Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
5/24/2024, 12:02:02 PM
X
In reply to:
Joseph Carlson
@joecarlsonshow
·
629d
@GaryMarcus I was literally proven right a day later.
Joseph Carlson
@joecarlsonshow
·
630d
I was right.

-The voice actor for Sky was hired months in advanced to reaching out to Scarlett Johansson

-The team that hired them were not given instructions to find people that sounded like Scarlett Johansson or the movie Her

- There were no mentions of Scarlette Johansson…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
630d
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
·
631d
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 engages in a public discourse about the legal and ethical implications of using voice actors and the rights of individuals over their likeness and voice. The tone is somewhat confrontational and dismissive, which can detract from constructive dialogue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm, but the dismissive tone could escalate tensions. [-1]
  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, as it dismisses their legal concerns without substantive engagement. [-1]
  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 focuses on dismissing the other party's argument rather than engaging with it constructively. [-1]
  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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it dismisses the other party's legal concerns without addressing them substantively. [-1]