She has no incentive to settle and actually could win big by being the figurehead of the creative industry against AI. It’s understandable why she accepted a settlement from Disney, but there’s no reason why she should settle with a random startup that has no other influence on her employability in Hollywood.

And plenty of her peers have been fighting against AI content harvesting in their recent contract negotiations[1].

1. https://apnews.com/article/hollywood-ai-strike-wga-artificia...

OpenAI will settle, not sure how you read that in reverse.

Settling isn't unilateral. OpenAI can offer to settle, but if she doesn't accept, there will be no settlement.

I also said “they” instead of “her”, I’m confused as to why anybody misinterpreted what I said.

Everyone knows what you meant. But it’s not up to them to “settle”. If she brings forward a formal complaint they can offer to but she has no obligation or incentive to accept.

This may turn out to be something they can’t just buy their way out of with no other consequences.

She has a net worth of $100-$200m dollars. I doubt she wants $5-10m more.

OpenAI cannot hurt her standing in the industry— in fact, “ScarJo takes on Big Tech and wins”, in an era after the Hollywood unions called a strike and won protections from studios using generative AI for exactly this scenario, is ironically probably one of the best thing she can do for her image right now.

She is also one of the most litigious actresses in the industry, taking on Disney and winning what’s estimated to be 8 figures.

Good luck OpenAI!