Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
5/23/2024, 5:29:04 PM
X
In reply to:
Richard Gaskin
@FourthWorldSys
·
628d
@GaryMarcus Gary, seriously: Altman claims he used a different actor, and neither he nor Johansson have shared concrete evidence for their claims.

Until either side comes up with substantiating evidence, this is an open question best set aside until determination becomes possible.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
628d
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
·
629d
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 'muting you for absolute obtuseness' constitutes public discourse as it engages in a public debate about a societal issue involving ethics, consent, and legalities in the context of AI and voice imitation. The tone is dismissive and confrontational, and the intent appears to be to silence or discredit the other party rather than engage in constructive dialogue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does harm by dismissing the other party's viewpoint without constructive engagement, violating the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. [-2]
  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 respect the dignity of the other party and can be seen as a form of harassment, violating the principle of respecting the privacy and dignity of others. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it is dismissive and does not engage with the content of the argument. [-2]
  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 fails to engage in constructive criticism and dialogue, opting instead for a personal attack, violating the principle of avoiding personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [-2]