Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Alleged voice cloning & timeline

  • Discussion centers on the “Sky” ChatGPT voice sounding like Scarlett Johansson’s AI character in Her.
  • Commenters recap the timeline in Johansson’s statement:
    • OpenAI approached her last fall; she declined.
    • Her team was asked again two days before the GPT‑4o demo.
    • OpenAI launched anyway, CEO tweeted “her”, and only removed the voice after her lawyers contacted them.
  • Many see this as strong evidence of intent to evoke her likeness; some say the CEO’s tweet “gave away the game”.
  • A minority say they never heard the resemblance and feel social media hype created the association post‑hoc.

Legal framing: likeness and “soundalikes”

  • Multiple commenters cite US “right of publicity” / personality rights, particularly California law, as the likely basis for a claim.
  • Past cases frequently mentioned: Bette Midler vs Ford, Tom Waits vs Frito‑Lay, Vanna White vs Samsung, plus other voice/likeness cases.
  • Key idea: you can’t commercially exploit a famous, distinctive voice via an impersonator after being refused, even if you never say it’s that person.
  • Others worry about edge cases: what if someone naturally sounds similar, or parody / satire; some fear overbroad rights could harm unknown actors.

Ethics, consent, and OpenAI’s conduct

  • Strong sentiment that asking twice, being refused, then deploying a sound‑alike (and pulling it only under legal pressure) is ethically “beyond the pale”.
  • Many connect this to broader patterns: training on unlicensed copyrighted data, opaque datasets, aggressive NDAs, and the disbanding of safety teams.
  • Several say this undermines OpenAI’s self‑presentation as a responsible AI “safety” leader and will erode public and legislative trust.

Technical / product angles

  • “Sky” has existed for months; GPT‑4o mainly made it more expressive (laughter, singing, flirtiness), which intensified the Her association.
  • Some argue they could have used any generic voice; the added legal/PR risk for negligible product benefit seems irrational.

Broader implications & divided views

  • Many hope for a lawsuit to set precedent on AI voice/likeness use and to open discovery into OpenAI’s training data.
  • Others think OpenAI will quietly settle; a few are cynical that fines will just be “cost of doing business”.
  • A smaller group defends OpenAI, arguing that similarity alone shouldn’t be illegal and that companies often use stylistic soundalikes.