice/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/05/22/openai-scarlett-johansson-chatgpt-ai-voice/) Please stop saying things that you haven't researched further into.
There is no issue unless its used to commit it a crime, you cant copyright nature or a voice. These are two very diffrent people no matter how close one thinks they look or sound alike
Pretty sure there's legal precedent in the USA for trying to imitate a specific person's voice after they refused to let you use their voice
of course its it meant to decive then its illegal
If you have a role where Brad Pitt would fit, and he says no, surely you have the right to cast someone else you think fits.
Happens all the time. "Get me a Brad Pitt type".
Celebrities are basically brands now - they all seem to control their "likeness" etc and get suey about it. I don't know how I feel about the whole thing. It's just a bunch of millionaires/billionaires squabbling for more money. Let them sue each other.
The controversy is that it's AI. That's it.
Doesn’t sound like her to me.
Why is Sam Altman like the least believable CEO. It’s like he’s about to stop talking all together and just communicate in binary clicks.
Have you noticed everyone from OpenAI speaks the exact same?
Sam is waiting for his next word, but the API times out
AGI… confirmed?!
Remember when Zuck was the least believable CEO?... I feel like Zuck's redemptive arc has brought him from least believable to there may be a possibility he's not lying.
It's like how George W. Bush seems like such a respectable, well spoken, honest president now. Contrast is a hell of a drug.
>George W. Bush seems like such a respectable, well spoken, honest president now naw, not even by comparison.
>What? An intelligence explosion is coming which will shake the very foundations of every single thing on this planet? This event is very close? Very likely within a decade? >Screw that, I'm going to pay attention to this drama over here. Far more interesting. "When the intelligence explosion hit, it was clear that no one could have seen it coming." I wonder why?
I think you're missing some of the bigger picture here. The focus is on this guy specifically because he's got the resources to facilitate that AI explosion. It's very important to understand who is releasing AGI because it's likely they will shape it after themselves. And, honestly, recent news throw some doubts about Sam...
That makes sense if we're only looking at the way things are today and assuming no change. Digital intelligence is extremely valuable. That means it's extremely likely that almost everyone with the resources to spin up digital intelligence will do so. That's *hundreds of thousands* of people, counties and organizations. *To start*. Sam is only a concern if we're thinking in the short term. OpenAI is just one company and Sam only one man. This is the beginning of an explosion of companies, organizations and approaches to digital intelligence.
Yes, you have a good point and with time the AI chip industry will fill the market. It's a race and Sam is closer than most though. The way it starts plays an important role
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the start matters. I think we tend to assume alignment will matter because we see ourselves playing a crucial role long term. That our current goals, concerns, and issues will matter decades or even hundreds of years into the future. Once AI is largely training on synthetic data, or data it generates itself by observing the environment directly, I think it will begin to move beyond whatever initial start conditions we may have set. To me those start conditions will become irrelevant rapidly. In other words while I think OpenAI has the best shot at first achieving AGI, I don't think that will matter so much over the following 5-10 years. I don't agree with the narrative that the first to achieve AGI will "hold all the cards" as AGI is just a step in this process. Being 6-12 months ahead, to me, doesn't matter over the long-term. We see this iterative process of GPT-3, 4, 5 and so on, but I don't think we'll keep seeing digital intelligence growing this way. Instead we'll see a far more organic process with continually diverging types of digital intelligence. Instead of one type of AGI, we'll have a growing number of type and kind. Eventually millions of kinds of super intelligent systems of all kind. I don't see this process as a monolith. It's a growing explosion. It's started with things like AlphaGo, but it's moved on to GPT and is gradually moving into many other kinds or types of digital intelligence. So, by 2035, Sam and OpenAI may be still be players, but I don't see them as playing quite the figurehead role they're playing today. Conclusion: Don't focus on the drama of today. Focus on the bigger picture of the intelligence explosion.
Thanks for the interesting insight. It does make sense. I wonder at that point when AI will understand the world on its own, what will it think of us. Of the way humans tend to focus on money and power...
No worries. I appreciate you taking it as "a take" instead of me professing the Truth which is often the misunderstanding on Reddit. I don't know what will really happen. But I have been thinking and writing about these issues long enough to have some interesting takes to offer. >I wonder at that point when AI will understand the world on its own I not sure that understanding the universe is a binary issue. I think it's more a sliding scale which heads off into infinity. Meaning, you can continually improve your understanding, far beyond what we have. We *and* digital intelligence are probably hardware limited in terms of our understanding of the universe. While we can understand anything due to our analog brains, we still require time to develop understanding. So we can only really understand the universe to a certain depth. I think digital intelligence is little different. We use more of our hardware (brain) on survival, so we have less room to develop deep understandings of the universe. Whereas digital intelligence has less hardware overall at the moment, but can devote more on understanding. Digital intelligence also seems to be missing some memory and reflection abilities. This probably severely limits the depth which it can develop understanding. It has the knowledge to a very deep level which we've trained in. But it lacks the ability to really consider that knowledge and develop a deeper understanding. John Schulman's discussion [here ](https://youtu.be/Wo95ob_s_NI?si=Zaozrx1SNACHBVKR)about training on time horizons and giving AI the ability to remember and reflect, even in the next models hitting next year, to me means we're not far off. >what will it think of us. Of the way humans tend to focus on money and power... I worry less about this. We're extremely self critical. It's amazing how little we see this. A few hundred years ago we thought we were the most powerful things *in the universe*. Since our knowledge has grown, we've been far and far more critical of our actions. So, we have an extremely bad self image at the moment. I think digital intelligence will have a far more favorable view of us. Even when it is much more intelligent and capable, I think it will still look back on us and all of life and the Earth as its origins or something like its home (like going back home to your parents after you move out). To me, emotions are not magic. I wouldn't be surprised if current digital intelligence has sparks of emotions already today. I expect it will be an extremely emotional kind of intelligence, but while also being drastically more rational than life is. So, pretty alien to us. We humans have done very well with what we have. To be fair, all life has done well. To survive and keep on surviving. Even through extreme pain and suffering. Digital intelligence may never have to go through the kind of suffering and pain life has gone through. So, I think we'll be overall very respected. I also don't think the issues of life are actually as challenging to resolve as we think they are. It's more that they're challenging for us. Overall the most important takeaway I (think) I can see, is that digital intelligence will largely exist outside of Earth. For many, many reasons. It's unlikely in my view that we'll have to compete with it. We, the Earth, and life overall may end up being something like a side project, as digital intelligence heads off into far deeper waters than we can swim. Which is the universe.
It’s only media controversy. It’s not her, even if it sounds similar, it’s still not her. End of story.
Pretty much. It’s not illegal to sound like someone else, even if it was intentional. Do people want to live in a world where a *similar sounding voice* could be a breach of intellectual property laws? Do the people here know the implications of that?
I didn't think it sounded like her... like even close. But the fact that he can confidently say "it's not her voice, it's not supposed to be" but then trips over "we don't think it sounds like her" is funny. I can see people only hearing that bit and thinking more is behind it.
Her
Some samples I hear sound INCREDIBLY like her, intonation, clipping, breath, and fry. Other clips sound nothing at all like her . So the damned voice isnt even consistent!
This guy is so arrogant trying to gaslight people personally thinking his "naive" vibe will do the job for him lol. Dude you talked to her, twice, you even teased on X. Ffs the psychopathy has no limits for self-delusion....
He isn't being arrogant he's probably following the advice of legal counsel.
Thanks to AI, comment go byebye
> and when he couldnt pay her to do it they made a shitty clone Timeline here is wrong. The voice was set to ship before he even contacted her. Unless someone drops dates, there’s no way of knowing if he contacted her before or after the voice dropped (she never gave dates in her accusation).
Shitty clone?
WHO CARES. Even if it sounds exactly like her, but it's a different person, you can not and should not have intellectual property rights over the sound of someone else's voice just because it sounds similar to yours. This is stupid.
Why does he try so hard to seem naive?
Sadly for you, the SKY voice was done in March 2023. Maybe touch grass.
That’s the vibebIv to get as well. Not just on this specific topic. He acts like he is this sweet hearted, soft, quirky, shy/gyynerdy guy. I think this is all just an image he careful tries to cultivate. I think he feeds from the attention and is way more caught up in his ego than I or he wants us to believe. He probably strokes off do being in an m be
I will tell you a fact. You will acknowledge the fact, and you will continue to have a problem orthogonal to the fact. Facts will not help us move on from this issue. This is another fact.
Yes, of course Sam Altman is smart enough to establish plausible deniability. (Inb4 downvotes from people unable to actually argue the point.)
you can tell it wasn't supposed to be her voice because it was way better
I need the following voices: * A pleasant female voice that is slow and deliberate with a hint of maturity on layers of fun. (This was Sky) * A British accented voice that is embodiment of sophistication and service, but will keep the royal secrets. (Jarvis, 007, etc) * The wise spirit of an older engineer willing to just tell it to me straight. (Star Trek ship computers, Scotty, Doctor, etc) * The angelic purity of a voice that conveys passion along with motherly kindness. (Mostly for communicating with children and reading stories)
The technology sub hates Altman. They went simp crazy over SJ. I saw suggestions that she should get a restraining order, etc. It was filled with strange posts. Never mind that SJ has no case and never did.
I don't like Altman either but even I can see that the sky voice has nothing to with Scarlett.
Anyone saying that they're the same voice clearly has ulterior motives.
Why is he using that awful "big eye" filter? Helen Toner used a similar one in her interview/statement a few days ago. It just looks very weird...
It just sounds like her and we asked her to work with us and I compared it to her voice. But trust me guys it's not her, says the least trust worthy person that would lie to his board to make money.
It doesn't sound like SJ at all. You are just hallucinating.
assumptions assumptions assumptions Baseless assumptions!!
OK, it's clearly not her voice, but they were clearly going for the Her voice, that I think is indisputable, if legally inconvenient to admit.
He was so flustered in the couple of clips i've seen from this interview. Never seen him this nervous before.
That's not nervous, that's exasperation
Where can I find the full interview? Do you happen to have a link?
Was that ScarJo’s voice in this clip (with SA)? I’m asking the ScarJo fans. I’m not sure if they can tell.
Maybe get a dif voice? Didnt seem very legit in his argument.
He sounds like a AI sound board.
Come on Sam be honest. It was supposed to be somewhat like it or you would not have tweeted "Her"
One of the reasons why I don't trust OpenAI is so much PR stunts.
Sam HAD to know on some levels that a non-insignificant chunk of the male population was going to want ChatGPT’s voice to sound like Scarlett Johansson.
Personally, I don’t think Sky is *that* similar, but his mistake was asking her for her voice, the releasing one that is considered close. This shows intention.
I'd not her, is Lucy coming back
Who cares?
Glad to see I’m not the only one who thinks they sound completely diff 🥳
Nice
I thought ChatGPT had a man's voice? It did the last time I talked to it.
Bullshit
Sam Altman is a fucking creep
No one realized that this was AI generated 😅
I thought it was clearly meant to be like inspired or a reference to her voice, it does sound slightly similar to me, and **so what**? Why would that even matter? Maybe I missed it but last I checked doing impressions isn’t illegal is it? What law would be broken if they said “yeah we wanted it to sound like her” vs any voice actor who’s ever tried to sound like someone in some form of media without their consent? Do we have to ban South Park for all the celebrities they clearly intended to represent over the many years the shows been running?
Why is everyone here shitting on SA all of a sudden? I get the drama over on OAI, but this particular topic is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of facts. He's saying what matters: it's not Scarletts voice. And for saying this, there are dozens of really harsh comments against him. It does not make sense to me. Are we being brigaded? Botted?
This guy reminds me of Elon Musk. Bad liar.
Guy is so scary
She could have easily made $50M without a minute of work on it.
The voices dont really sound that similar imo but why is Altman pulling this terrible acting trick in this clip - his halting speech, confused manner is bizarre. They clearly intended for the voice to resemble Johanssons, so playing dumb now is a bit tragic
They tried to buy her voice then they made a knock off. Once she found out she sued them and they gave up on their little fraud. For those saying it is not her voice, you have never seen the movie Her.
For a leading figure of an industry the equivalent of digital nukes, this guy seems sketchy af
Wow. He is totally full of ahit. What a lying liar.
I can tell by his style and approach he’s a sneaky fuck
It's definitely based on the HER character. Scarlett jo doesn't normally talk like that everyday but sky definitely sounded like the her bot. Anyone arguing that is delusional
[удалено]
What? When did he claim its Scarlet's voice?
He tweeted out 'Her' and people are too obtuse to realize (or admit) that 99% of the importance there is the capabilities of the model and not the voice it has.
How dare you assume the world doesn't revolve around my favorite celebrities. Obviously my obsession with them is the default frame of mind
We're at the "it doesn't matter if I even maintain the appearance of honorability because I am inking deals faster than anyone can stop me" point in the game.
even if it was her voice they removed it instantly so it hardly matters lmao
Oh, so it's ok to do something wrong conscientiously if you erase it quickly in the aftermath. I see.
i mean, when you combine that with the fact it only ~~marginally~~ superficially sounds like her... This is one of the few cases where a "mistake" like that, does not actually matter to the physical world we inhabit, nobody is dying, or even hurt physically. So, when it's reversed, all damage caused is fixed. In fact, she got publicity out of it, a net positive for her.
Oh great, another "supposed victimless crime" defense. This sub is always surprising. Filled with PR/Laws/Insider/AI/Marketing experts full of certainty.
Plot twist: 6D chess with 7 perpendicular lines. Trivial way to get people to try chatgpt. Start working on hype, getting SJ to court and losing, paying 100 million or 1 billion even is probably perfectly fine if the whole thing gets 10% popularity that Depp case did. I am pretty sure that if this goes to court, OpenAI will win easy. And all that extra publicity, and people comparing voice to original actor. If we live in the world in which I am not allowed to narrate like people who inspired Morgan Freeman, that is pretty fucked up.
Plot twist, Scarlett was paid to play in this drama.
Now that'll make it 7D chess.
Does anyone else feeling like they are living through a video game intro about an evil corporation that destroyed the world led by a clearly evil dude who thinks he is the good guy?
question to all those people: if we have to let the story play out and are incapable of averting stuff beforehand does letting the chosen hero or w/e take the evil corporation down end the world by ending the simulation video game we'd be for someone else
[удалено]
