Fairly sure I understand the public details about this situation. We have at least one newspaper that has reviewed recordings or footage from the voice actor and confirmed that the OpenAI voice is a direct match for her actual regular speaking voice. We also have records illustrating that the CEO had no direct involvement in the hiring of the voice talent, and that there was no direction given for her to "sound like 'Her'".
Without any evidence that OpenAI set out to intentionally find someone who sounded like a fictional character, why should this individual be prevented from seeking work as a voice actor in any capacity?
They wanted Scarlett Johansson specifically, couldn't get her and then hired someone
They hired the Sky voice actress well before contacting SJ.
with the intent to convince the public it was her.
The only evidence for this is Sam's "her" tweet, which can easily be referring to the concept of a realistically-voiced AI assistant rather than SJ in particular.
> They hired the Sky voice actress well before contacting SJ.
Then why would they need to contact SJ 2 days before the release? If they already had the Sky voice complete? If there wouldn't be enough time to have SJ record everything for the voice?
To me, it doesn't pass the sniff test. Either their talent department is just really bad at planning and had no clue it was releasing just two days later (unlikely), or they were trying to get an agreement signed with her before the release, anticipating that this would happen (likely).
Then why would they need to contact SJ 2 days before the release?
According to OpenAI, they wanted SJ for a separate voice (https://openai.com/index/how-the-voices-for-chatgpt-were-cho...), possibly as a "one more thing" conclusion to the demo. You can say that they're lying, and certainly OpenAI doesn't have the highest credibility at the moment, but it's at least plausible.
or they were trying to get an agreement signed with her before the release, anticipating that this would happen (likely)
If they anticipated this would happen, why wouldn't they just ditch the Sky voice altogether?
> If they anticipated this would happen, why wouldn't they just ditch the Sky voice altogether?
This is my opinion so it's not factual. They already don't have any qualms making billions of dollars operating with a maybe-illegal-but-definitely-not-cool business model that hoovers up copyrighted content without compensated authors to use their works to train models to reproduce similar works, again without compensating any copyright owners. Why would they act different when it's one celebrity? Sugar Daddy Microsoft has enough money and lawyers to throw at SJ to keep her busy until she either croaks or goes broke.
Also, why would MS or OpenAI lose out on a billion dollars in stock growth with the release of ChatGPT4.o when, for a few million dollars, you can do whatever you want.
