Johansson said that nine months ago Altman approached her proposing that she allow her voice to be licensed for the new ChatGPT voice assistant. He thought it would be "comforting to people" who are uneasy with AI technology.
"After much consideration and for personal reasons, I declined the offer," Johansson wrote.
Just two days before the new ChatGPT was unveiled, Altman again reached out to Johansson's team, urging the actress to reconsider, she said.
But before she and Altman could connect, the company publicly announced its new, splashy product, complete with a voice that she says appears to have copied her likeness.
To Johansson, it was a personal affront.
"I was shocked, angered and in disbelief that Mr. Altman would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not tell the difference," she said.
In the EU, the GDPR requires that information about individuals is accurate and that they have full access to the information stored, as well as information about the source. Surprisingly, however, OpenAI openly admits that it is unable to correct incorrect information on ChatGPT. Furthermore, the company cannot say where the data comes from or what data ChatGPT stores about individual people. The company is well aware of this problem, but doesn’t seem to care. Instead, OpenAI simply argues that “factual accuracy in large language models remains an area of active research”. Therefore, noyb today filed a complaint against OpenAI with the Austrian DPA.
This is the story of how Google Search died, and the people responsible for killing it.
I have a preprint out estimating how many scholarly papers are written using chatGPT etc? I estimate upwards of 60k articles (>1% of global output) published in 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16887
How can we identify this? Simple: there are certain words that LLMs love, and they suddenly start showing up a lot last year. Twice as many papers call something "intricate", big rises for "commendable" and "meticulous".
Het is dat ik al twee delen gelezen had en niet goed boeken onuitgelezen kan laten, maar anders was ik allang gestopt. Rommelig, saaie karakters, schrijftrucjes die niet werken.
Het eerst geschreven maar chronologisch laatste boek in de serie. Het schets een interessante wereld, maar gaat nergens heel diep op in. De eerste twee delen vullen de voorgeschiedenis aardig in. Het 'vorige' boek (Clay's ark) legt wel een link tussen de delen, maar is mij te afwijkend voor de serie. Tegelijkertijd mis ik een link tot dit boek, wat vrij abrupt eindigt, en de minste karakterontwikkeling kent.
(galerij)
Zach Seward, “the editorial director of AI initiatives at The New York Times” over slechte en goede voorbeelden van het gebruik van AI bij nieuwsplatforms.
People look at tools like ChatGPT and think their greatest trick is writing for you. But, in fact, the most powerful use case for LLMs is the opposite: creating structure out of unstructured prose.
Best een sprong (in tijd, stijl en plot) vanaf de andere delen van deze serie. Lezende dat het chronologisch volgende boek het eerst geschreven is moeten hier wel wat zaken bij elkaar komen.
Of het projectie is of niet, maar het verhaal las als een aanklacht tegen AI-gegenereerde 'kunst'.