News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on OpenAI and Scarlett Johansson's Voice. Parent comment

Re:OpenAI and Scarlett Johansson's Voice by JumpCrisscross on Thursday May 23, 2024 @10:59AM (#40455558)
If this is really your hill to die on, go for it. Using “prosecute” to refer to civil litigation is not standard English in any dialect circa 1850.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:OpenAI and Scarlett Johansson's Voice by moralestapia on Thursday May 23, 2024 @11:20AM (#40455819)
Easy peasy, yes/no answer.

From your understanding, is looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) prosecutable or not?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:OpenAI and Scarlett Johansson's Voice by JumpCrisscross on Thursday May 23, 2024 @11:29AM (#40455916)
> is looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) prosecutable or not?

No. And if a lawmaker claimed they would like it to be, and then claimed they meant civilly litigible, they’d be labelled dishonest. (Even if it was an honest mistake.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:OpenAI and Scarlett Johansson's Voice by moralestapia on Thursday May 23, 2024 @12:36PM (#40456818)
>Looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) is not prosecutable.

Great, then we agree. :^)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:OpenAI and Scarlett Johansson's Voice by CRConrad on Monday May 27, 2024 @05:49AM (#40489249)
Yeah, I agree too. It's not prosecutable... But it is sue-able.

So, to return to your original point: Did you have one?

[ Parent | on HN ]