update that hasn't been in this video : 1. they took down the voice out of respect for her 2.they showed documents and evidence and the voice actress was hired days before even the first email to scarlet johanson 3. the voices have been chosen through a voting system out of 400 voice actors not individual selection from CEO but there is no update if scarlet johanson has backed down or not after the evidences
Considering they took it down likely means that while they used a different VA like they said... but probably trained speech patterns from the movie or something in addition to what the VA gave them. Let's be real, companies don't care about how someone feels about a product unless they have some liability going on.
@@dkail08 i would still say it was out of respect . Same way they were dumb to tweet "her" they were dumb to take down the voice soon too , maybe they are just bad at this stuff also you dont really need to train based on the speech pattern of the film you can fine-tune it or just tell the voice actress please watch this movie a couple times before coming to studio lol
@@dkail08 The way it is done, they almost certainly have a generic voice dataset (which likely contains celebrities like ScarJo) and then they fine tuned it with the voice actress on top of that. I'm pretty sure they would hire a voice actress because you would want many hours of voice read from a script that covers a lot of different expressions and emotions. They won't get that entirely from ScarJo's movies. However, there would be something like ~0.01% of ScarJo in there from the generic dataset. Realistically, this will be deemed as legal, because it is like ScarJo appearing in the background of a photo taken at the Oscars or ScarJo appearing on some Google searches (but obviously Google's business is not entirely dependent on ScarJo being searchable).
An issue is that, as they said in the beginning, Open AI needs to be fed all the data, all the text, all the video transcripts ever and everything new that comes out to be trained. Do you really think they would not train it on everything and risk it falling behind a potential competitor?
The bigger issue is actually the replaceable worker thing. But don't worry that will get solved if enough people are sent into poverty. We just won't like the process.
@@grandgibbon2071 "You will observe with concern how long a useful truth may be known and exist, before it is generally received and practiced on." That was said by Benjamin Franklin back in the late fucking 1700s. 250+ years later and it still holds true, even with all the knowledge at our fingertips. An example of this is with asbestos, where mass production started in the 1890s and the dangers of it became universally known in the 1930s, but the United States didn't completely ban it until 1989. Lobbyists gained enough support to REVERSE THE BAN in 1991! However, there are still heavy regulations to administer the use of asbestos. This year, 2024, the EPA finally got enough support to ban all asbestos... by 2037... whereas most of Asia and the entirety of the European Union have already banned it for decades now. Another example. Seat belts. Despite the risk of death in an automobile accident being monstrously high without seat belts, people in opposition to the idea make statements that it infringes on their rights/freedom to not wear a seatbelt if they don't want to. The first car was made all the way back in 1886. Seat belts were required to be in cars in 1968, but not required to be used. New York was the first state to require it in 1984... almost an entire century later. We're already seeing this with copyright law and internet regulation. We will see the same with Artificial Intelligence.
We're approaching the definition of Hell being redefined as casually watching RUclips, and getting bombarded by realistic AI-generated video ads of your dead loved ones trying to hawk consumer products to you.
Asmongold uses ai voice on his clip channel, the voice is from a famous narrator who has openly stated that he's stressed out and doesn't like people using his voice without his consent...
@@The_SafeKeeper I might have an answer for that, and though opinions may vary, I can tell that a possible big reason is that there are far too many people out there tired of living, that can't stand their lives, that see day to day how insanely unfair and cruel life can be to them and to others, so if something comes along that can change the status quo (the more, the better), then it's a welcome change. And it doesn't matter who brings that change. Of course, there is no guarantee life will get any better or easier for the average person once there is a part of AI in everything, but the thing to focus on is *change* , as long as something changes they are okay with it, because to them _living_ can't get any worse.
@@The_SafeKeeperit's going to advance whether people want to or not. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle with this one. Either the western companies do it or China will, but someone will keep advancing it regardless.
What Asmond is missing is what she is suing for: she wants OpenAI to share how Sky was trained. The whole point isn’t suing someone that sounds like her just because it sounds like her. It’s finding out if the AI was trained using Scarlett’s voice without her permission.
It is very clear from the get go that they took massive influence of the AI from the movie... Like that is out of the question. So i think she very much could have a case here.
@@anonymous134y can agree the system is broken but good schools + good parents = my kids are smarter than most of asmons views by the time they reach 2nd grade. 6yo already reads pretty well and knows her months so she beats half of the people in the last video
if you actually read the statement ScarJo put out which was on screen for upwards of 10seconds, you would see that she did not ask them to take it down because it sounds like her. Her legal team asked for ChatGPT to make the development process for making the Sky voice open to them. It's possible they did things that were illegal or at least in poor taste. In that statement ScarJoe does not ask them to take it down or make the claim that ChatGPT cannot use a voice that sounds like hers.
Could be both - "Open"AI (and actress) doesn't want to disclose information or could be Scarlet's voice just mixed with someone else's voice. That's pretty easy way to get voice you want, but also kinda different...
>make the development process for making the Sky voice open to them. So that they can prove that they did something illegal during the development and get it taken down...
The Sky voice doesn't even sound like her anyways. ScarJo's voice is notable for being raspy. Her speech cracks with vocal fry. Sky doesn't have that quality at all. Not even a little bit.
I'll be honest, that AI sounds like one of those corporate made characters that designed to sound engaging and clever. Like a woman in some corporate AD trying to sell you some service. Has that very strong faked friendliness to it.
@@wurstdog2879 That will likely be improved on If they already haven't improved on it. Knowing them they have AI Systems that sound incredibly more human and are increasingly more advanced than they are showing us.
I hate it as well. It reminds me of enforced friendliness you'll find in the office when a ceo or rich business partner shows up, fake laughing at everything they say.
Sadly it hooks a lot of people. The whole bit with the guy asking the AI about his hair? Men struggle to find even that basic level of friendly interaction from modern women. Ego, greed, pride and selfishness are gonna do us all in. But yasss kaweeeeeen salaaaaaay
Pretty sure Scar-Jo is suing still in order to subpoena records and stuff to see exactly what the source they used was. Shes not saying "any voice that sounds like me should be illegal" she just wants to know their source. If they DID in fact use her, then she should have a case.
Exactly the point. It seems sus that these people asked her multiple times to be the voice and she said no and then the voice sounds suspiciously like her. Show us how you made the voice and if its legit someone else than fine.
@@hendricksausges3006I don't know why that's lost on so many people. ScarJo's voice has a very recognizable raspy quality to it that isn't in the Sky voice model at all.
Why though. If it sounds like her why would it matter if it is her? Does that mean I can digitally emulate her voice as long as i don't literally copy it? That's stupid. People take pictures of famous people all the time and hold copyright. No permission needed.
@@Oblivion4egwho's jailing them? Developing AI is the matter of national security at this point, with every country racing for AGI. Companies are pouring billions into chatGPT and you bet they're buying some get-out-of-jail-free cards with that money
There have been people earning money by making content that is just them doing impressions of other people’s voices. Why is a human copying someone’s voice any different to an AI copying the same person’s voice? They’re both taking copyrighted recordings of the person and then mimicking their voice. Luddites are stupid.
4:30 Yes you can instruct AI to be abusive. GPT-4 might keep it very light though because it's censored. But an uncensored AI can roast your ass. There's a Neuro-sama video where she roasts a bunch of people, it was pretty funny.
@@L_e_c_art If you don't like "Abuse and Roast" then go touch grass. Abuse and Roasts are inevitable on the Internet and anywhere where there's lots of Humans. Like, have you never been bullied in School growing up?
It's a bit of self-deprecating humor. It's a type of humor that requires the ability to detect nuance in speech and behavior. Best of luck to you in the real world.
What is it with companies trying to mimic things from movies where the thing they're trying to mimic is either being satirized or the plot of a cautionary tale? I feel like any day some defense contractor is going to name their AI Skynet and give their robots voices that sound like Arnold.
it shouldn't lol AI wouldnt be able to comprehend messing up , or a divinci fucking something up and fixing it.. or something happening in the middle of a procedure which happens a lot and expecting a robot to know what to do instantly.. it lacks critical thinking..
The point is, if even a single byte of data which included her voice was used for training, the model is a derivative work and she can sue for revenue share at minimum if not prevent the product from ever being used commercially.
Even if they were trained on ScarJo's voice, I do wonder why is this any different to an impersonator nailing an impersonation. By extension impersonators should get sued too. All these debates around the morality of this as the ai tech becomes more prevalent, I can get behind some sort of new laws for that, but at the moment it seems strange that this would be any more illegal as long as they are not indicating ScarJo endorses or has any participation in the AI voice or that it is indeed her.
Don't call for legislation, you will regret it. Remember that the ones lobbying for legislation are big corporations, guess who's going to be on the losing side.
Realistically there does need to be legislation, legislation by a government that's not corrupt. But an uncorrupt government is probably impossible in a capitalist society, so. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Either way, we're heading towards ruin.
If Sky was voiced by someone they must be feeling very, "Well fuck me right?". All the news media talks as if she doesn't exist and the voice was just a tweak ScarJo voice.
To be fair, what Ludwig argues about saying his transcribed text can't be used by some other independent site is a little silly. It's like saying using an entire book and paraphrasing it is illegal. If it was word-for-word quoting and akin to plagiarism, that's more illegal.
i would use much harsher words than silly. i mean just in this video alone he reacted to videos and was using what other people wrote to make money. thats way worse than using a transcript
@@Ruukasu97 so why can’t you copy and paste things for university dissertations. Why do you have to quote or reference… Transcribing or using copy-written material isn’t fair use. They took a script of a movie and fed it into a system instead of writing their own script for it
@@pwners4u It is fine as long as it can't reproduce the original script. It is like putting it into your own words, or reproducing a painting or musical style.
@@Bayonet1809 not really because it’s not its own words. It’s using the exact copyright material. Even healthcare professionals can’t use questionnaires without the correct permissions as they are created by people for the specific uses and is written in the copyright. The whole thing is the people who make AI programmes aren’t smart enough or have enough resources to train AI so need other peoples work or intellectual property to do so
@@pwners4u Due to the way these models work they don't actually contain the data they are trained on, they learn the underlying relationships between the words instead to a degree where they can replicate it to a high degree. Thats why its not copyright infringement.
4:41 Asmon: "Can you program it to be abusive?" 20 years into the future: "Hello and, again, welcome to the Apertue Science computer-aided enrichment center."
I don't think Scarlett would win the argument if it "sounds like her" just like Lindsay Lohan lost the argument for sueing GTA for a character that looked like her
It's fundamentally different, because they actually tried to hire her and Sam Altman was tweeting about the movie '' Her '' that she starred in and narrated for the connection here is a lot stronger and more direct. It actually doesn't even necessarily matter if it's her voice or not when you take all of these factors into consideration, it matters more what people believe and how they marketed it as clearly intended to sound like her. GTA didn't market GTA with a bunch of direct references and even attempting to hire Lindsay Lohan.
@@NeKryXewhy did they try contacting her last minute & pull the plug? Why did the dude tweet such? Like add 2 and 2. They contacted her multiple times repeatedly
@@microdavid7098Because they clearly enjoyed the movie and wanted to create a relation. In terms of marketing it makes sense. It would have been fun to have Scarlett on ChatGPT. Unfortunately she was dumb or just lazy and rejected it. So, they obviously used a different voice, and that's why it sounds so different, because it's not Scarlett.
The nuance Asmon pointed out is right. The sounds like her thing is fine because they are saying it isn't her. The spongebob thing isn't fine because it is saying it is spongebob
The SpongeBob voice was made to be SpongeBob not a legally distinct SpongeBob. The difference is they first wanted it to be scarlet but she said no so they went with something else and are not claiming it is her.
It wouldn't make any difference even if they said "The Sky AI is designed to impersonate ScarJo's voice" The legal precedent already exists for this: professional human celebrity impersonators (often for comedy purposes) have been a thing and legal for centuries. It should make zero difference if an AI does that instead of a human. Imitating the sound of someone’s voice is not copyright infringement and never has been.
@@robertmarder126acting as if AI should simply follow precedent of what an individual can do is silly. You don’t treat an AI equivalently to a human because the capabilities and merits are different
@@robertmarder126there are many places where impersonating a celebrity is not legal. Such as when you are selling a service, if you claim to be someone else then that person has the right to bring legal action against you for using their likeness for commercial purposes.
Only corporations and the 0.001 richest have privacy, the people that shouldn't have it most. The general population should be fine with giving up privacy if it made politicians and corporations transparent, no one cares about your kinks unless it's illegal stuff.
Nobody cares about privacy, but expectation of privacy. People wish to be lied enough to think they have privacy, like... "God exists" for example. You don't need to prove that
I really think what happened was they got a voice actress that sounded like scarjo but it didn’t sound enough like her so they mixed in some of Scarjo voice into Sky voice and they got what they wanted. And that’s why they pulled the plug on the voice because it had some of her in it because you can do that now and she could have sued to have her voice removed from Sky. Which is probably what they will do to fix Sky.
Unfortunately law making moves too slow for how fast AI is progressing. Situations like this will only get worse before it gets better. A similar thing happened when Uber first started making strides. They were doing some shady stuff to get around having to follow the same protocols as Taxi services, and by the time the law finally caught up to it, it was too late and most Taxi companies had died.
Your Uber example is a good thing and personally I think I'd have to agree with you, it's better that these things are ahead of the bureaucracy, so the bureaucracy can't stop them...
@@chronometer9931 How is it a good thing to offer a service at an exceptionally lower price than your competitors, eventually putting them out of business, and then upping your prices once the competition is out of the way and no longer a threat?
@@WeaselSpanzor Not to mention all the hiring of people who would never have beenable to get a taxi medalion, who would go onto to sexually assault riders.
@@Ruukasu97I say a law should be made first before everyone have ai to use. Like people having copyright of themselves anyone who use there face voice or appearance even after knowing that they have copyrighted themselves. Should be put in jail for 3 or 5 years and shouldn't be allowed to use ai for some years.
Their approach is what caused the issue. If a mother had a daughter that had a near identical voice (voice similarity in family is a common hand-me-down) The mother can't stop the daughter from voicing voluntarily and then saying "it sounds like me." I'm sure there's some spaghetti defamation law in the mix, but just speaking generally.
Yup same with impersonating voice actors. Long term there is no winning or stopping this. Everyone voice will be copied. Followed by likeness. By the time the law caught up to stop it. There be a open source version that everyone has a copy of.
he doesnt want ais to use the transcript for training meanwhile everything he does and makes money with was created by other people he uses an article that the author for the new york times has the rights and makes a video out of it making money he reacted to a video
@@Ruukasu97 Right? It's such a weird stance for him to have, "oh they used my videos to learn stuff" my guy you use other peoples stuff in all your videos lmao.
People are not aware, but scared anyways. It's like telling I'm scared to death from walking, and get up to walk to and back from your kitchen with a burger to continue describing your immense fear
@@grandgibbon2071 thats why the entire economy needs to change. Capitalism and ai dont work together i would love it for an ai to take my job if it wouldnt make me starve if like 50% of all jobs are replacable, 50% of the population goes bankrupt. or we limit what we can do as humans
@@Ruukasu97 Agreed, the only way it would be sustainable is the implementation of universal income. A universal wage that is livable comfortably, not to just barely survive.
@@robosergTV Sam Altman has said in the past that Her is his favorite movie. It doesn’t matter if it’s a different voice actress doing the voice if the intention is to recreate a person’s voice. In 1992 Tom Waits won 2.6 million dollars from Doritos because they hired a voice actor to recreate his voice.
Imma be honest man ive been watching asmon for a long time and i like him a lot but i gotta say the only reason why he's so chill about ai is because he doesn't have to worry about it. But as a guy who's about to leave college and start working im super scared about ai. Like the only thing that i thought i could do will probably be taken away from me and thousands of other people. This shits scary man.
yeah though he will feel it very different then us he will get less donations bcs people will lose their jobs to ai people won't have enought time to wacht him etc. He sometimes doesn't realy think through
@@RedditStrory2 No one actually understands, or thinks through the knock on effects of economies. That's why AI bros tend to just say UBI, and then not think further.
AI generated content will absolutely be adopted by the general population the same way people started using google translate over getting a human translator. I wanted a logo of a chicken wearing a crown holding a scepter and I got 4 options in less than 6 seconds. If I hired an artist it'd be a month before I got a sketch among a myriad of excuses about things going on in their personal live. I've used Suno to generate different songs about the Helldivers in the same amount of time. It's only getting better from here.
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about art. You do realize the sourced images spooled together to get you those logos, were taken from actual artists who spent those months crafting them online.
@@NYs9thwonder How are humans any different? We look at different things created by others and we think of ways to change it or improve on it. Doesn't even matter though, the point is the general populace will consume AI generated products. Oh sure, you'll have the purists that proudly exclaim they only buy real *authentic* human artwork, but it'll be what .01% of the population?
@@dotmadhack Yeah and all those images had poor quality or were just something random, not a specific thing you had in mind. The music, too. You get something random. But not something properly directed.
@@Mayhzon Poor quality? I mean yeah sometimes you get eldritch fingers but the beauty of it is you can just generate another batch in 6 seconds. When I was prompting for my chicken logo I got exactly what I wanted and a couple I didn't even think of, like one logo had glasses. When I was prompting songs I went through 100 before I got the right tone and inflection on words. How long did that take me? Probably less than 10 minutes of actual work. You are under estimating AI creation right now because it's only going to get better.
@@dotmadhack On the contrary, I believe you're a bit delusional what AI is concerned. It's not going to get much better, it has plateaued for a while. Besides, Big Gov and Big Corp are about to shut it down. Whatever isn't under their control at least. On platforms like Steam, you're already locked out of releasing AI work unless you trained the model with your own work specifically. Scarlet Johannson is about to take Sam Altman to court over their voice copyright infringement. AI has no future, It will be restricted.
Reminds me of an old saying i heard in Actor training... "Good artists, Create. Great artists, Steal." If you tell an AI to imitate human behaviors, to the best of it's ability, it will select the best combination of behaviors available. They will steal from all available sources. Very similar to how great actors craft a character by drawing inspiration from many real life people. You mash all these interesting personalities together into a character that is then portrayed on stage, or in film.
I'm surprised that no one has looked at these copyright questions from this perspective: AI essentially uses material to train the AI model. The training of an AI model is somewhat similar to human brain training. You can easily make the case that artificial neurons act the same way as human brain neurons do. So the logical question arises: at what point does copyright come into play here? If you, as a human, watch a RUclips video and memorize it, is it copyright infringement? What if you read a math textbook and use the knowledge to solve a math problem? Did your brain just illegally use the math book's copyrighted materials? I mean, it's not really well-defined, so where exactly is the line? If using a RUclips video for AI training is illegal, it should also be illegal to memorize it in your brain, because it's essentially the same thing (the only difference is that one memory is artificial and one is biological). So watching a RUclips video should be illegal if you haven't paid for the copyrighted material.
I somewhat agree. That's the issue I have with people claiming stolen art because their art was used to train an AI, but when you break it down, the artist did the exact same thing. they have influences and people who they were trained by. They use reference photos from pictures and other artists. They don't exist in a vacuum. AI isn't stealing anything, it's learning and referencing the same way humans do all the time. they only problem of stealing is when someone claims to be someone else, for example say an artist; john has a specific style. Greg uses AI to generate images of that style and sells them claiming them to be works by John. That is theft. But Greg generating images like John's and selling them as images he generated with AI isn't theft. Just like how John is allowed to mimic another artists style and sell them as his own works.
The line is if it's transformative. If you read LotR then write a book that's almost identical it's illegal. If you read LotR and write a book that uses similar themes but is otherwise fundementally different it is fine.
I think the key difference is that AI is a tool, software that a company made to make profit. It can be bought and sold etc. A human being is not made by a company, nor can be sold or bought (at least legaly). So teaching or basically making your software better on materials that are just stolen and never mentioned their sources seems shady to say the least.
@@FormattedWill The stealing is more that it is actually just taking pieces of people's art and using it. It is not actually being transformative or creating its own style. AI also is unlikely to ever actually come up with art, something humans actually did. AI on its own does nothing, a human on its own will begin to do things.
@@grandgibbon2071 That's not at all how these AI art programs work - they don't just 'take' bits and pieces of other art works and cobble them together like some kind of frankenstein project.
Good luck with that, the Open AI CEO already admitted that his enterprise was only possible by breaking all copyright laws. They are lobbying hard right now, to carve out copyright exceptions for AI products, soon to be enshrined by law.
@@oholmes1701 well, its the point where I can see It realistically impacting my field. Not too tech saavy, but I dont think AI would go around releasing nukes or something.
A guy (teacher) already tried to attack his boss by having an ai version of his voice fake r/cist things after he got caught stealing. An excuse people have thrown out for the P Diddler assault video is that it's fake/ai. I'm worried about this, too, because this is worse than deep fakes.
@@murilofreire4569 Well, at least law has a lot of experience with false evidence. Eg all those recent DNA cases where some lab tech wasn't doing their work properly.
@@Aerroon yeah, but AI will bring a bunch of new problems. Even legit video or photografic evidence could be dismissed as ai. Thats sounds like corruption oportunity
As somebody who works at a company that is a major player in the AI space, AI is definitely huge, and it's only going to get way bigger. The stuff coming out in certain industries is going to really be revolutionary and everybody will experience it. It's not just generative stuff.
Scarlett Johansson talking about how similar the voice is to her own, just made the situation for her 10 times worse. I guarantee that there are tons of people like me, who didn't even think for a moment that it sounded like Scarlett Johansson, until she personally addressed it.
I would say it’s the opposite if her claims are true that Altman tried several times to get her onto the project. That means when failing to do so they may have hired someone with the intention of recreating her voice.
A comparison in my mind is with Dave Chapelle. The network owned the rights to "The Dave Chapelle Show" so he wasn't allowed to make a new show with his real name because the network owned his name and likeness.
I've been saying for years now.... The new major legal battle is going to be the content that is used to 'train' these AI's. You can have an AI art program, but I guarantee that the art that you use to train it, being someone's intellectual property, is going to become a major copyright issue. Not the AI itself. The wealth of items that were compiled into a database to specifically help create similar copies. Believe me, if Tom Petty can sue Sam Smith, and win, because he chorus of Sam's song 'Stay With Me' has similar chord progression to Petty's 'Won't Back Down', and get 8% of any future earning of Smith's song, you better bet some musician's entire catalog, or some artist's entire portfolio, being used to create a 'style' guide for an AI program, is going to be a messy copyright issue to figure out.
LLMs don't have a database in the sense that people likely envision. The value of an LLM is the equivalent of the human brain structures and patterns that evolve as a person acquires knowledge and skill. The physical item that captures those structures will be a digital entity but not a database with tables and columns and values somewhat like a spreadsheet possesses.
This debate is ridiculous. The two voices do *not* sound similar, and it's insane that people are unironically claiming they are. Furthermore, Sam making a reference to Her, which is like the number one most referenced movie of human ai relationships among the ai tech crowd does not mean he was alluding to "stealing her voice". The fact people are trying to attribute malice to this is wild.
The link is that they asked her to voice it and then they asked her again a few days before releasing, so if she had changed her mind , would they come out say one day later "ah yes we made it with SJ , here is her voice " Would they then have told her, its great we have it developed already ?
@@mcastream You are illogically assuming that they are asking her because they have a version of her voice already trained and ready to go. All I see is them coming back and double checking on her interest 9 months later right as their AI voice assistant is about to launch in 2 days. Which is not a surprise due to Hers relevance, of course Sam would want to get in on that extra publicity. Even if you believe in them having a voice ready, you can't get around the fact that 2 days is not enough time to get the legal specifics of a partnership ironed out. Which would also have blowback at Openai already having a model pre-emptively trained as well. Assuming malice in this situation is irrational from all angles.
I'm a House Stan.... the idea of having an infinite number of House episodes with alternate stories, situations, cast members, etc.... I could probably binge-watch that until I die. I've always wanted a house spin off of when house was in medical school.
If I’m not mistaken Stephen Hillenburg made SpongeBob public domain when he created it so people could merch the hell out of it so it would gain popularity quick so the TTS of SpongeBob is probably not illegal honestly.
The thing about them using a voice that sounds like Scarlett Johansson is that they couldn't win here. If they didn't approach her and just launched the Sky voice, the response from her friends would be the same and she'd likely have been upset they never approached her about the opportunity. They don't seem to have done anything wrong here, but she revoked her ability to get upset about it by turning them down on their offer initially.
The fact that they approached her multiple times and the last time was 2 days before launch, and they took it down when she said something and also posted the stupid tweet tells it all. They probably just changed the pitch of her voice so it was slightly different. She would probably have to recreate the voice with basic alterations to prove it’s actually her voice just slightly altered.
@@Bhjdk "only on certain computers" Its like saying "you can turn off the listening and recording system on smart TVs which are sold turned on by default"...
The point is, if even a single byte of data which included her voice was used for training, the model is a derivative work and she can sue for revenue share at minimum if not prevent the product from ever being used commercially.
@@grandgibbon2071 Sure, that's how evolution works. Tell me, didn't you copy your parents through DNA? All of evolution is basically copying and changing it a little bit. We wouldn't exist if we couldn't copy what our ancestors did well and improve upon it. Basically, all of humanity is based on copying and passing it on.
think about future kids who have full time working stressed parents... "It" will be their better parent and teacher... and they will love them more, then their real parents PS: Old minded people are scared of Skynet,... but I'm hyped to see the future^^
I think OpenAI tried to find a loophole on not being able to use ScarJo's voice, but it was an intentional workaround to use something that sounds like her in order to help sell their product. Because it was a purposeful ploy to get around ScarJo's wish to be a part of the voicing, I think ScarJo does have a case. It's like asking for someone to use their logo/brand, they refuse, then hire someone to make a copy of the logo or whatever but using different colours or font. People are going to see it as the same thing even though it's technically not. This is like the epitome of Chinese knock offs but with someone's voice
15 ppl agree and know what you’re talking about. I assume many more will read the original post and also agree with the context and know that it deserves a big thumbs up. Congratulations!
Some examples of AI: -Face filters on TikTok, Instagram, etc -Siri (both voice recognition and also the answers it generates) -Reverse image search -Face-tracking cameras -Background removal/replacement, like when someone has a fake background on Zoom
You have an incredibly broad definition of AI, not one that most would agree with. Most of them are just basic machine learning. E.g. reverse image search was added in 2011, before AI was even a buzzword.
Actually it’s not wrong for SpongeBob for two reasons, 1) If it was a VA who supplied the AI the voice to create it, that’s not copyrighted because you can’t copyright impressions, and 2) He didn’t announce “hey, this is SpongeBob”, it merely said the name followed by a bunch of noises. While I agree it’s a gray area, I don’t think it’s outright inappropriate or wrong on the surface. It depends on several factors, especially if they’re literally advertising an AI voice option as SpongeBob and selling it for people to use: then, yes, it’s wrong. But if it’s a creation that a VA contributed to and is freely shared for people to use, it really isn’t wrong.
but isnt ai trained on the originial voice, would that mean that it isnt the original voice. so unless you use the ai to say that it is in fact the voice actor saying this it would be fine anyway
It is because if you spent 20 years making a character then the use of that character should bring you rewards, if someone spent like a month to sound like that character then they're not creating something else their own character they're cashing in on another's work. That VA isn't being hired and paid because of their skill or creativity, they're being hired to basically steal another person / character's likeness / voice. Plus saying it's freely shared doesn't change anything, say your teenage daughter's likeness and images were incorporated into the AI's database and her voice and image became a very common and well known advertisement for the biggest new p*rn site, do you really think you'd give two hoots if the makers were like 'well we gave her images away for free'.
Imagine being able to produce a face mask that is the perfect replica of someone else's face. Then you wear the mask and you go out to commit all kinds of heinous crimes. If (and only if) you get caught, you claim that you're just wearing a random mask and that the fact it looks like someone else's face is pure coincidence. Now imagine millions of people doing this.
How do you prove that these A.I companies did or didn't steal your likeness, your voice, or your words? It's like you said, you can't with current laws. They expressed eagerness to use ScarJo's voice for the A.I, and I wouldn't put it pass them if they used her voice without her permission. If they didn't, why would they need to address it? They just need to show the voice actress for the A.I that sounds like ScarJo.
Because Sam Altman tried to recruit her up to even just a few weeks before this was released, and even her actual irl friends couldn't tell the difference and he was even marketing it with '' Her '' from the actual movie. Even if it actually wasn't her voice there are still other factors that play a role in it, it doesn't actually necessarily have to be her actual voice for it to become a legal problem for OpenAI, it actually matters more if people believe it is or not and how they market it.
@@grandgibbon2071 Keep in mind that LLMs are "let loose" to discover within learning; the training process is not wholly curated by humans. When do the actions of an individual cease to be the responsibility of their parents, to use an analogy?
@@First_Chapter Well one your analogy makes no sense because these companies are creating a product they are going to sell, or what have you, so it's not a child, or adult, or anything like that. The company is responsible for everything, and anything their product does under their control.
The reason people may not care about this is because - it is not her voice. It doesn't even actually sound like her. It talks in a similar way to a character in the movie Her- does she own that? I guess we'll see what the courts say, but IMO it doesn't seem wrong. Most people freaking out or "outraged" about it are the ones who are actually uninformed.
I had the same take about her complaining about the voice sounding similar to her and to say the least it was not well received. At least in a different comment section. I'm sure he tweeted that stupid shit because he thought she would agree.
The problem I have is Scarlett JH is basically saying that SHE owns the other persons voice at this point.. Which is antithetical in principle to her own goal of making sure her likeness is her own, by declaring someone else's likeness is not their own. That being said, Open AI is probably scrambling to find a voice actor that sounds like Scarlett at this exact moment so that they can trot her out and say it is actually that actor.
It could be that they still used recordings of her to SOME capacity. Something like the voice coming from another actress, but the cadence, tonality, etc. being taken from Scarlet recordings.
If the voice is popular it is not difficult to make the connection that it's because it sounds like her especially after they asked her to do it. If they're making profit from this they'll be liable. Also if the voice gets used by someone for nefarious purposes it's even more trouble.
Unless its a synthesized voice of Scarlet I do not think she has no case. However, because they removed it and multiple consultation with her I think it is a synthesized voice. However, if they are using a voice actor that sounds like her IMO should be legal.
If chatGTP ever gets renamed to "Allide Mastercomputer" and starts speaking something in Latin like "Cogito, ergo sum", Sorry I'm the first one to die guys.
Dont forget that this is the same lady that complained that she was over sexualized in her roles as black widow…as if they forced her to accept the role.
Asmon something you missed that he was pointing out is that it sounds like they did use the movie her based on a "paper trail" like his tweet and them directly asking her after seeing the movie and then taking it down after being pressed about it, this act alone could be seen as guilt. Theres a lot more to it than a simple question of if they can use a likeness of someones voice or not. I personally agree with you, as long as they arent using said voice and they arent claiming to be them, there should be no issue. The main thing is how its suspicious with how it was handled which leads to the question of are they telling the truth and did they actually find a va or did they actually use her.
“Thats illegal.” then saying “Theres no legislation.” is a contradiction isnt it? How can Ludwig claim its illegal if it doesn’t break any laws? AI is certainly more transformative than any of the react content hes farmed for years.
scarlet was just the inspiration thats why i dont see why the tweet is a prob. hes just showing what inspired him. the more you believe ai will be scary and the more scared you are the scarier it will be btw. if people relax and stop be so cynical, they would be able to see what amazing possibilities open up.
update that hasn't been in this video :
1. they took down the voice out of respect for her
2.they showed documents and evidence and the voice actress was hired days before even the first email to scarlet johanson
3. the voices have been chosen through a voting system out of 400 voice actors not individual selection from CEO
but there is no update if scarlet johanson has backed down or not after the evidences
Considering they took it down likely means that while they used a different VA like they said... but probably trained speech patterns from the movie or something in addition to what the VA gave them. Let's be real, companies don't care about how someone feels about a product unless they have some liability going on.
@@dkail08 i would still say it was out of respect . Same way they were dumb to tweet "her" they were dumb to take down the voice soon too , maybe they are just bad at this stuff also you dont really need to train based on the speech pattern of the film you can fine-tune it or just tell the voice actress please watch this movie a couple times before coming to studio lol
@@dkail08 The way it is done, they almost certainly have a generic voice dataset (which likely contains celebrities like ScarJo) and then they fine tuned it with the voice actress on top of that. I'm pretty sure they would hire a voice actress because you would want many hours of voice read from a script that covers a lot of different expressions and emotions. They won't get that entirely from ScarJo's movies. However, there would be something like ~0.01% of ScarJo in there from the generic dataset. Realistically, this will be deemed as legal, because it is like ScarJo appearing in the background of a photo taken at the Oscars or ScarJo appearing on some Google searches (but obviously Google's business is not entirely dependent on ScarJo being searchable).
based dude who brings in the truth
An issue is that, as they said in the beginning, Open AI needs to be fed all the data, all the text, all the video transcripts ever and everything new that comes out to be trained. Do you really think they would not train it on everything and risk it falling behind a potential competitor?
Everybody in every company is replaceable, but when a star is threatened suddenly it goes to far, give me a break.
The bigger issue is actually the replaceable worker thing. But don't worry that will get solved if enough people are sent into poverty. We just won't like the process.
Little do they know they are going to be some of the first to be replaced
@@grandgibbon2071 "You will observe with concern how long a useful truth may be known and exist, before it is generally received and practiced on." That was said by Benjamin Franklin back in the late fucking 1700s. 250+ years later and it still holds true, even with all the knowledge at our fingertips.
An example of this is with asbestos, where mass production started in the 1890s and the dangers of it became universally known in the 1930s, but the United States didn't completely ban it until 1989. Lobbyists gained enough support to REVERSE THE BAN in 1991! However, there are still heavy regulations to administer the use of asbestos. This year, 2024, the EPA finally got enough support to ban all asbestos... by 2037... whereas most of Asia and the entirety of the European Union have already banned it for decades now.
Another example. Seat belts. Despite the risk of death in an automobile accident being monstrously high without seat belts, people in opposition to the idea make statements that it infringes on their rights/freedom to not wear a seatbelt if they don't want to. The first car was made all the way back in 1886. Seat belts were required to be in cars in 1968, but not required to be used. New York was the first state to require it in 1984... almost an entire century later.
We're already seeing this with copyright law and internet regulation. We will see the same with Artificial Intelligence.
if thats what it takes for some laws to be passed , id say "fair enough"
@@That-guy-there1but they didn't, they literally hired a different voice actress, that's already been confirmed.
We're approaching the definition of Hell being redefined as casually watching RUclips, and getting bombarded by realistic AI-generated video ads of your dead loved ones trying to hawk consumer products to you.
And there will people that want that
Asmongold uses ai voice on his clip channel, the voice is from a famous narrator who has openly stated that he's stressed out and doesn't like people using his voice without his consent...
Dude you're smoking some good shit.
That would be illegal.
But here you are with 152+ likes.
@@The_SafeKeeper I might have an answer for that, and though opinions may vary, I can tell that a possible big reason is that there are far too many people out there tired of living, that can't stand their lives, that see day to day how insanely unfair and cruel life can be to them and to others, so if something comes along that can change the status quo (the more, the better), then it's a welcome change. And it doesn't matter who brings that change. Of course, there is no guarantee life will get any better or easier for the average person once there is a part of AI in everything, but the thing to focus on is *change* , as long as something changes they are okay with it, because to them _living_ can't get any worse.
@@The_SafeKeeperit's going to advance whether people want to or not. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle with this one. Either the western companies do it or China will, but someone will keep advancing it regardless.
What Asmond is missing is what she is suing for: she wants OpenAI to share how Sky was trained. The whole point isn’t suing someone that sounds like her just because it sounds like her. It’s finding out if the AI was trained using Scarlett’s voice without her permission.
Which do look like it happened
@@The_SafeKeeper Imagine naming your child 'Sir'
It is very clear from the get go that they took massive influence of the AI from the movie... Like that is out of the question. So i think she very much could have a case here.
@@The_Endless_NowI’m pretty sure this is a joke, but there is a guy that does 3D animation (Sir Wade) that was actually named that when born
@@The_Endless_Nowdegen thread
hei chatGPT, help my kid to learn, but don't give him the answer, but act like you were Asmongold
kid: i quit school
4:37 not going to lie, this is already better than the American education system.
Kid: I've decided to never wash again!
@@anonymous134y can agree the system is broken but good schools + good parents = my kids are smarter than most of asmons views by the time they reach 2nd grade. 6yo already reads pretty well and knows her months so she beats half of the people in the last video
If it was a public school, then quitting is of benefit to his education.
@@ImperativeGamesand a new Great Unclean One is created. Nurgle is very pleased
if you actually read the statement ScarJo put out which was on screen for upwards of 10seconds, you would see that she did not ask them to take it down because it sounds like her. Her legal team asked for ChatGPT to make the development process for making the Sky voice open to them.
It's possible they did things that were illegal or at least in poor taste. In that statement ScarJoe does not ask them to take it down or make the claim that ChatGPT cannot use a voice that sounds like hers.
Could be both - "Open"AI (and actress) doesn't want to disclose information or could be Scarlet's voice just mixed with someone else's voice.
That's pretty easy way to get voice you want, but also kinda different...
>make the development process for making the Sky voice open to them.
So that they can prove that they did something illegal during the development and get it taken down...
The Sky voice doesn't even sound like her anyways. ScarJo's voice is notable for being raspy. Her speech cracks with vocal fry. Sky doesn't have that quality at all. Not even a little bit.
@@wckall you would have to do is edit it out
I dissmissed your whole argument after reading " scar jo"
I'll be honest, that AI sounds like one of those corporate made characters that designed to sound engaging and clever. Like a woman in some corporate AD trying to sell you some service. Has that very strong faked friendliness to it.
It feels cold and soulless. Its creeping me out.
@@wurstdog2879 That will likely be improved on If they already haven't improved on it. Knowing them they have AI Systems that sound incredibly more human and are increasingly more advanced than they are showing us.
I hate it as well. It reminds me of enforced friendliness you'll find in the office when a ceo or rich business partner shows up, fake laughing at everything they say.
@@wurstdog2879 Don't worry. Give it 5 years, and your real nightmares will come true.
Sadly it hooks a lot of people. The whole bit with the guy asking the AI about his hair? Men struggle to find even that basic level of friendly interaction from modern women.
Ego, greed, pride and selfishness are gonna do us all in.
But yasss kaweeeeeen salaaaaaay
Pretty sure Scar-Jo is suing still in order to subpoena records and stuff to see exactly what the source they used was. Shes not saying "any voice that sounds like me should be illegal" she just wants to know their source. If they DID in fact use her, then she should have a case.
Exactly the point. It seems sus that these people asked her multiple times to be the voice and she said no and then the voice sounds suspiciously like her. Show us how you made the voice and if its legit someone else than fine.
A Judge will see the evidence and not her herself. So if the VA does want to stay annonym, then she will have to deal with it.
@@kilowatts6789voice does not suspiciously sound like her because it doesn't sound like her at all.
@@hendricksausges3006I don't know why that's lost on so many people. ScarJo's voice has a very recognizable raspy quality to it that isn't in the Sky voice model at all.
Why though.
If it sounds like her why would it matter if it is her?
Does that mean I can digitally emulate her voice as long as i don't literally copy it?
That's stupid.
People take pictures of famous people all the time and hold copyright. No permission needed.
Training AI has been a perfect example of "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" 😅
Asking for forgiveness from jail is kinda harder
@@Oblivion4egwho's jailing them? Developing AI is the matter of national security at this point, with every country racing for AGI. Companies are pouring billions into chatGPT and you bet they're buying some get-out-of-jail-free cards with that money
@@alexdoan273 this.
No one is going to jail. They will get a 3mill fine which will go to all the victims. Ull get ur 50 cents in the mail for your contribution some day.
There have been people earning money by making content that is just them doing impressions of other people’s voices.
Why is a human copying someone’s voice any different to an AI copying the same person’s voice?
They’re both taking copyrighted recordings of the person and then mimicking their voice.
Luddites are stupid.
4:30 Yes you can instruct AI to be abusive. GPT-4 might keep it very light though because it's censored. But an uncensored AI can roast your ass. There's a Neuro-sama video where she roasts a bunch of people, it was pretty funny.
Such Ai are too dangerous. They're literally being groomed or programmed to be Skynet. 🤣
Funny... the abuse and roast isn't a funny thing dude, whats wrong with your mindset...
@@L_e_c_art If you don't like "Abuse and Roast" then go touch grass. Abuse and Roasts are inevitable on the Internet and anywhere where there's lots of Humans. Like, have you never been bullied in School growing up?
"They terk yer jobs"
"They turk ur gerbs!"
Durk a duurrrkkk
DURKER DUA DAHERKER DURR
That episode aged like milk lol
Dur turk ur jers!
Imagine not being able to do voice actor work because you sound like Scarlett Johansson.
it's not just the sounding like, if you did that to envoke, and try and make people think you are scarlett, then you could face legal penalties.
@@grandgibbon2071 I extremely doubt that. It'd be insanely hard to prove in court unless you are straight up claiming you're Scarlett herself.
@@grandgibbon2071 but they didnt do it, so everything you said is irellevant
@@Ruukasu97 That would be a good argument, if the idiot CEO didn't send his tweet.
@@noelkuhlman1533 you mean the tweet that was the title of a really popular movie that was about that what they released shortly after?
"His hair is fucked up"
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
This is just a stage of someone who is losing their hair it’s all they focus on
The pot calling the kettle bald* in this case.
Well, if anyone would know... 😅
It's a bit of self-deprecating humor. It's a type of humor that requires the ability to detect nuance in speech and behavior. Best of luck to you in the real world.
@@TheAzraihaha, exactly. Because no shit 🤪
What is it with companies trying to mimic things from movies where the thing they're trying to mimic is either being satirized or the plot of a cautionary tale? I feel like any day some defense contractor is going to name their AI Skynet and give their robots voices that sound like Arnold.
As a physician, I can say that this did scare me
I'm also a physician and queen pwns alot is still friend zoning me
I forgot about this meme for a bit, but I'm also a Physician so I understand.
it shouldn't lol AI wouldnt be able to comprehend messing up , or a divinci fucking something up and fixing it.. or something happening in the middle of a procedure which happens a lot and expecting a robot to know what to do instantly.. it lacks critical thinking..
Cardio we wounded
The point is, if even a single byte of data which included her voice was used for training, the model is a derivative work and she can sue for revenue share at minimum if not prevent the product from ever being used commercially.
tweeting "Her" isn't the smoking gun people keep claiming it is, the basic premise of the AI talking flirty with you is what they got from Her
try proving an evidence free argument with a jury against someone with copious amounts of evidence :P
yeah was gonna say, it could just be a reference to a movie about AI talking with you. I don't think that would hold up in court
Even if they were trained on ScarJo's voice, I do wonder why is this any different to an impersonator nailing an impersonation. By extension impersonators should get sued too. All these debates around the morality of this as the ai tech becomes more prevalent, I can get behind some sort of new laws for that, but at the moment it seems strange that this would be any more illegal as long as they are not indicating ScarJo endorses or has any participation in the AI voice or that it is indeed her.
"you look lonely, I can fix that"
🟪
@@weredwarf6187 pretty sure that battle has already been fought in court over the last few decades at some point.
I, for one, welcome our robot overlords.
Youre safe from the Basilisk
@@Seriously_Bro. 😎👌
I love AI, bro, this is my dreams coming to reality.
@@Seriously_Bro.if basilisk is a reptilian creature what are you really trying to say regarding to the OP saying ‘robot overlords?’
@@CloudJack it is better that you dont know the basilisk yet. Dont search roko's basilisk.
Don't call for legislation, you will regret it. Remember that the ones lobbying for legislation are big corporations, guess who's going to be on the losing side.
Realistically there does need to be legislation, legislation by a government that's not corrupt. But an uncorrupt government is probably impossible in a capitalist society, so. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Either way, we're heading towards ruin.
Well said.
If Sky was voiced by someone they must be feeling very, "Well fuck me right?". All the news media talks as if she doesn't exist and the voice was just a tweak ScarJo voice.
Glad you pointed that out
welsome to the fame-game, if you aren't THE ONE, then you are only a cheap knock-off even if you have more talent, drive and -tts- personality.
To be fair, what Ludwig argues about saying his transcribed text can't be used by some other independent site is a little silly. It's like saying using an entire book and paraphrasing it is illegal. If it was word-for-word quoting and akin to plagiarism, that's more illegal.
i would use much harsher words than silly. i mean just in this video alone he reacted to videos and was using what other people wrote to make money. thats way worse than using a transcript
@@Ruukasu97 so why can’t you copy and paste things for university dissertations. Why do you have to quote or reference… Transcribing or using copy-written material isn’t fair use. They took a script of a movie and fed it into a system instead of writing their own script for it
@@pwners4u It is fine as long as it can't reproduce the original script. It is like putting it into your own words, or reproducing a painting or musical style.
@@Bayonet1809 not really because it’s not its own words. It’s using the exact copyright material. Even healthcare professionals can’t use questionnaires without the correct permissions as they are created by people for the specific uses and is written in the copyright. The whole thing is the people who make AI programmes aren’t smart enough or have enough resources to train AI so need other peoples work or intellectual property to do so
@@pwners4u Due to the way these models work they don't actually contain the data they are trained on, they learn the underlying relationships between the words instead to a degree where they can replicate it to a high degree.
Thats why its not copyright infringement.
0:31 spongebob squeezing himself dry
4:41 Asmon: "Can you program it to be abusive?"
20 years into the future: "Hello and, again, welcome to the Apertue Science computer-aided enrichment center."
I don't think Scarlett would win the argument if it "sounds like her" just like Lindsay Lohan lost the argument for sueing GTA for a character that looked like her
It's fundamentally different, because they actually tried to hire her and Sam Altman was tweeting about the movie '' Her '' that she starred in and narrated for the connection here is a lot stronger and more direct.
It actually doesn't even necessarily matter if it's her voice or not when you take all of these factors into consideration, it matters more what people believe and how they marketed it as clearly intended to sound like her.
GTA didn't market GTA with a bunch of direct references and even attempting to hire Lindsay Lohan.
It doesn't even sound like her. She's just trying to steal some money from them.
@@NeKryXewhy did they try contacting her last minute & pull the plug? Why did the dude tweet such? Like add 2 and 2. They contacted her multiple times repeatedly
@@microdavid7098Because they clearly enjoyed the movie and wanted to create a relation. In terms of marketing it makes sense. It would have been fun to have Scarlett on ChatGPT. Unfortunately she was dumb or just lazy and rejected it. So, they obviously used a different voice, and that's why it sounds so different, because it's not Scarlett.
"Hey voice actress that has a similar voice to this other actress, I want you to talk into this mic for 4 hours and mimic this in this movie."
The nuance Asmon pointed out is right. The sounds like her thing is fine because they are saying it isn't her. The spongebob thing isn't fine because it is saying it is spongebob
I think it’s a pretty 2head take. What if the tts says “I’m SpongeBob” or you make the chatgpt say “I’m scarlet Johansson”
The SpongeBob voice was made to be SpongeBob not a legally distinct SpongeBob. The difference is they first wanted it to be scarlet but she said no so they went with something else and are not claiming it is her.
It wouldn't make any difference even if they said "The Sky AI is designed to impersonate ScarJo's voice"
The legal precedent already exists for this: professional human celebrity impersonators (often for comedy purposes) have been a thing and legal for centuries. It should make zero difference if an AI does that instead of a human.
Imitating the sound of someone’s voice is not copyright infringement and never has been.
@@robertmarder126acting as if AI should simply follow precedent of what an individual can do is silly. You don’t treat an AI equivalently to a human because the capabilities and merits are different
@@robertmarder126there are many places where impersonating a celebrity is not legal. Such as when you are selling a service, if you claim to be someone else then that person has the right to bring legal action against you for using their likeness for commercial purposes.
"yeah, i'm in an open ai relationship. the more the merrier."
Im fine with A.I.
Im more concerned with privacy.
It can steal your soul.
Privacy? Our leaders have signed that away a long time ago, under the illusion of safety.
Only corporations and the 0.001 richest have privacy, the people that shouldn't have it most. The general population should be fine with giving up privacy if it made politicians and corporations transparent, no one cares about your kinks unless it's illegal stuff.
your entire life is a database entry in google's servers since 2015
Nobody cares about privacy, but expectation of privacy.
People wish to be lied enough to think they have privacy, like... "God exists" for example. You don't need to prove that
It will.
she did not win, they settled, same way innocent people say they are guilty so they might not risk getting life if bad jury
Same thing as when companies replace the voice actor with some sound-a-like.
I really think what happened was they got a voice actress that sounded like scarjo but it didn’t sound enough like her so they mixed in some of Scarjo voice into Sky voice and they got what they wanted. And that’s why they pulled the plug on the voice because it had some of her in it because you can do that now and she could have sued to have her voice removed from Sky. Which is probably what they will do to fix Sky.
Unfortunately law making moves too slow for how fast AI is progressing. Situations like this will only get worse before it gets better. A similar thing happened when Uber first started making strides. They were doing some shady stuff to get around having to follow the same protocols as Taxi services, and by the time the law finally caught up to it, it was too late and most Taxi companies had died.
Your Uber example is a good thing and personally I think I'd have to agree with you, it's better that these things are ahead of the bureaucracy, so the bureaucracy can't stop them...
@@chronometer9931 How is it a good thing to offer a service at an exceptionally lower price than your competitors, eventually putting them out of business, and then upping your prices once the competition is out of the way and no longer a threat?
@@WeaselSpanzor Not to mention all the hiring of people who would never have beenable to get a taxi medalion, who would go onto to sexually assault riders.
maybe they should create a law making ai
@@Ruukasu97I say a law should be made first before everyone have ai to use.
Like people having copyright of themselves anyone who use there face voice or appearance even after knowing that they have copyrighted themselves.
Should be put in jail for 3 or 5 years and shouldn't be allowed to use ai for some years.
Their approach is what caused the issue.
If a mother had a daughter that had a near identical voice (voice similarity in family is a common hand-me-down)
The mother can't stop the daughter from voicing voluntarily and then saying "it sounds like me."
I'm sure there's some spaghetti defamation law in the mix, but just speaking generally.
Yup same with impersonating voice actors. Long term there is no winning or stopping this. Everyone voice will be copied. Followed by likeness. By the time the law caught up to stop it. There be a open source version that everyone has a copy of.
Remember the good ole days when we needed to use soundboards for this kinda thing?
Didn't realize scar joe has been taking calls for Walgreens for the last several years.
Is Ludwig capable of having a firm opinion on anything? I don't think I've ever heard him make a definitive statement or take a stance about anything.
He's as unequivocally equivocal as Biden -_-...
he doesnt want ais to use the transcript for training
meanwhile everything he does and makes money with was created by other people
he uses an article that the author for the new york times has the rights and makes a video out of it making money
he reacted to a video
@@Ruukasu97 Right? It's such a weird stance for him to have, "oh they used my videos to learn stuff" my guy you use other peoples stuff in all your videos lmao.
People are not aware, but scared anyways. It's like telling I'm scared to death from walking, and get up to walk to and back from your kitchen with a burger to continue describing your immense fear
Give him some time to feel where the wind he's blowing and he might make a vague remark for or against it.
Scarjo could have been the voice of a new era of humanity. Immortalized. She fumbled.
Im sure you would love to be fired and replaced by openAI.
@@grandgibbon2071 fired? It would be anything but.. she would have secured royalties for a lifetime and generations after.
@@grandgibbon2071 thats why the entire economy needs to change. Capitalism and ai dont work together
i would love it for an ai to take my job if it wouldnt make me starve
if like 50% of all jobs are replacable, 50% of the population goes bankrupt.
or we limit what we can do as humans
She should have royalties but yes she would be immortalized
@@Ruukasu97 Agreed, the only way it would be sustainable is the implementation of universal income. A universal wage that is livable comfortably, not to just barely survive.
I'm just saying, Sky voice was in ChatGPT long before GPT-4o was released.
The movie was out long before ChatGPT
@@jonasking3670 what has the movie to do with it? Its a different voice actress, a different person doing the voice.
@@robosergTV Sam Altman has said in the past that Her is his favorite movie.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a different voice actress doing the voice if the intention is to recreate a person’s voice. In 1992 Tom Waits won 2.6 million dollars from Doritos because they hired a voice actor to recreate his voice.
Imma be honest man ive been watching asmon for a long time and i like him a lot but i gotta say the only reason why he's so chill about ai is because he doesn't have to worry about it. But as a guy who's about to leave college and start working im super scared about ai. Like the only thing that i thought i could do will probably be taken away from me and thousands of other people. This shits scary man.
Yeah we are gonna se a very big backlash to AI once people start not getting employment, and there is nothing to replace what they used to do.
yeah though he will feel it very different then us he will get less donations bcs people will lose their jobs to ai people won't have enought time to wacht him etc.
He sometimes doesn't realy think through
@@RedditStrory2 No one actually understands, or thinks through the knock on effects of economies. That's why AI bros tend to just say UBI, and then not think further.
@@fok8810 at least watch the video properly then start to comment they were working him to death than it suddenly stopped
AI generated content will absolutely be adopted by the general population the same way people started using google translate over getting a human translator. I wanted a logo of a chicken wearing a crown holding a scepter and I got 4 options in less than 6 seconds. If I hired an artist it'd be a month before I got a sketch among a myriad of excuses about things going on in their personal live. I've used Suno to generate different songs about the Helldivers in the same amount of time. It's only getting better from here.
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about art. You do realize the sourced images spooled together to get you those logos, were taken from actual artists who spent those months crafting them online.
@@NYs9thwonder How are humans any different? We look at different things created by others and we think of ways to change it or improve on it. Doesn't even matter though, the point is the general populace will consume AI generated products. Oh sure, you'll have the purists that proudly exclaim they only buy real *authentic* human artwork, but it'll be what .01% of the population?
@@dotmadhack Yeah and all those images had poor quality or were just something random, not a specific thing you had in mind.
The music, too. You get something random. But not something properly directed.
@@Mayhzon Poor quality? I mean yeah sometimes you get eldritch fingers but the beauty of it is you can just generate another batch in 6 seconds. When I was prompting for my chicken logo I got exactly what I wanted and a couple I didn't even think of, like one logo had glasses. When I was prompting songs I went through 100 before I got the right tone and inflection on words. How long did that take me? Probably less than 10 minutes of actual work. You are under estimating AI creation right now because it's only going to get better.
@@dotmadhack
On the contrary, I believe you're a bit delusional what AI is concerned. It's not going to get much better, it has plateaued for a while.
Besides, Big Gov and Big Corp are about to shut it down. Whatever isn't under their control at least.
On platforms like Steam, you're already locked out of releasing AI work unless you trained the model with your own work specifically.
Scarlet Johannson is about to take Sam Altman to court over their voice copyright infringement.
AI has no future, It will be restricted.
Reminds me of an old saying i heard in Actor training...
"Good artists, Create.
Great artists, Steal."
If you tell an AI to imitate human behaviors, to the best of it's ability, it will select the best combination of behaviors available. They will steal from all available sources.
Very similar to how great actors craft a character by drawing inspiration from many real life people. You mash all these interesting personalities together into a character that is then portrayed on stage, or in film.
the first ever artists in human history copied from nature by drawing animals, trees, rivers, mountains, etc...
100% original ideas dont exist.
I'm surprised that no one has looked at these copyright questions from this perspective: AI essentially uses material to train the AI model. The training of an AI model is somewhat similar to human brain training. You can easily make the case that artificial neurons act the same way as human brain neurons do. So the logical question arises: at what point does copyright come into play here? If you, as a human, watch a RUclips video and memorize it, is it copyright infringement? What if you read a math textbook and use the knowledge to solve a math problem? Did your brain just illegally use the math book's copyrighted materials?
I mean, it's not really well-defined, so where exactly is the line? If using a RUclips video for AI training is illegal, it should also be illegal to memorize it in your brain, because it's essentially the same thing (the only difference is that one memory is artificial and one is biological). So watching a RUclips video should be illegal if you haven't paid for the copyrighted material.
I somewhat agree. That's the issue I have with people claiming stolen art because their art was used to train an AI, but when you break it down, the artist did the exact same thing. they have influences and people who they were trained by. They use reference photos from pictures and other artists. They don't exist in a vacuum. AI isn't stealing anything, it's learning and referencing the same way humans do all the time. they only problem of stealing is when someone claims to be someone else, for example say an artist; john has a specific style. Greg uses AI to generate images of that style and sells them claiming them to be works by John. That is theft. But Greg generating images like John's and selling them as images he generated with AI isn't theft. Just like how John is allowed to mimic another artists style and sell them as his own works.
The line is if it's transformative. If you read LotR then write a book that's almost identical it's illegal. If you read LotR and write a book that uses similar themes but is otherwise fundementally different it is fine.
I think the key difference is that AI is a tool, software that a company made to make profit. It can be bought and sold etc. A human being is not made by a company, nor can be sold or bought (at least legaly). So teaching or basically making your software better on materials that are just stolen and never mentioned their sources seems shady to say the least.
@@FormattedWill The stealing is more that it is actually just taking pieces of people's art and using it. It is not actually being transformative or creating its own style. AI also is unlikely to ever actually come up with art, something humans actually did. AI on its own does nothing, a human on its own will begin to do things.
@@grandgibbon2071 That's not at all how these AI art programs work - they don't just 'take' bits and pieces of other art works and cobble them together like some kind of frankenstein project.
The craziest part is that the movie "Her" was set in 2025, that's hell of a prediction
Good luck with that, the Open AI CEO already admitted that his enterprise was only possible by breaking all copyright laws. They are lobbying hard right now, to carve out copyright exceptions for AI products, soon to be enshrined by law.
Chobits gonna become real faster than expected
damn didnt know ludwig was so naive to the world lol
As a lawyer, my biggest fear is the use of AI to produce false evidence.
That's your biggest fear?! Yeesh you're lucky dude.
@@oholmes1701 well, its the point where I can see It realistically impacting my field. Not too tech saavy, but I dont think AI would go around releasing nukes or something.
A guy (teacher) already tried to attack his boss by having an ai version of his voice fake r/cist things after he got caught stealing.
An excuse people have thrown out for the P Diddler assault video is that it's fake/ai.
I'm worried about this, too, because this is worse than deep fakes.
@@murilofreire4569 Well, at least law has a lot of experience with false evidence. Eg all those recent DNA cases where some lab tech wasn't doing their work properly.
@@Aerroon yeah, but AI will bring a bunch of new problems. Even legit video or photografic evidence could be dismissed as ai. Thats sounds like corruption oportunity
You're telling me impressionists can't charge for their impressions because it's illegal?
As somebody who works at a company that is a major player in the AI space, AI is definitely huge, and it's only going to get way bigger. The stuff coming out in certain industries is going to really be revolutionary and everybody will experience it. It's not just generative stuff.
Scarlett Johansson talking about how similar the voice is to her own, just made the situation for her 10 times worse. I guarantee that there are tons of people like me, who didn't even think for a moment that it sounded like Scarlett Johansson, until she personally addressed it.
I would say it’s the opposite if her claims are true that Altman tried several times to get her onto the project. That means when failing to do so they may have hired someone with the intention of recreating her voice.
A comparison in my mind is with Dave Chapelle. The network owned the rights to "The Dave Chapelle Show" so he wasn't allowed to make a new show with his real name because the network owned his name and likeness.
Oof. He's not allowed to make anything with his name. What a landmine of a concept.
as a CS student, I need Indian guy voice chatGPT
Starving Johansson looking to get money in any way possible.
there is no different between a neural network replicating SpongeBob and a voice actor replicating SpongeBob
I've been saying for years now....
The new major legal battle is going to be the content that is used to 'train' these AI's. You can have an AI art program, but I guarantee that the art that you use to train it, being someone's intellectual property, is going to become a major copyright issue. Not the AI itself. The wealth of items that were compiled into a database to specifically help create similar copies.
Believe me, if Tom Petty can sue Sam Smith, and win, because he chorus of Sam's song 'Stay With Me' has similar chord progression to Petty's 'Won't Back Down', and get 8% of any future earning of Smith's song, you better bet some musician's entire catalog, or some artist's entire portfolio, being used to create a 'style' guide for an AI program, is going to be a messy copyright issue to figure out.
LLMs don't have a database in the sense that people likely envision. The value of an LLM is the equivalent of the human brain structures and patterns that evolve as a person acquires knowledge and skill. The physical item that captures those structures will be a digital entity but not a database with tables and columns and values somewhat like a spreadsheet possesses.
This debate is ridiculous. The two voices do *not* sound similar, and it's insane that people are unironically claiming they are. Furthermore, Sam making a reference to Her, which is like the number one most referenced movie of human ai relationships among the ai tech crowd does not mean he was alluding to "stealing her voice". The fact people are trying to attribute malice to this is wild.
I will always assume malice when it comes to technology. You're right though. Scarlett's voice is at least an octave lower.
The link is that they asked her to voice it and then they asked her again a few days before releasing, so if she had changed her mind ,
would they come out say one day later "ah yes we made it with SJ , here is her voice "
Would they then have told her, its great we have it developed already ?
@@mcastream You are illogically assuming that they are asking her because they have a version of her voice already trained and ready to go.
All I see is them coming back and double checking on her interest 9 months later right as their AI voice assistant is about to launch in 2 days. Which is not a surprise due to Hers relevance, of course Sam would want to get in on that extra publicity.
Even if you believe in them having a voice ready, you can't get around the fact that 2 days is not enough time to get the legal specifics of a partnership ironed out. Which would also have blowback at Openai already having a model pre-emptively trained as well.
Assuming malice in this situation is irrational from all angles.
Can't wait to have an AI assistant that sounds like Judicator Aldaris from Starcraft.
Man, imagine having an AI Dr. House 😆 🤣
I'm a House Stan.... the idea of having an infinite number of House episodes with alternate stories, situations, cast members, etc.... I could probably binge-watch that until I die. I've always wanted a house spin off of when house was in medical school.
If I’m not mistaken Stephen Hillenburg made SpongeBob public domain when he created it so people could merch the hell out of it so it would gain popularity quick so the TTS of SpongeBob is probably not illegal honestly.
The thing about them using a voice that sounds like Scarlett Johansson is that they couldn't win here. If they didn't approach her and just launched the Sky voice, the response from her friends would be the same and she'd likely have been upset they never approached her about the opportunity. They don't seem to have done anything wrong here, but she revoked her ability to get upset about it by turning them down on their offer initially.
Sky voice has existed long before this update thou..
The fact that they approached her multiple times and the last time was 2 days before launch, and they took it down when she said something and also posted the stupid tweet tells it all.
They probably just changed the pitch of her voice so it was slightly different. She would probably have to recreate the voice with basic alterations to prove it’s actually her voice just slightly altered.
no they hired a different actress, she was voted out of 40 candidates
Windows Copilot's Recall feature sounds Co-Police-like
A.I. > Always Invasive
It’s only possible on certain computers. Then by the time an NPU is standard in pcs, people will 100% find a way around Microsoft’s bullshit.
@@Bhjdk "only on certain computers"
Its like saying "you can turn off the listening and recording system on smart TVs which are sold turned on by default"...
More like: "Commercialy available products > Always invasive."
5:30 Now we just need this done in real time and our Star Trek dreams are starting to come true.
Humans create the same way AI does. We never really have an original thought we simply draw from memory of stuff and reformat it. Everyone copies
Not really.
The point is, if even a single byte of data which included her voice was used for training, the model is a derivative work and she can sue for revenue share at minimum if not prevent the product from ever being used commercially.
the computer is an original thought once lmao
@@grandgibbon2071 Sure, that's how evolution works. Tell me, didn't you copy your parents through DNA? All of evolution is basically copying and changing it a little bit.
We wouldn't exist if we couldn't copy what our ancestors did well and improve upon it. Basically, all of humanity is based on copying and passing it on.
@@Ruddline The computer didn't come from nothing
think about future kids who have full time working stressed parents... "It" will be their better parent and teacher... and they will love them more, then their real parents
PS: Old minded people are scared of Skynet,... but I'm hyped to see the future^^
Because you are not looking at it from the lens of being in the poor house.
@@grandgibbon2071 nah, you read the comment in a wrong dimension or shit... Don't know what you are talkin about
this video lacks one spine
"I made 7000 one day it's not worth it." Almost puked
@@saschaberger3212not because it's not enough money, because it was a hassle dealing with all the copyright crap. He did clarify that.
Asmon really thinks we should be slaves to AI for some reason its gross
@@Ruddlinewhat are you talking about
I think OpenAI tried to find a loophole on not being able to use ScarJo's voice, but it was an intentional workaround to use something that sounds like her in order to help sell their product. Because it was a purposeful ploy to get around ScarJo's wish to be a part of the voicing, I think ScarJo does have a case. It's like asking for someone to use their logo/brand, they refuse, then hire someone to make a copy of the logo or whatever but using different colours or font. People are going to see it as the same thing even though it's technically not. This is like the epitome of Chinese knock offs but with someone's voice
Burger King ai lettuce
Number seventeeeeeen
15 ppl agree and know what you’re talking about. I assume many more will read the original post and also agree with the context and know that it deserves a big thumbs up. Congratulations!
Hamburger Cheeseburger Big Mac Whopper Hamburger Cheeseburger Big Mac Whopper Hamburger Cheeseburger Big Mac Whopper Big Mac Whopper Big Mac Whopper
Some examples of AI:
-Face filters on TikTok, Instagram, etc
-Siri (both voice recognition and also the answers it generates)
-Reverse image search
-Face-tracking cameras
-Background removal/replacement, like when someone has a fake background on Zoom
You have an incredibly broad definition of AI, not one that most would agree with. Most of them are just basic machine learning. E.g. reverse image search was added in 2011, before AI was even a buzzword.
@@Bayonet1809 You disagree with my definition?
Actually it’s not wrong for SpongeBob for two reasons, 1) If it was a VA who supplied the AI the voice to create it, that’s not copyrighted because you can’t copyright impressions, and 2) He didn’t announce “hey, this is SpongeBob”, it merely said the name followed by a bunch of noises.
While I agree it’s a gray area, I don’t think it’s outright inappropriate or wrong on the surface. It depends on several factors, especially if they’re literally advertising an AI voice option as SpongeBob and selling it for people to use: then, yes, it’s wrong. But if it’s a creation that a VA contributed to and is freely shared for people to use, it really isn’t wrong.
but isnt ai trained on the originial voice, would that mean that it isnt the original voice. so unless you use the ai to say that it is in fact the voice actor saying this it would be fine anyway
It is because if you spent 20 years making a character then the use of that character should bring you rewards, if someone spent like a month to sound like that character then they're not creating something else their own character they're cashing in on another's work. That VA isn't being hired and paid because of their skill or creativity, they're being hired to basically steal another person / character's likeness / voice.
Plus saying it's freely shared doesn't change anything, say your teenage daughter's likeness and images were incorporated into the AI's database and her voice and image became a very common and well known advertisement for the biggest new p*rn site, do you really think you'd give two hoots if the makers were like 'well we gave her images away for free'.
I always wanted a gps voice that sounds like a jersey cab driver and insults you when you miss turns.
Imagine being able to produce a face mask that is the perfect replica of someone else's face. Then you wear the mask and you go out to commit all kinds of heinous crimes. If (and only if) you get caught, you claim that you're just wearing a random mask and that the fact it looks like someone else's face is pure coincidence.
Now imagine millions of people doing this.
Hello 911? I just got carjacked by Joseph Stalin
2:19 that's how artists felt.
I did it to Sponge Bob but you doing it to me is wrong.
They've made so much money that now they can pay off any lawsuit against them. All according to plan.
microsoft owns them. Everyone forgets that open ai is no longer a plucky little company they have the full weight and financial backing of microsoft.
the ai doesnt sound like it's hitting on you imo. it sounds like it thinks you're dumb
3:50 - Asmon does a Hank Hill impression lol
How do you prove that these A.I companies did or didn't steal your likeness, your voice, or your words? It's like you said, you can't with current laws. They expressed eagerness to use ScarJo's voice for the A.I, and I wouldn't put it pass them if they used her voice without her permission. If they didn't, why would they need to address it? They just need to show the voice actress for the A.I that sounds like ScarJo.
Because Sam Altman tried to recruit her up to even just a few weeks before this was released, and even her actual irl friends couldn't tell the difference and he was even marketing it with '' Her '' from the actual movie.
Even if it actually wasn't her voice there are still other factors that play a role in it, it doesn't actually necessarily have to be her actual voice for it to become a legal problem for OpenAI, it actually matters more if people believe it is or not and how they market it.
You would get a court order to see the training models, and details, and such.
@@grandgibbon2071 Keep in mind that LLMs are "let loose" to discover within learning; the training process is not wholly curated by humans. When do the actions of an individual cease to be the responsibility of their parents, to use an analogy?
@@First_Chapter Well one your analogy makes no sense because these companies are creating a product they are going to sell, or what have you, so it's not a child, or adult, or anything like that.
The company is responsible for everything, and anything their product does under their control.
The best cut scene from Terminator 3:
"Can we do something about the voice?"
"WE CAN FIX IT."
The reason people may not care about this is because - it is not her voice. It doesn't even actually sound like her. It talks in a similar way to a character in the movie Her- does she own that? I guess we'll see what the courts say, but IMO it doesn't seem wrong. Most people freaking out or "outraged" about it are the ones who are actually uninformed.
The first thing I thought of was deep fakes.
The voices do not seem similar to me.
I never even thought the voice was her until this came out 🤷♂️ just sounds like regular american woman with a customer service voice
Scarlet Johanson stocks 📉
Sky Open AI stocks: 📈
I had the same take about her complaining about the voice sounding similar to her and to say the least it was not well received. At least in a different comment section.
I'm sure he tweeted that stupid shit because he thought she would agree.
The problem I have is Scarlett JH is basically saying that SHE owns the other persons voice at this point.. Which is antithetical in principle to her own goal of making sure her likeness is her own, by declaring someone else's likeness is not their own.
That being said, Open AI is probably scrambling to find a voice actor that sounds like Scarlett at this exact moment so that they can trot her out and say it is actually that actor.
LMAO "Universal Basic Scarlett Johannson" killed me
The slope slippens
It could be that they still used recordings of her to SOME capacity. Something like the voice coming from another actress, but the cadence, tonality, etc. being taken from Scarlet recordings.
I got ONE word for you. *NEURALINK* .
That technology is still very primitive for what it is.
If the voice is popular it is not difficult to make the connection that it's because it sounds like her especially after they asked her to do it. If they're making profit from this they'll be liable. Also if the voice gets used by someone for nefarious purposes it's even more trouble.
Unless its a synthesized voice of Scarlet I do not think she has no case. However, because they removed it and multiple consultation with her I think it is a synthesized voice.
However, if they are using a voice actor that sounds like her IMO should be legal.
If chatGTP ever gets renamed to "Allide Mastercomputer" and starts speaking something in Latin like "Cogito, ergo sum", Sorry I'm the first one to die guys.
Dont forget that this is the same lady that complained that she was over sexualized in her roles as black widow…as if they forced her to accept the role.
Asmon something you missed that he was pointing out is that it sounds like they did use the movie her based on a "paper trail" like his tweet and them directly asking her after seeing the movie and then taking it down after being pressed about it, this act alone could be seen as guilt. Theres a lot more to it than a simple question of if they can use a likeness of someones voice or not. I personally agree with you, as long as they arent using said voice and they arent claiming to be them, there should be no issue. The main thing is how its suspicious with how it was handled which leads to the question of are they telling the truth and did they actually find a va or did they actually use her.
13:15 "I'm just being honest here" of course...
“Thats illegal.”
then saying
“Theres no legislation.”
is a contradiction isnt it? How can Ludwig claim its illegal if it doesn’t break any laws? AI is certainly more transformative than any of the react content hes farmed for years.
Seems illegal but there are no laws againts it currently.
"When I do it it's fair use, but when they do it it's copyright infringement."
maybe the fabled solar flare isn't a bad idea after all
Inshallah brother
I'm pretty sure if you read the terms of service, you sacrifice your copyright when you upload to youtube. That's the case for facebook and instagram
Ai just getting better faster and faster there is even project for ai developing apps most majors in collage will became useless soon
scarlet was just the inspiration thats why i dont see why the tweet is a prob. hes just showing what inspired him. the more you believe ai will be scary and the more scared you are the scarier it will be btw. if people relax and stop be so cynical, they would be able to see what amazing possibilities open up.