• chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Regardless of the ethics here and what it says about the character of this CEO, the choice to make an AI voice resemble the character from that movie seems tacky and creatively bankrupt to me. ChatGPT is very much not that character, do something original ffs.

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      That makes it all the worse, though. Their usual horseshit, that they’re doing all this immoral stuff to build a better future, that was always disconnected from reality, but at least it was still possible to conceive of a person so privileged, that they might genuinely not realize their failings.

      But with this, they knew that it was not ok, did it anyways, and there’s just absolutely no possible explanation other than that Sam Altman is a fucking child or on a power trip.

  • heavy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    What, people can’t ID a tech billionaire psychopath anymore? It’s not like they’re from different stock.

    • Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      These tech billionaires are actually idolized from where I am from. You ever see those sigma edits from the usernames “hustletop” “Growknowledge” “Lion entrepreneur” lol. I remember so many edits of sam altman after the whole acquisition from Microsoft and rehiring him. I was actually disgusted. L

  • gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    This the same guy who (allegedly) has apparently been having unethical CNC kink parties💀? Like no judgment, I’m actually kind of into CNC, but you have to Actually get enthusiastic informed consent first (and during) and use safewords. You can’t just foist it on people who happen to show up to a party, that’s literally (allegedly) just sexual assault. Seems like he might just be (allegedly) completely indifferent to the concept of consent.

    Edit: here’s the source https://www.salon.com/2024/05/21/coercive-climate-of-silicon-valleys-ai-boom-fuels-troubling-parties-researcher-says/

    Apparently the person didn’t specify any specific OpenAI executives by name, so it’s uncertain whether Altman knew about the parties. Still reflects poorly on him if this is the culture at OpenAI tho imo.

  • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    4 months ago

    You don’t own the rights to the voice of every actor who arguably sounds kinda like you. OpenAI had an idea of a type of voice they wanted, when Scarlett said no they hired a voice actor. I mean, what? There are many valid criticisms of Sam and OpenAI don’t get me wrong but this is one I just can’t get on board with.

    I feel like I’m missing something though because so many people are commenting on this as though Scarlett had her own voice used without her consent or something.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    “He told me that he felt that by my voicing the system, I could bridge the gap between tech companies and creatives and help consumers to feel comfortable with the seismic shift concerning humans and AI,” Johannson wrote of the interaction this week.

    Johansson is inextricably linked to the contemporary conception of AI by her iconic performance in Spike Jonze’s acclaimed 2013 film “Her,” in which she voiced a chatbot that became romantically entangled with a human character played by Joaquin Phoenix.

    But “nine months later,” she continued, “I was shocked, angered and in disbelief that Mr. Altman would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not tell the difference” in a new version of ChatGPT that can carry out a spoken conversation with users.

    Its spokespeople — there are none so prominent as the increasingly ubiquitous Altman, who’s produced an endless stream of headlines with his simpering forecasts about how AI will soon make the world better for everybody — refuse to apologize for training their models on data indiscriminately scraped from authors, artists, and anything else they could scavenge online.

    Sometimes the Altmans of the world tepidly offer that individual creators will be able to opt out of the racket, which is of pale comfort to writers getting replaced by ChatGPT or artists losing work to OpenAI’s DALL-E.

    But trampling on Johansson’s wishes around her own likeness show how the industry really operating: by moving fast, seizing anything it needs to gain market share, and using rhetoric about potential utopias and doomsdays to try to wrangle permission after the fact.


    The original article contains 814 words, the summary contains 273 words. Saved 66%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!