Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
5/24/2024, 12:18:37 PM
X
In reply to:
Joseph Carlson
@joecarlsonshow
·
629d
@GaryMarcus If I was wrong, I’d say I’m wrong. I got this one right. So I’ll say I’m right. Simple as that. And more than you’re willing to do.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
629d
@joecarlsonshow You are better in facts (which I never disputed) than the law, which you have ignored when others raised. But glad you are proud of your self.
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 debate about legal and ethical issues surrounding the use of voice actors and intellectual property rights. The tone is confrontational and defensive, aiming to correct perceived misinformation and assert the speaker's understanding of the law.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to correct misinformation, which can be seen as an attempt to do no harm with words and actions. However, the confrontational tone may not fully align with this principle.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by focusing on the legal argument rather than personal attacks. However, the confrontational tone could be seen as bordering on disrespect.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding by referencing a specific legal precedent (Midler vs Ford), which can help clarify the legal issues at hand. However, the tone may hinder empathy and compassion.
  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 addressing the legal argument directly. However, the confrontational tone may detract from constructive dialogue.
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement acknowledges past mistakes, which aligns with the principle of acknowledging and correcting mistakes.