[lkdfjlkdfjlg]

> Can we believe that Sam could actually be a good person?

Depends on what good means to you. This is a person that we have evidence on repeatedly using these kind of underhanded techniques. Maybe he's not physically hurting anyone, but this is a person I would avoid.

[JumpCrisscross]

> these kind of underhanded techniques

What in the article is underhanded? Worst case, he has undisclosed conflicts of interest.

> this is a person I would avoid

Does Altman have a Trump-like wake of ruined careers and lost riches among former allies? Everyone he's been close to seems to have done well from it.

[fragmede]

> Worst case, he has undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Given the size of these deals, that's kind of a big deal. It isn't an "oops, it slipped my mind" small little conflict of interest kind of thing, imo.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Given the size of these deals, that's kind of a big deal

For investors, sure. (And the investors are more than fine with Altman, warts and all.) For the public, eh.

[pseudalopex]

Are you saying the public won't or shouldn't care? Altman wants public trust to say what regulations should and should not be made. Dishonesty is relevant.

[WalterSear]

How many of them were made to sign egregious and secret non-disparagement agreements?

[qarl]

Honestly, I think his shady handling of the ScarJo thing is what is shifting the tide.

He very clearly isn't being honest there, and it's so obvious that many people are starting to question everything he says.

[philwelch]

No, if anything that’s a pretty fake controversy too.

Ricardo Montalban had a great quote about the life stages of an actor, enumerating them as follows:

1. Who is Ricardo Montalban?

2. Get me Ricardo Montalban.

3. Get me a Ricardo Montalban type.

4. Get me a young Ricardo Montalban.

5. Who is Ricardo Montalban?

As far as I can tell, Johansson’s complaint is that when OpenAI reached out to her for voice acting and she turned them down, that they instead got a Scarlett Johansson type, and that OpenAI should be categorically prohibited from hiring any voice actor who sounds like her at all. Which is not how acting has ever worked, but for some reason the topic of artificial intelligence gets a lot of people worked up to the point of artificial stupidity.

[pseudalopex]

Midler v. Ford is more relevant legally than Ricardo Montalban's wit. In short deliberate mimicry is not allowed.

OpenAI's public claims about how they produced the Sky voice followed Johansson's public statement. They could be true or false. We don't know what claims or evidence they gave Johansson's counsel.

[qarl]

> As far as I can tell, Johansson’s complaint is that when OpenAI reached out to her for voice acting and she turned them down, that they instead got a Scarlett Johansson type

Agreed, and according to Midler v. Ford that is not permitted:

"We hold only that when a distinctive voice of a professional singer is widely known and is deliberately imitated in order to sell a product, the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs and have committed a tort in California."

[philwelch]

I’ve never seen that standard applied to acting. Particularly voice acting. Midler v. Ford was a dispute between a singer and a company that used a sound-alike singer, singing a cover of a Bette Midler song in a commercial, to falsely imply a sponsorship that didn’t exist. Totally different case.

[qarl]

You've never seen it, huh? Google is super easy to use.

Here, have a look:

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-o...

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-right-publicity....

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law...

[JumpCrisscross]

It’s quite a few things. I didn’t find his claims of ignorance around the non-competes, for example, particularly compelling.

But all of that is quite separate from these conflicts, which are entirely a matter for Altman and his investors, investors who have no reason to complain about him.

[qarl]

Agreed.

But when you see him being duplicitous in some situations, it's hard not to suspect it bleeds into other situations.

[lkdfjlkdfjlg]

> What in the article is underhanded? Worst case, he has undisclosed conflicts of interest.

undisclosed = underhanded

> Does Altman have a Trump-like wake of ruined careers and lost riches among former allies? Everyone he's been close to seems to have done well from it.

I'm not talking about Trump, and I don't think Trump should be a reference for what is or isn't acceptable.