Row 38318

Row ID: 38318 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 38318 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

Without exaggeration, the decision making at OpenAI in voicing Sky is shocking and very worrying.

I'm a data analytics professional, and occasionally come across issues with Personally Identifiable Information (PII) that can slide into unethical and illegal practices if not addressed. People have rights to privacy, and collecting PII around certain things (especially medical) requires a lot of care to not breach that privacy.

Similarly, people have rights to their likeness and it not being used without their permission.

"Oh," you (might) smugly reply "the voice for Sky comes from another voice actor - and actually it sounded more like Rashida Jones than Scarlett Johansson anyway!"

Storytime for how actual professionals handle things like this. I was the data analytics person attached to a cancer research study that had roughly 80 participants, about half of which were in the intervention group. We had a lot of data on these individuals that could easily breach PII and become unethical (as well as illegal). The idea came around to give them fake names to more easily outline the results for the individuals. So we just pick random names, right? Wrong. Because what if we accidentally assigned the correct name to one of the participants? So we had to have the names assigned by one of the HCPs that knew their real name and would assign what was specifically an incorrect name to each participant.

So not only did we not try to find PII of the individuals, we actively and painstakingly avoided it.

That is not at all what OpenAI did.

They were told "no you cannot use my voice". IF they were ethical professionals, they would have specifically not included a voice model that was even close to resembling the person that specifically did not give consent for their voice likeness to be used. In the very most charitable version of events, they accepted they could not use Scarlett Johannsson's voice, and then did a totally blind casting of voice actors regardless of how close to hers it was.

When offered the opportunity to wade into a morally grey area or to avoid it completely, the decision at OpenAI was to wade in.

And the stakes could NOT have been lower. This was all over being able to gin up a little extra marketing excitement. This wasn't about the quality of the product, how many people it could reach, or how it would impact users. This was all over a marketing gag.

So what about when it actually matters? And according to these same people, it will. According to the people that chose to potentially infringe on an individual's rights, the technology they're shepherding will have the greatest impact on humanity in generations.

We should be worried by this.

FieldValue
text Without exaggeration, the decision making at OpenAI in voicing Sky is shocking and very worrying. I'm a data analytics professional, and occasionally come across issues with Personally Identifiable Information (PII) that can slide into unethical and illegal practices if not addressed. People have rights to privacy, and collecting PII around certain things (especially medical) requires a lot of care to not breach that privacy. Similarly, people have rights to their likeness and it not being use…
label r/chatgpt
dataType post
communityName r/ChatGPT
datetime 2024-05-22
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1LWXpwa0RHcDZoOGJkMHpSc2kteU9aV29rNjc4aE1rRloxdzdrLTYwSHhPV25abW1WbWZESGF0U2RSSHJUaHB4VGdERUlQNGFXT0xLRHlmelZnc21yNEE9PQ==
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9hUnpTbU1OYlVSZ09wRERTMnpDVkxOVy1NQlJyM1pqX25aeUZ5Q0phRFdRODVVR3BJd0tCbWFDZmhLcXJYLTlEaUp5Y1BkQXZCemxpTU9CcXdLbDkwbzFESDJoSFduVFdwSG5hNTd2QWVHTUxRSElUejZKWW5rbVlRajl6QlVicV91dDBmeTU1c3huMURjYmlTbzdqcG9nTzZKeDA4Wno2N1RkQTJsR0h0NnVMS3NNMk9FelJNVDZWYkJVSEVScEt1ZGJESlRQSjB3WnBNREp2ZklfUmhUUT09

Raw Record

{
  "text": "Without exaggeration, the decision making at OpenAI in voicing Sky is shocking and very worrying.\n\nI'm a data analytics professional, and occasionally come across issues with Personally Identifiable Information (PII) that can slide into unethical and illegal practices if not addressed. People have rights to privacy, and collecting PII around certain things (especially medical) requires a lot of care to not breach that privacy.\n\nSimilarly, people have rights to their likeness and it not being used without their permission.\n\n\"Oh,\" you (might) smugly reply \"the voice for Sky comes from another voice actor - and actually it sounded more like Rashida Jones than Scarlett Johansson anyway!\"\n\nStorytime for how actual professionals handle things like this. I was the data analytics person attached to a cancer research study that had roughly 80 participants, about half of which were in the intervention group. We had a lot of data on these individuals that could easily breach PII and become unethical (as well as illegal). The idea came around to give them fake names to more easily outline the results for the individuals. So we just pick random names, right? Wrong. Because what if we accidentally assigned the correct name to one of the participants? So we had to have the names assigned by one of the HCPs that knew their real name and would assign what was specifically an incorrect name to each participant.\n\nSo not only did we not try to find PII of the individuals, we actively and painstakingly avoided it.\n\nThat is not at all what OpenAI did.\n\nThey were told \"no you cannot use my voice\". IF they were ethical professionals, they would have specifically not included a voice model that was even close to resembling the person that specifically did not give consent for their voice likeness to be used. In the very most charitable version of events, they accepted they could not use Scarlett Johannsson's voice, and then did a totally blind casting of voice actors regardless of how close to hers it was.\n\nWhen offered the opportunity to wade into a morally grey area or to avoid it completely, the decision at OpenAI was to wade in.\n\nAnd the stakes could NOT have been lower. This was all over being able to gin up a little extra marketing excitement. This wasn't about the quality of the product, how many people it could reach, or how it would impact users. This was all over a marketing gag.\n\nSo what about when it actually matters? And according to these same people, it will. According to the people that chose to potentially infringe on an individual's rights, the technology they're shepherding will have the greatest impact on humanity in generations.\n\nWe should be worried by this.",
  "label": "r/chatgpt",
  "dataType": "post",
  "communityName": "r/ChatGPT",
  "datetime": "2024-05-22",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1LWXpwa0RHcDZoOGJkMHpSc2kteU9aV29rNjc4aE1rRloxdzdrLTYwSHhPV25abW1WbWZESGF0U2RSSHJUaHB4VGdERUlQNGFXT0xLRHlmelZnc21yNEE9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9hUnpTbU1OYlVSZ09wRERTMnpDVkxOVy1NQlJyM1pqX25aeUZ5Q0phRFdRODVVR3BJd0tCbWFDZmhLcXJYLTlEaUp5Y1BkQXZCemxpTU9CcXdLbDkwbzFESDJoSFduVFdwSG5hNTd2QWVHTUxRSElUejZKWW5rbVlRajl6QlVicV91dDBmeTU1c3huMURjYmlTbzdqcG9nTzZKeDA4Wno2N1RkQTJsR0h0NnVMS3NNMk9FelJNVDZWYkJVSEVScEt1ZGJESlRQSjB3WnBNREp2ZklfUmhUUT09"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information