But if OpenAI didn’t do anything wrong, why would it take down the voice?
This almost made me stop reading. What a garbage point, if someone is offended by something I did, even if I did nothing wrong, I don’t do it to them again because I’m not an asshole. He’s clearly an asshole who tried to use her voice anyway, but this line of questioning is garbage…decent people apologize all the time when they’ve done nothing wrong, and then not do the offending thing again, without admitting guilt.
But the design choice is worrying on an ethical level. Researchers say it reinforces sexist stereotypes of women as servile beings who exist only to do someone else’s bidding — to help them, comfort them, and plump up their ego.
And this is where I stopped. If they had used a male voice, they could have argued that they were excluding women. But they did a study and picked the voice people would respond to the best. And objective choice. The author set out to find sexism, and by golly they did it. Amazing.
What a garbage point, if someone is offended by something I did, even if I did nothing wrong, I don’t do it to them again because I’m not an asshole.
Putting aside the jury still being out in the last part of that statement, Sam Altman has showed himself to not only be an asshole, but an asshole who will do anything he thinks he can get away with. So the statement you took issue with “but if OpenAI didn’t do anything wrong, why would it take down the voice” is accurate. Considering the pattern of behavior from Altman and OpenAI that action is a rather implicit admission of guilt.
But the suggestion that doing something to correct the offense is considered an admission of guilt is garbage logic. This is why people are so hesitant to apologize or move to correct perceived wrongs, because people treat doing so as an admission that you did something wrong.
There is a choice of different voices, it wasn’t and isn’t a problem. But Sky was the best in my opinion, so even if I support the right of ms Johansson to not hear her voice out of every device, it’s personally kinda sad that they’re removing it
I don’t really care what the article says or what opinions the author has. I’m just asking what you think about those facts involving the subject of said articles.
My bad, I thought you were quoting the article, not yourself. It’s clear now I wasn’t seeing the difference between disagreeing with the article and disagreeing with them fucking up. It’s no excuse but I was probably high, I am right now too
The potential of a “exclusion argument” does not justify reinforcing the servile, assistant stereotype. Researchers arent pulling that one out of their ass.
I could pull together a youtube playlist of beardy men explaining why woman hating is bad. Would you like that?
(Edit: Rhetorical. We can all see your true colors with the “gay agenda” conspiracy pushing bs.)
The potential of a “exclusion argument” does not justify reinforcing the servile, assistant stereotype.
My point is that no matter what openai did, the author could have found sexism in it. It’s not hard to create something like this if you’re really trying.
I could pull together a youtube playlist of beardy men explaining why woman hating is bad. Would you like that?
I don’t follow.
(Edit: Rhetorical. We can all see your true colors with the “gay agenda” conspiracy pushing bs.)
Lol. I’ve been an lbgtq ally probably even before you were born. The fact that I can see that this ridiculously biased source for what it is doesn’t make me a conspiracy theorist against gay people.
Thanks for demonstrating my point. You were desperate to reveal my “try colors” and, by golly, you were going to find it regardless of how much you had to spin.
This almost made me stop reading. What a garbage point, if someone is offended by something I did, even if I did nothing wrong, I don’t do it to them again because I’m not an asshole. He’s clearly an asshole who tried to use her voice anyway, but this line of questioning is garbage…decent people apologize all the time when they’ve done nothing wrong, and then not do the offending thing again, without admitting guilt.
And this is where I stopped. If they had used a male voice, they could have argued that they were excluding women. But they did a study and picked the voice people would respond to the best. And objective choice. The author set out to find sexism, and by golly they did it. Amazing.
Putting aside the jury still being out in the last part of that statement, Sam Altman has showed himself to not only be an asshole, but an asshole who will do anything he thinks he can get away with. So the statement you took issue with “but if OpenAI didn’t do anything wrong, why would it take down the voice” is accurate. Considering the pattern of behavior from Altman and OpenAI that action is a rather implicit admission of guilt.
They did something wrong. We both agree.
But the suggestion that doing something to correct the offense is considered an admission of guilt is garbage logic. This is why people are so hesitant to apologize or move to correct perceived wrongs, because people treat doing so as an admission that you did something wrong.
Why not just have both a male and female voice, and ideally one that’s as neutral as possible?
They do have 2 male voices. The article is complaining about the choice of sky for the demo.
Neutral is boring? Flaws add as much character to a thing as beauty
There is a choice of different voices, it wasn’t and isn’t a problem. But Sky was the best in my opinion, so even if I support the right of ms Johansson to not hear her voice out of every device, it’s personally kinda sad that they’re removing it
Well what about the fact that they asked her to do it multiple times and right before they launched it the CEO tweeted the word “Her”?
Can you explain to me what you think this line meant?Because I’m not sure how I could have made it more clear.
I don’t really care what the article says or what opinions the author has. I’m just asking what you think about those facts involving the subject of said articles.
I believe I’ve already answered your question, with the statement I quoted, which is why I’m asking you what you think that means.
My bad, I thought you were quoting the article, not yourself. It’s clear now I wasn’t seeing the difference between disagreeing with the article and disagreeing with them fucking up. It’s no excuse but I was probably high, I am right now too
Lol I’m over it. Enjoy. I’m hoping to join you real soon out in this nice weather we’re having.
The potential of a “exclusion argument” does not justify reinforcing the servile, assistant stereotype. Researchers arent pulling that one out of their ass.
I could pull together a youtube playlist of beardy men explaining why woman hating is bad. Would you like that?
(Edit: Rhetorical. We can all see your true colors with the “gay agenda” conspiracy pushing bs.)
My point is that no matter what openai did, the author could have found sexism in it. It’s not hard to create something like this if you’re really trying.
I don’t follow.
Lol. I’ve been an lbgtq ally probably even before you were born. The fact that I can see that this ridiculously biased source for what it is doesn’t make me a conspiracy theorist against gay people.
Thanks for demonstrating my point. You were desperate to reveal my “try colors” and, by golly, you were going to find it regardless of how much you had to spin.