• In particular, it shows that Altman and his ilk scoff at the idea of consent. In a different world, they could have built systems like ChatGPT and DALL-E by starting with licensed training data, or training data in the public domain, or even just training data that allowed creators to opt in. (View Highlight)
  • Grabbing what you want is more expedient, though, when there are billions — or as Altman claims, trillions — of dollars on the line. (View Highlight)
  • Usually, the victims are small-time artists and writers who can no longer compete with an algorithm that can churn out an error-laden imitation of their style. (View Highlight)
  • But in picking a fight with Johansson, Altman and his OpenAI cronies have turned an unflattering spotlight on their own shortcomings. (View Highlight)
  • More fundamentally, it also makes it increasingly hard to even see Altman’s crew as competent. The timeline he seems to have established — that he reached out for permission, didn’t get it, and went ahead anyway, complete with the coy little “her” tweet — is far more damning than simply building a chatbot that sounded a lot like Johansson. (View Highlight)
  • And to Johansson’s credit, the fight doesn’t sound entirely personal: she explicitly connected OpenAI’s disrespect to the broader harms brought on by its work and AI tech writ large. (View Highlight)