Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
5/23/2024, 12:52:56 PM
X
In reply to:
Xaberius ▶️
@Xaberius9
·
626d
@matterasmachine @GaryMarcus Not obviously so? The voice is from a different person, they sound different, and the mannerisms are supposedly based on the character, not modeled after her personal way of talking (if they are then it will be obviously a violation).
Matter as Machine
@matterasmachine
·
626d
@Xaberius9 @GaryMarcus Everybody will hate that voice as humans hate repeating patterns. Of course it's violating her identity.
Xaberius ▶️
@Xaberius9
·
626d
@GaryMarcus Are they imitating just the character or her personal speech mannerisms and voice?

If its just the former, I don't see what the grounds for her to sue are. She might find it in bad taste because she voiced the character, but she cant say that it's violating her personal identity
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
626d
Startlingly bad take, both legally and ethically.

This guy with a couple million views has literally no idea what the law is and completely ignored the issues of consent (she said no) and intent.

The consent and intent issues are so obvious I won’t say more, but the legal…
Joseph Carlson
@joecarlsonshow
·
627d
I’m sorry. I’m 100% with OpenAI on this one.

Scarlett Johansson owns her own voice. But she has zero claim on voices that sound “similar”. She turned down the role. She doesn’t get to police them going to a second choice that sounds similar.

Imagine being the woman that voice…

The statement by @Xaberius9 addresses a legal and ethical debate regarding the use of a voice similar to Scarlett Johansson's by OpenAI, which constitutes public discourse as it engages with issues of intellectual property, consent, and legal rights.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but it does take a firm stance on a contentious issue, which could be seen as dismissive of the opposing viewpoint.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, and it respects the privacy and dignity of others by focusing on the legal aspects rather than personal attacks. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it is more focused on the legal interpretation rather than the ethical implications.
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism by discussing the legal reasoning behind OpenAI's actions, but it could be seen as dismissive of the opposing viewpoint, which might be perceived as a minor personal attack. [-1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform to discuss a public issue responsibly, though it could be more balanced in its approach. [+1]