This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Sam Altman just loves to be a sociopath and then brag about it. His latest?
https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666
"Her".
In case you've been living under a rock, this is in reference to the 2013 movie in which Scarlett Johansson plays the voice of an AI girlfriend. And it's also a reference to Open AI's new product, Chat GPT 4o, whose voice sounds just like... you guessed it, Scarlett Johansson.
This is no mistake. Open AI actually approached Ms. Johansson and asked her permission to use her voice. When she said no, they said fuck it and did it anyway.
https://x.com/BobbyAllyn/status/1792679435701014908
If Elon Musk is chaotic neutral, Sam Altman is increasingly proving himself to be lawful evil. It's not a good look.
No, they used another (consenting) actress's voice who happens to sound a lot like Scarlett Johansson.
Scarlett Johansson doesn't have an IP right to "female voices that sound vaguely like Scarlett Johansson." As long as they can produce the receipts to show that this is actually what happened, she'd have no case.
That Altman referenced "Her" does not really bear on this. You can like or dislike the world portrayed in Her. Personally I found it a pretty uplifting vision of what a near-singularity future could look like, at least up to a few minutes before the ending. And you can like or dislike the voice that they demoed. Personally I can't stand it, and the sultry, flirty, overtly sexy affect really doesn't appeal to me. (But I'm a homo, so presumably I'm not the target audience, and maybe I'd be a big fan of some Josh Hartnett soundalike with an analogously please-fuck-me inflection, I dunno.) But neither has anything to do with whether Scarlett Johansson has somehow been wronged. She hasn't.
In any event, my distaste for the voice apparently was widely enough shared that they nixed it. But that just reflects a decent product sensibility and indicates nothing about this incredibly stupid attempt at a gotcha by you or all of the anti-progress Redditors who are joining you in hate-jerking over this as we speak.
We have correctly and broadly recognized that you can impersonate someone by using someone else's voice. This is the Siri equivalent of hiring a 55 year old teacher who just happens to be named Taylor Swift to endorse your brand of makeup
Here's when a snack company did the same thing to Tom Waits:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/waits.html
They hired some other female voice actor. They did not instruct her to imitate Scarlett Johansson and they did not mention the movie Her to her. I suppose you would have a point if you could find some internal documents that said something like "we've done auditions with 100 female voice actors and we suggest proceeding with Candidate #73 because she sounds the closest to Scarlett Johansson's voice," but absent that, there's no case. There's just a rush to judgment and condemnation from various nobodies on the internet who have axes to grind with OpenAI for various stupid reasons -- or who are technology "journalists" farming engagement from aforementioned nobodies.
How can we be certain that they didn't give those instructions? If you're resolute in that claim then I'd like to see some evidence or a strong intuition. All we know is that they tried to hire Mrs. Johansson, were unable to, made public references to the film 'Her' with respect to the AI voice, and then hired someone who subjectively the majority of people conflate the voice of with Mrs. Johansson.
If this was a more mundane dispute, say about a restaurant acquiring a hamburger recipe, all of these facts would probably lead us to believe there was an effort to get the goods without due permission. Adding in the prior of this particular company playing very loose with intellectual property rights and ownership pushes it to very likely that they did what everyone here is suspecting them of, and certainly if it was entirely innocuous, they did themselves no favours showing the contrary of our suspicions and made no effort to show anything dispositive in that respect.
How can we be certain that Russell's Teapot doesn't exist?
I guess my objection is that this whole dispute feels like it's in bad faith. A lot of people just hate OpenAI for various reasons (predominantly ideological safetyism and rank envy at how much they've succeeded), are channeling that regrettable ennui into becoming sudden converts to the vital public interest of protecting an obscure IP right in "likeness" on behalf of Hollywood celebrities, and are making whatever assumptions about the facts they need to make to paint OpenAI generally and Sam Altman specifically as a villain on that dubious stage. I just don't buy the notion that the vitality of your objection is genuinely rooted at this object level. It just looks like you're trying to throw stones, and you think that celebrity IP likeness rights are a good stone. But both your motivation to throw stones (rather than make the argument that is at the genuine root of your distaste for OpenAI) and your apparent willingness to pick up a turd and call it a stone are just... unbecoming, I guess.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link