How do you know that? The timeline of events makes it seem fairly clear that they were in fact using her voice. If it was just a soundalike, why suddenly take it down?
Because the most obvious thing for OpenAI do would be training the voice on Scarlett Johansson's available body of work, from movies, audiobooks, podcasts etc. Why bother hiring a voice actor?
Indeed. I was looking for a sample this morning and it’s just nonsense. Sounds like a polite American voice actor female. Johansson has many mannerisms and a different accent. Sounds nothing like her.
Image rights are complex and separate from stealing.
If they deliberately used an actress that looks like her in an advert. A bit of makeup, a latex mask, digital touch up, full deep fake; at some point most people can no longer tell the difference.
That's weird, because I didn't know it's impossible for 2 humans from the same country to sound anything alike. (or, what makes a fundamental characteristic of a person? Does it change over time? Can they change it deliberately or is this something that can't change? This whole debate is somewhat pointless without definitions)
You're gaslighting. Sam's "her" tweet was a deliberate reference to Scarlett Johansson's likeness, in marketing the release of this feature. OpenAI approached Johansson directly to obtain permission to use her likeness. Your attempt to make me question the nature of reality itself is pathetic in light of the actions taken by Sam Altman.
Gaslighting is not my intent. I don't believe people should be able to control singular words or letters, I don't believe that any one human is so unique or distinct that one single trait can define them, and I don't believe that humans are all that unique even in the aggregate. If we want to discuss what it means to "use someone's voice", then by all means, let's define our terms and have a productive conversation. They got rebuffed, so they used someone else. If they didn't and still used a voice clone of her utterances, then she has legal recourse. Probably the reason they tried again was to head this situation off at the pass, thus saving the world all the bullshit that has spawned, including this thread. I'm sorry your understanding of the nature of reality itself is so shallow that Sam Altman can nudge it(I recommend staying far away from drugs!). But then again, this whole discussion is about people who I will never meet nor care to meet at all(including you, dear reader!), so from my perspective I may as well be talking about imaginary beings.
What does legal precedent have to do in an era of corrupt courts? Or, what if precedent was decided incorrectly initially? There are all kinds of ways whereby legal opinions shift over time. This isn't even analogous to the Bette case, where the song could be claimed to be "anchoring" one's perspective to the famous singer. So, I guess we'll see in the coming days. I'll have popcorn and this thread on speed dial.
If this goes to court (it almost certainly won't, OpenAI has enough money to 100x Johansson's net worth without blinking, unless she's principled enough to establish legal precedent) then we'd see on the order of years, not days.
