Voice analysis shows striking similarity between Scarlett Johansson and ChatGPT
Voice analysis shows striking similarity between Scarlett Johansson and ChatGPT
You're viewing a single thread.
Similar voices, clearly different actresses. Imagine refusing a job then feeling entitled to some sort of compensation...
Honestly sounds nothing like Scarlett Johansson to me. OpenAI is shit for many reasons but this seems just another "AI" hysteria wave being pushed.
It sounds somewhat like her character from the movie Her to me, but based on the standards set by the entertainment industry it seems reasonable for her to lose the lawsuit. If you can't hire an actor for a role, you can get a voice actor to do a similar voice. This is done often in animation.
Crispin Glover's lawsuit against Back to the Future 2 could have set a precedent for image likeness, but he ended up settling, so it seems the industry is just avoiding this problem instead.
That's where the sample in the video is from, no?
Yes, I differentiate because I think Scarlett sounds less like her character from that movie in real life.
I was specifically responding to that side by side comparison though.
I wouldn't say nothing like her, it's uncomfortably close especially after being told no. But after the initial uproar, I was shocked how dissimilar it was when I actually heard it.
Maybe you people all have shitty headphones or ears but they sound nothing alike. This is the first time I heard them, and I really thought by all the drama that they were at least comparable. People need to clean their ears.
I grew up playing classical piano and saxophone. Moved into jazz saxophone and then jazz bass, and eventually played with a (terrible) rock band for a couple of years on bass. Technically (although I torture the term here a bit) I was a professional musician.
Not knowing anything else about you, it's probably a safe bet to put my ear up against yours any day. And while I agree they are clearly different people, if you think they sound nothing alike the bet sounds even safer.
It's funny that you think your stage damaged ears would be somehow "experienced" or whatever type of point you're trying to make here. You blasted your ear drums and now have bad hearing. Either way, you fail to make out the distinctions between the voices clear enough to separate them, I don't, because I have still excellent hearing unfortunately. Claiming you have better ears because you cannot hear the difference is nonsensical.
It’s funny that you think your stage damaged ears would be somehow “experienced” or whatever type of point you’re trying to make here.
I've spent my whole life training my ear by listening to and performing music with other people. . .and you can't see the value of that when it comes to listening to stuff? Impressively ignorant.
In my first post (which you responded to) "I was shocked how dissimilar it was"
in my second post (which you responded to) "I agree they are clearly different people"
You in this post "you fail to make out the distinctions between the voices ... you cannot hear the difference"
Man, you're reading comprehension is even worse than your ear. lol
You also said they're "uncomfortably close". But nice cherry picking. Maybe just form less contradictionary opinions and understand what I was replying to, you know, reading comprehension as you said. And yes, if you're a stage musician and handling loud as fuck instruments then your ears will be damaged by that. This isn't even a controversial take but simply the reality of those things and you as an alleged musician should know this.
You also said they’re “uncomfortably close”
So, "uncomfortably close" now means I "fail to make out the distinctions"? This doesn't even make sense on it's own, but even less so when taken in context.
But nice cherry picking.
You picked only one phrase out of one of my comments, despite two others making it very clear I can tell the difference. And you have the nerve to then claim I'm cherry picking when I pointed to the parts of my statements that prove your accusation wrong? Holy shit, it never ceases to amaze me how blatantly dishonest people will be when they are wrong. lol
It's okay to be wrong. We all fuck up. The important thing is to just admit it and move on, rather than try to pretend you weren't wrong by projecting and lying.
Ah, yes - I'm the one projecting. Are you trying to fill out some sort of bullshit bingo with your incoherent bullshit? But, yes. I responded to the part that disagreed with my original comment. Go figure. Why the fuck are you even responding to me at this point? If you don't have anything to actually say then yes, I indeed rather move on instead of talking to some NPC who has nothing better to do than hold idiotic internet arguments. Farewell.
Why the fuck are you even responding to me at this point?
Because I'm wondering how far you'll go before you'll admit that you were just wrong and made a mistake. Apparently, you're ego is so fragile that you'll leave before doing that, and blame me on the way out.
Funny. You are displaying all the traits you claim to hate about me.
If the company uses a reference to you to make money, I’d definitely feel entitled to compensation.
By reference do you mean somewhat similar sounding voice? This is status quo for voice acting. Do you think if someone tries to hire James Earl Jones for a voice part and he says no they throw their arms up, say fuck it and hire Megan Mullally? When hiring a voice actor you have a certain sound in mind you are going for and you take the closest thing your budget allows.
I do get off on how heated this whole debate has gotten with everyone picking the side of completely unrelatable rich people. I'm waiting for a good AI generated porno with altman and johansen reaching forgiveness in the form of a passionate 69.
No, I mean referring to the movie Her which features the voice of Johansen as an AI assistant
The producers of Her do not own the concept, nor does Scarlet. Nothing is referring to the movie other than it's a personal assistant with a bubbly womans voice which is much too broad and general to infringe on anything. Its not even close to being a unique concept either.
Except maybe tweeting the name of the movie: https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666
Doubt she has any rights to that movie though. That's not usually how things work. Again, let's bring in my good friend JEJ. When people mimic Darth Vader, he doesn't personally get a cut or have entitlement to any rights for mimicking that voice.
It's not even a reference to Scarlett, it's at best a reference to a movie that she has no rights over.
She was offered a job, refused it, and they went with a different actress. She doesn't own her "likeness". They owe nothing to her or her ego.
But it doesn’t reference the whole movie, does it. It’s meant to invoke a memory of a specific character in the movie, since that’s the business Altman is in.
And we don’t know what kind of deal Johansen struck for that movie. Maybe she does own her likeness in it. We’ll see, I guess.
This Hollywood idea that famous people are owed perpetual passive income for work they did decades ago needs to die in a fire.
It's not the script writer or the producer that's complaining though. I think it's more reasonable for them to want compensation.
Producer, maybe. But what part of the script did they use for marketing of an unrelated product?
Not anything literally from the script, but I assume that's where the concept of a voice controlled AI assistant came from - whoever holds the rights to that in relation to the title "Her". So if it's based on a novel or story, clearly the writer of that.
It really isn't where it came from, they are just the current most popular example of it. We literally had Alexa before the movie came out, as well as An de Armas in the second blade runner and Cortana in the halo video game series as notable examples. AI assistants have always been ubiquitous with sci Fi movies, in most cases they control the ship and aren't personal though.
I'm aware of that, but we seem to get get distracted from the main point. In the case of OpenAI versus "Her" (i.e. Them launching a similar product, and referencing the film), I think it's the owners of the Her IP that should have a right to complain. Not an actress that was in it, and whose voice is similar to it. According to the article, there were 2 well-known actresses whose vice matched even better. Should they take action as well?
All of this is under the assumption that they didn't actual train on her voice - which does seem likely.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.