Row 23298

Row ID: 23298 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 23298 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

> Obviously, OpenAI wanted ScarJo to give permission because why wouldn't they?

This is evidence of intent to imitate her voice, you seem lost

> The tweet could also be because the demo is literally what happens in the movie.

Please be less dense. PLEASE be less dense

> the voice wasn't changed.

[Yes, it was](https://old.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cw5mmg/sky_voice_has_changed/)

> There were no legal threats from ScarJo, the voice wasn't changed. ScarJo says she's requested information on how the voice was made, and OpenAI have taken it down for the moment.

Drafted by legal counsel as part of preliminary legal action

> The evidence that would prove this one way or the other would be if the actress was given direction to impersonate ScarJo by OpenAI. That's it.

No, and it is unfathomable why you would presume to simply *make up* a standard of evidence when one already exists in case law. In Midler v. Ford Motor Co., "[t]he recognition of Midler's voice in the commercial was found to be the intentional motivation and a major feature of the commercial", just as the recognition of Scarlet Johansson's voice in the chatbot is the intentional motivation of OpenAI and a major feature of their product, as evidenced by their public and private communications. Whether or not the actress (if there indeed was one) was aware of any such intent to impersonate is irrelevant, because Ford Motor Company, and OpenAI, *were* aware.

> None of that information is in the public domain.

You don't appear to understand what the public domain is if you're using it in a sentence this way

> My post in the other reply to you says why the Midler case is totally different and not the same as this.

As unconvincingly as here, I see it

FieldValue
text > Obviously, OpenAI wanted ScarJo to give permission because why wouldn't they? This is evidence of intent to imitate her voice, you seem lost > The tweet could also be because the demo is literally what happens in the movie. Please be less dense. PLEASE be less dense > the voice wasn't changed. [Yes, it was](https://old.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cw5mmg/sky_voice_has_changed/) > There were no legal threats from ScarJo, the voice wasn't changed. ScarJo says she's requested informati…
label r/technology
dataType comment
communityName r/technology
datetime 2024-05-21
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1Ca3lRRkMyRjE5OE54NGw2S043OGNnR3gyM2JNMFBSZFJOT1Q1ZUszcUtqcVo2T3pXSlozOU8tR25EN3pqZWhaM0x2UlVMSkNUNHdGX09aeDIyTnpZN3VMZ185ZnhxUDhTOFB2a2VIaER3WlE9
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9RTDA3LVNucUNNYTBabVhsX05OakVkMXF3V2NKQmJmQVdra0UxWnNWNUdQWWdmT080RjRvVEx0aFdRa0VqcGRNOHNtbFlSbVNfbXJKZ2dvc2tCNVRmNmVqQ294V0R6em5WdzVXb1ExVzFJZ3BqYkZDbG9WS2ZOb2YtQVNBb1RUOTlKdjZuXzVsM0NXTF9oQWNnTXMtZVJUWFl2SEpadFh1RFRHYnNCVjlkYVUyVnNMQ19OblAxdHgwMEdGX3RHdkZ3eU9Xd1EzRTNETDBSblQxUW1jcFZxdz09

Raw Record

{
  "text": "> Obviously, OpenAI wanted ScarJo to give permission because why wouldn't they? \n\nThis is evidence of intent to imitate her voice, you seem lost\n\n> The tweet could also be because the demo is literally what happens in the movie.\n\nPlease be less dense. PLEASE be less dense\n\n\n> the voice wasn't changed.\n\n[Yes, it was](https://old.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1cw5mmg/sky_voice_has_changed/)\n\n\n> There were no legal threats from ScarJo, the voice wasn't changed. ScarJo says she's requested information on how the voice was made, and OpenAI have taken it down for the moment.\n\nDrafted by legal counsel as part of preliminary legal action\n\n> The evidence that would prove this one way or the other would be if the actress was given direction to impersonate ScarJo by OpenAI. That's it.\n\nNo, and it is unfathomable why you would presume to simply *make up* a standard of evidence when one already exists in case law. In Midler v. Ford Motor Co., \"[t]he recognition of Midler's voice in the commercial was found to be the intentional motivation and a major feature of the commercial\", just as the recognition of Scarlet Johansson's voice in the chatbot is the intentional motivation of OpenAI and a major feature of their product, as evidenced by their public and private communications. Whether or not the actress (if there indeed was one) was aware of any such intent to impersonate is irrelevant, because Ford Motor Company, and OpenAI, *were* aware.\n\n> None of that information is in the public domain.\n\nYou don't appear to understand what the public domain is if you're using it in a sentence this way\n\n> My post in the other reply to you says why the Midler case is totally different and not the same as this.\n\nAs unconvincingly as here, I see it",
  "label": "r/technology",
  "dataType": "comment",
  "communityName": "r/technology",
  "datetime": "2024-05-21",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1Ca3lRRkMyRjE5OE54NGw2S043OGNnR3gyM2JNMFBSZFJOT1Q1ZUszcUtqcVo2T3pXSlozOU8tR25EN3pqZWhaM0x2UlVMSkNUNHdGX09aeDIyTnpZN3VMZ185ZnhxUDhTOFB2a2VIaER3WlE9",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9RTDA3LVNucUNNYTBabVhsX05OakVkMXF3V2NKQmJmQVdra0UxWnNWNUdQWWdmT080RjRvVEx0aFdRa0VqcGRNOHNtbFlSbVNfbXJKZ2dvc2tCNVRmNmVqQ294V0R6em5WdzVXb1ExVzFJZ3BqYkZDbG9WS2ZOb2YtQVNBb1RUOTlKdjZuXzVsM0NXTF9oQWNnTXMtZVJUWFl2SEpadFh1RFRHYnNCVjlkYVUyVnNMQ19OblAxdHgwMEdGX3RHdkZ3eU9Xd1EzRTNETDBSblQxUW1jcFZxdz09"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information