Row 29278

Row ID: 29278 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 29278 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

You have the situation reversed: I'm using a court definition of proof--you're not. The mistake you're making is that they don't need enough proof to meet a standard of 'preponderance of the evidence' at this stage; they only need enough proof to meet the standard of 'on information and belief,' and they have that in spades.

>I predict no lawsuit because there’s a different human voice actor and the Sky voice will never return.

It doesn't matter--it was released publicly, even if only temporarily and used in marketing.

>What’s your guess as we wrap this pointless chat up?

ScarJo has been a very vocal opponent of deepfakes and theft of likeness for years before this. Altman handed her legal standing to sue on a silver platter. The smart thing financially would be to settle and walk away--however, every single time ScarJo has sued someone, she has ignored the smart financial thing and instead gone for the one that hurts the target the most. Sometimes, clients come along that don't care about the money, but instead about sending a message. That's precisely what happened when she fucked Disney.

My guess? My guess is that she has her lawyers take this to discovery, ends up with all of OAI's internal messages and emails that contain her name, the name of the actress that voiced sky, contain any discussion of the production and casting of the voice acting, and any references to Warner Brothers or the movie "Her."

If they find a single message or email indicating that they even tried to resemble ScarJo or the movie "Her," they're utterly and totally fucked and ScarJo is going to direct her lawyers to go whatever route hurts OIA the most (as opposed to what earns her the most money), because that's always what she does in her legal battles.

FieldValue
text You have the situation reversed: I'm using a court definition of proof--you're not. The mistake you're making is that they don't need enough proof to meet a standard of 'preponderance of the evidence' at this stage; they only need enough proof to meet the standard of 'on information and belief,' and they have that in spades. >I predict no lawsuit because there’s a different human voice actor and the Sky voice will never return. It doesn't matter--it was released publicly, even if only tempora…
label r/chatgpt
dataType comment
communityName r/ChatGPT
datetime 2024-05-21
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1GSVlrYnJYSTZGYWJ0QmhhUXlhYlFaMlRTSWJjRnZ5aUtOSHFwX2lvaFpVNmpxMWRsM1JzTjVEZTNLM0stWW9YS2hOamhHWmttQy1lX244SWhGUkpMWnc9PQ==
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9VQldFeHhnbWdSa2pUMG9abC0xcDhndm9wY0NqWktBS3pkVXlSS1R3TUI2WXJoTmlkN2JBV1JSMFI1WkJXbmRhZmtjUE5OU0tTVy1hdXQySWZOaFBtSVh4VGVRd2ViY2hWQlVZbUdSRENrbjBsWEJvVno0UmpHcThEMmNQdjdMY19EQXZfbDFhdFdYT0NId0QwR2tva21iQjRhY0hwcUo0YU9mWm5DQUljMG53PQ==

Raw Record

{
  "text": "You have the situation reversed: I'm using a court definition of proof--you're not. The mistake you're making is that they don't need enough proof to meet a standard of 'preponderance of the evidence' at this stage; they only need enough proof to meet the standard of 'on information and belief,' and they have that in spades. \n\n>I predict no lawsuit because there’s a different human voice actor and the Sky voice will never return.\n\nIt doesn't matter--it was released publicly, even if only temporarily and used in marketing. \n\n>What’s your guess as we wrap this pointless chat up?\n\nScarJo has been a very vocal opponent of deepfakes and theft of likeness for years before this. Altman handed her legal standing to sue on a silver platter. The smart thing financially would be to settle and walk away--however, every single time ScarJo has sued someone, she has ignored the smart financial thing and instead gone for the one that hurts the target the most. Sometimes, clients come along that don't care about the money, but instead about sending a message. That's precisely what happened when she fucked Disney. \n\nMy guess? My guess is that she has her lawyers take this to discovery, ends up with all of OAI's internal messages and emails that contain her name, the name of the actress that voiced sky, contain any discussion of the production and casting of the voice acting, and any references to Warner Brothers or the movie \"Her.\" \n\nIf they find a single message or email indicating that they even tried to resemble ScarJo or the movie \"Her,\" they're utterly and totally fucked and ScarJo is going to direct her lawyers to go whatever route hurts OIA the most (as opposed to what earns her the most money), because that's always what she does in her legal battles.",
  "label": "r/chatgpt",
  "dataType": "comment",
  "communityName": "r/ChatGPT",
  "datetime": "2024-05-21",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1GSVlrYnJYSTZGYWJ0QmhhUXlhYlFaMlRTSWJjRnZ5aUtOSHFwX2lvaFpVNmpxMWRsM1JzTjVEZTNLM0stWW9YS2hOamhHWmttQy1lX244SWhGUkpMWnc9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9VQldFeHhnbWdSa2pUMG9abC0xcDhndm9wY0NqWktBS3pkVXlSS1R3TUI2WXJoTmlkN2JBV1JSMFI1WkJXbmRhZmtjUE5OU0tTVy1hdXQySWZOaFBtSVh4VGVRd2ViY2hWQlVZbUdSRENrbjBsWEJvVno0UmpHcThEMmNQdjdMY19EQXZfbDFhdFdYT0NId0QwR2tva21iQjRhY0hwcUo0YU9mWm5DQUljMG53PQ=="
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information