> they've biased themselves into it
Maybe the fault for that belongs to the company who tried to create the association in your mind by using a similar voice and tweeting about that one movie with the voice.
That’s basic advertising. They knew what they were doing. It’s just that it may have backfired.
I don't think it's a particularly similar voice to begin with, and the technology in general is very 'Her' like - which would also explain why they reached out to ScarJo to do an additional voice.
I think the tweet was dumb but in my layperson's understanding of the law and the situation, I doubt OpenAI is at any huge legal risk here.
Re:OpenAI and Scarlett Johansson's Voice
by brianjking on Thursday May 23, 2024 @09:37AM
(#40454560)
It doesn't really matter their legal risk here, IMO. What matters is the court of public opinion in this case.
Even if they are able to show irrefutable proof that it wasn't ScarJo and is in fact another person entirely it will not matter.
This is one of those times that no matter what the facts show people will be dug in one way or another.
You seem to be missing the point: It wasn't that "people ... biased themselves into it"; it was the name, the ex-board-member's direct reference to Johansson, and Altman's tweet that did that.
The only reason people think it sounds like her is because they've biased themselves into it because of all the context surrounding it.