OpenAI Just Gave Away the Entire Game

The moment word was that Reddit (and now Stackoverflow) were tightening APIs to then sell our conversations to AI was when the game was given away. And I'm sure there were moments or clues before that.

This was when the "you're the product if its free" arrangement metastasised into "you're a data farming serf for a feudal digital overlord whether you pay or not".

Google search transitioning from Good search engine for the internet -> Bad search engine serving SEO crap and ads -> Just use our AI and forget about the internet is more of the same. That their search engine is dominated by SEO and Ads is part of it ... the internet, IE other people's content isn't valuable any more, not with any sovereignty or dignity, least of all the kind envisioned in the ideals of the internet.

The goal now is to be the new internet, where you can bet your ass that there will not be any Tim Berners-Lee open sourcing this. Instead, the internet that we all made is now a feudal landscape on which we all technically "live" and in which we all technically produce content, but which is now all owned, governed and consumed by big tech for their own profits.

I recall back around the start of YouTube, which IIRC was the first hype moment for the internet after the dotcom crash, there was talk about what structures would emerge on the internet ... whether new structures would be created or whether older economic structures would impose themselves and colonise the space. I wasn't thinking too hard at the time, but it seemed intuitive to that older structures would at least try very hard to impose themselves.

But I never thought anything like this would happen. That the cloud, search/google, mega platforms and AI would swallow the whole thing up.

Well that's a happy note on which to end this day
(Well written though, thank you)
Especially coming from Google, who was one of the good guys pushing open standards and interoperability.
- We ruined the world by painting certain men or groups as bad. The centralization of power is the bad thing. That's the whole purpose of all Republics as I understand it. Something we used to know and have almost completely forgotten
- Eh, open-sourcing is just good business, the only reason every big tech company doesn't is that loads of executives are stuck in the past. Of course having random people on the internet do labor for you for free is something Google would want. They get the advantage of tens of thousands of extra eyes on their code pointing out potential security vulnerabilities and they can just put all the really shady shit in proprietary blobs like Google Play Services, they're getting the best of both worlds as far as they're concerned.
  Large publicly-traded companies do not do anything for the good of anyone but themselves, they are literally Legally Obligated to make the most profitable decisions for themselves at all times. If they're open-sourcing things it's to make money, not because they were "good guys".
Well said! I’m still wondering what happens when the enviable ouroboros of AI content referencing AI content referencing AI content makes the whole internet a self perpetuating mess of unreadable content and makes anything of value these companies once gained basically useless.
Would that eventually result in fresh, actual human created content only coming from social media? I guess clauses about using your likeness will be popping up in TikTok at some point (if they aren’t already)
- I dunno, my feeling is that even if the hype dies down we’re not going back. Like a real transition has happened just like when Facebook took off.
  Humans will still be in the loop through their prompts and various other bits and pieces and platforms (Reddit is still huge) … while we may just adjust to the new standard in the same way that many reported an inability to do deep reading after becoming regular internet users.
- It should end up self regulating once AI is using AI material. That's the downfall of the companies not bothering to put very clear identification of AI produced material. It'll spiral into a hilarious mess.
- Tik Tok was banned so it ain't coming from there. Can't get universal healthcare but we can make sure to protect kids from the latest dance craze.
- Thats a technical issue that likely can be solved. I doubt some feedback loop of training data will be the downfall of AI.. The way to stop it is to refuse to use it( lets be real the regulators arnt gana do shit)
But I never thought anything like this would happen. That the cloud, search/google, mega platforms and AI would swallow the whole thing up.
I didn't think so either. The funny thing is, Blade Runner, The Matrix, and the whole cyberpunk genre was warning us...
- Yea but this feels quicker than anyone expected. It’s easy to forget, but alpha Go beating the best in the world was shocking at the time and no one saw it coming. We hadn’t sorted out what to do with big monopoly corps yet, we weren’t ready for a whole new technology.
Nice to hear I’m not the only one who thought the same exact thing.
- Oh yea, it’s basically a vibe now for those who see it, which I was mostly channeling.

Quote from the subtitle of the article

and you can’t stop it.

Don't ever let life-deprived, perspective-bubble wearing, uncompassiontate, power hungry manipulators, "News" people, tell you what you can and cannot do. Doesn't even pass the smell test.

My advice, if a Media Outlet tries to Groom you to think that nothing you do matters, don't ever read it again.

Closed it as soon as I saw the paywall anyway
god, i love this statement. it's so true. people have to understand our collective power. even if the only tool we have is a hammer, we can still beat their doors down and crush them with it. all it takes is organization and willingness.
The implication being that this is the deal that the AI boom is offering, it's not necessarily an endorsement of that philosophy by the writer.
- I don't care what the implication was, I didn't read past the slight/insult to my character, morality and intelligence. Who is some MSM empty suit tank to play cognitive narrative shaping with me, absolutely zero.
The Atlantic huh? Alright then, The Atlantic, I'll remember your name and that you published a piece concluding people are powerless to affect change.
Now (steelman) can I square this with the sentiment from Propaghandi's "A People's History of the World":
...we'll have to teach ourselves to analyze and understand
\ the systems of thought-control.
\ And share it with each other,
\ never sayed by brass rings or the threat of penalty.
\ I'll promise you- you promise me- not to sell each
\ other out to murderers, to thieves.
\ . who've manufactured our delusion that you and me
\ participate meaningfully in the process of running
\ our own lives. Yeah, you can vote however the fuck
\ you want, but power still calls all the shots.
\ And believe it or not, even if
\ (real) democracy broke loose,
\ power could/would just "make the economy scream" until we vote responsibly.
...
Does this apply here? The song is talking about ballot boxes and corporate explotation on a nation-state imperialist. The topic at hand is to do with the corporate exploitation on a worldwide colonization-of-attention level.
So i think the way I best square this question, do we have the ability to do something about it, is this:
Yes. You can do something. Not in the way that popular media depicts the french revolution. Revolution will instead be boring. In fact, IS: Change minds. Change your own mind about whatever forms of domination you have accepted as just. Demand to know who made OpenAI king. While you're at it, demand to know why it was just for Imperialist campaigns by "superpowers" justified The Contras. It's a history lesson we can learn from, believe it or not.
Will you stay down on your knees, or does power still call all the shots?

our collective time would be better spent destroying capitalism than trying to stop AI. AI is wonderful in the right social system.

On the other hand, assuming the social system isn't the right one, hypothetically AI fully realized could make it more unreasonable and more tightly stuck the way it is.
- Not to mention, any other, more just social system wouldn’t be fucking decimating the environment, ultimately hurting the poorer nations first, for money. And AI is accelerating our CO2 output when we need to be drastically cutting it back. This is very much a pacifying tool as we barrel toward oblivion.

I mean, that's just how it has always worked, this isn't actually special to AI.

Tom Hanks does the voice for Woody in Toy Story movies, but, his brother Jim Hanks has a very similar voice, but since he isnt Tom Hanks he commands a lower salary.

So many video games and whatnot use Jim's voice for Woody instead to save a bunch of money, and/or because Tom is typically busy filming movies.

This isn't an abnormal situation, voice actors constantly have "sound alikes" that impersonate them and get paid literally because they sound similar.

OpenAI clearly did this.

It's hilarious because normally fans are foaming at the mouth if a studio hires a new actor and they sound even a little bit different than the prior actor, and no one bats an eye at studios efforts to try really hard to find a new actor that sounds as close as possible.

Scarlett declined the offer and now she's malding that OpenAI went and found some other woman who sounds similar.

Thems the breaks, that's an incredibly common thing that happens in voice acting across the board in video games, tv shows, movies, you name it.

OpenAI almost certainly would have won the court case if they were able to produce who they actually hired and said person could demo that their voice sounds the same as Gippity's.

If they did that, Scarlett wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court, she cant sue someone for having a similar voice to her, lol.

She sure can't. Sounds like all OpenAI has to do is produce the voice actor they used.
So where is she? ...
Right.
Yes but also no, the whole appeal is tied to her brand (her public image x the character HER), unlike Woody who is an original creation.
It's like doing a commercial using a lookalike dressed like the original guy and pretending that's a completely different actor.
- I get that she is grappling with identity and it's not a clear cut case, but if the precedent is set that similar voices (and I didn't even think it was that similar in this case) are infringement, that would be a pretty big blow to commercial creativity projects.
  Maybe it's more a brand problem than an infringement problem.
- I agreed with op, then i read your astute response and now I don't know which position is correct.
  Thinking it through as i type... If you photoshopped an image of Tom Hanks giving a thumbs up to your product, that would clearly be illegal, but if you hired an exact flawless lookalike impersonator of Tom Hanks and had him pose for a picture with a thumbs up to your product, would that be illegal? I think it might still be illegal, because you purposely hired a lookalike impersonator to gain the benefit of Tom Hanks' brand.
  I think the law on AI should match what the law says about impersonators. If hiring an indistinguishable celebrity impersonator to use in media is legal, then ai soundalikes should be legal too, and vice versa.
The difference is that apparently they asked ScarJo first and she said no. When they ask Tom Hanks (or really his agent, I assume) the answer is "he's too busy with movies, try Jim".
- You think celebrities need to consent to someone that sounds similar to them getting work? That's insane.
Well, in the "soundalike" situation you describe people were getting paid to voice things. Now it's just an AI model that's not getting paid and the people that made the model probably got paid even less than a soundalike voice actor would. It's just more money going to the top.
Scarlett actually would have a good case if she can show the court that people think it’s her. Tom Waits won a case against Frito Lay for “voice misappropriation” when they had someone imitate his voice for a commercial.
Wouldn’t the difference here wrt Tom/Woody be that Tom had already played the role before so there is some expectation that a similar voice would be used for future versions of Woody if Tom wasn’t available?
Serious question, I never thought about the point you made so now I’m curious.
I wish I had enough bandwidth to be angry at a new voice actor being hired to play in a children's movie franchise.

"We need you to reconsider... because we already did it and we're just looking for your stamp of approval after the fact."

asking for forgiveness rather than permission sorta just seems to be their policy these days, yeah?
- If by "forgiveness" you mean an avoidance of legal liability, sure. :P

"Yeah, let's go up against the woman who sued Disney and won What could go wrong!?"