AI is theft.

Her voice, her choice, simple.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Trying to frick with Microsoft's cash cow
    Satya Nadella will redeem this b***h

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wtf, based jeet putting these white roasties in their place. I love Nadella now.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    israelite fight.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why is openai stealing shit? can someone do an early life check and see if it's pure coheicidence?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >why is openai stealing shit?
      The entire concept of AI is rooted in stealing people work and calling it "new".
      It's not surprising one of the big drivers to this insanity would continue doing it in more ways than one.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The entire concept of AI is rooted in stealing people work and calling it "new".
        To be fair, it could be argued that all of science, art, and literature created by humans are based on the same roots of theft since they were derived from previous work.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How would you explain ideas that someone makes up from nothing or any influence at all, but it turned out to already exist? Knowledge being stored in DNA now?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How would you explain ideas that someone makes up from nothing or any influence at all
            That doesn't exist so I don't have to explain it. Unless you're willing to provide examples?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              There was one time I had an idea, (can't remember off the top of my head). The idea was spontaneous and unrelated to anything I had in life, or have seen, etc. Anecdotal, but sometimes 2 people can have the exact same ideas.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Anecdotal, but sometimes 2 people can have the exact same ideas.
                Those two people likely derived the ideas from similar external influences.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Statistically, it's still possible. Though, very unlikely.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >"steal" data and consooom: 😐
        >"steal" data and be productive: :<
        Why are internet commies like this?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You understand nothing about AI
        And its ok to be stupid but its not ok to spread your stupidity as fact.
        AI = thinking machines
        OpenAI = stealing all the worlds shit, repackaging it and then selling it back to the people they stole from
        AI is what OpenAI makes,
        OpenAI is not what AI is
        Idiot

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Real AI has never been tried

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Shut up, you’re a civilian and have no access to or knowledge of whats being done out of public view, normie

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No. They run inference on a max 2TB model that was made from running 2PB of text. That's at best a lossy compression of 1:1000. That's like a 4k blueray being uploaded at 240p max, 12KBps + every scene is randomized and the audio is intermittently overdubbed with nonsense. And that's BEST case, it's probably more like 1:10000 compression ratio.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Imagine gargling big copyright wiener and liking it.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    She's not even attractive

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Someone should rape the hag

      Malding.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Imbecile

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        She's not going to frick you

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Does that mean I need to pretend she's not attractive?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        he is correct, but only because she is old now.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not anymore at least, she is almost 40 and she sounds like that too. It's good they are removing this voice.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Also it's funny how male voice sounds more masculine and "chad" with age but female voice exactly opposite, the older they get the less cute and feminine they sound.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      She was
      when she was 15

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      She was cute in Lost in Translation but that was 20 years ago. Fricking hag needs to learn her place.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Someone should rape the hag

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Incel homosexual alert
      Incel homosexual alert

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is actually Scarlet stealing from any other woman with a similar voice who is apparently not allowed to do voice acting purely because Scarlet is richer and more famous.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. The morons riding her clit just to dunk on AI will be the first to start begging for scraps.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeh. You can't aim they stole your vocal tones. That's moronic. There's near 8 billion people on this planet. Some of them, or some combination, are going to sound like you.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      literally all OpenAI had to do is do voice auditions to see who could get close
      she could do frickall legally if they could prove it belonged to a real human

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's what they did though, they used another voice actor.

        All Altman had to do is not go to her two days before the launch and give her a strong legal case.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you're fricking moronic if you believe that
          they wouldn't have taken the voice down if it was truly someone else's
          her lawyers asked OpenAI to detail how the voice was made
          instead of responding they just quietly removed the voice
          that tells you all you need to know

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're moronic, they obviously will cower and heel because they don't want the bad press. OpenAI is moronic but womynbelievers are even moreso. This is like claiming someone is guilty because they refuse to appear in public after getting accused of a crime. It's the smart thing to do, even if you are innocent.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Removing something due to a lawsuit is common sense, even when you are 100% right
            Sky doesn't sound like her, she has no grounds to win anything
            You are moronic

            It's like wanting to hire an actor, he refuses, so you hire a similar actor. And then the idiot thinking that he can sue because "he's similar to me"

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              then why were they still asking her permission prior to release?
              OpenAI is fricking ROLLING in cash
              they have the legal firepower to give Scarlett the bird many times over
              there is no need for them to fear any spurious lawsuits

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >asking her permission
                They didn't ask for "permission", they offered to pay for her actual voice instead of a similar one and she refused. Now she regrets it and wants gibs

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They asked to use HER voice, not her permission to use a voice they have been using for over a year
                Are that dumb?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                they could easily buy her and anything she owns, along with her family lmao

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Look up the Frito Lay impersonation case. They had to pay out several million for doing just that in an advertisement several decades ago.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most likely, yes.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's what they did though, they used another voice actor.

      All Altman had to do is not go to her two days before the launch and give her a strong legal case.

      You're moronic, they obviously will cower and heel because they don't want the bad press. OpenAI is moronic but womynbelievers are even moreso. This is like claiming someone is guilty because they refuse to appear in public after getting accused of a crime. It's the smart thing to do, even if you are innocent.

      Nah the way it stands it looks like they blatently stole her voice after she refused them. There's nothing smart about it because they're already guilty in the court of public opinion which is the only thing that matters in 2024. If they had actually hired someone with a similar sounding voice they would have said so immediately with a "meet the voice behind Sky" blog post. That would have put it out of the public context and no one would be talking about it. Given that they didn't do that and have run away with their tail between their legs I don't think there's any rational conclusion other than they either did steal her voice or intentionally manipulated the AI into sounding similar to her without the involvement of another real voice that sounds similar

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Glad to read someone here that isn't functionally brain dead.

        shouldn't have put your likeness on the internet if you didn't want it to be scraped boyo

        > Defending corporations
        > Ever
        No.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Doubling down makes you look innocent
        This is how your average moron thinks you run a billion dollar company lmao
        Not defending ClosedAI but I keep forgetting how fricking stupid normal people are
        If you get caught up in any sort of legal trouble, the fricking FIRST thing a lawyer will tell you to do it shut the frick up, stop doing whatever incited the lawsuit, and weather out the storm. "Sticking to your guns" is the kind of wieneramamie hick/Black person mentality that their attorney will bend you over and frick you for.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >t. larper
          When you run a billion dollar company your stock price matters more than any potential fines, confidently dismissing the allegations especially when you can dismiss them with the truth is nothing but a positive. Protects your stock price now, weakens public support for your accuser and you'll be able to smugly show jurors in court that you not only did not do the bad thing but you publicly showed how you did the right thing

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            which they did, they addressed the issue, specified that she has no valid claim and that another VA was used, and temporarily disabled Sky to reduce any possible liabilities even if a court goes rogue on it
            They have protected themselves and their stock price

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              And you know how many people believe them? 0, this will be the AI/tech topic for the next few weeks where everyone will call them out on obviously stealing someones likeness. The media tour will enjoy this a lot. If they did hire an impersonator or someone with a similar voice they would have said so and nipped that in the bud immediately, killing the momentum.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >And you know how many people believe them?
                Only the ones that have normal hearing abilities.
                >If they did hire an impersonator or someone with a similar voice they would have said so
                That was literally their first response.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Seems that you didn't even read their response and are here larping

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What am I larping about Black person? That I've talked to a lawyer before? Something that anyone can do, FOR FREE?
            >Confidently dismissing allegations
            This has rarely ever worked or even happened without any blowback.
            >Protects your stock price now, weakens public support for your accuser and you'll be able to smugly show jurors in court that you not only did not do the bad thing but you publicly showed how you did the right thing
            You sound like you have a teenager's conception of how the world works. Real life isn't Better Call Saul or Ace Attorney lmao. The smartest move in literally every case of hearsay is shutting your mouth and letting the courts sort it out. There's a reason "anything you say can and will be used against you" is read to every detainee. Maybe it works a little differently in the schoolyard, but there is literally nothing to gain by directly acknowledging accusations before the court date, ever. Especially if your accuser is a protected class (femoid)

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Anon, you literally have no idea what you're talking about, you seem like someone who watched a youtube video on "never talk to the police" and now preach it as if you've actually ever been involved in anything on a company level. They essentially recalled a product over an unfounded accusation which is not what you do when the allegations are meritless.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                see

                which they did, they addressed the issue, specified that she has no valid claim and that another VA was used, and temporarily disabled Sky to reduce any possible liabilities even if a court goes rogue on it
                They have protected themselves and their stock price

                When you are sued, you reduce possible liabilities. Doing so is natural, it's what every lawyer will tell you to do

                Same as if a women sues you for rape, your lawyer will tell you to STFU about anything related to it and not use social media until the problem is settled

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They essentially recalled a product over an unfounded accusation which is not what you do when the allegations are meritless.
                Why wouldn't you do that? Companies recall products all the time for "possible risks" to avoid liability, even if there's no problem with the actual product.
                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders
                There have been massive hoaxes like this before.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Depends on the industry.
                J&J's product is cheap; trashing everything on the store shelf wasn't that expensive (not in F500 terms anyway.)
                GM, Ford? They fight recalls b/c they are super expensive to conduct.
                J&J case study gets rolled out as the business case to follow in a crisis. You're not wrong, it's just that the response varies by the cost.
                OAI cost to switch voices when call out was basically zero, so ofc they do it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Nah the way it stands it looks like they blatently stole her voice after she refused them.
        copying is not "stealing," you troglodyte

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      daily reminder that women's worst nigthmare is not some incel but other women and troons. Troons really female-like in this regards. Also women's second worst enemy is themselves. If you have any love for women, literally chain them in a relationship and social environment where they do what they are told and have kids. If you hate women, give them freedom and send them to work with other women.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Seems weird she keeps on getting in legal controversy, first Disney, now OpenAI, I'm starting to see a pattern.

    • 4 weeks ago
      That Joaquin

      Welcome to the future all they do is profit with a virtual you

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's obviously fine that there's similar sounding voices but they admitted they copied her voice and by asking her demonstrated that they felt some sort of permission was needed and when they didn't get it they did it anyway... Fricking idiots lmao

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >they admitted they copied her voice
      Can you post a link to this? That would change things if true

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Forgot to include "basically" there, because they asked her to sign up to be the voice, she said no, they did it anyway and now they're claiming it was never their intention to have it sound like her and it's just a coincidence lmao. They would've been fine if they just hadn't asked. Dumb fricks

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >asked her to sign up to be the voice, she said no, they did it anyway
          I see your point but since it's obviously not her voice it seems more likely they just went with someone that sounded somewhat like her.
          It seems like she was offered the role, didn't take it, and now she regrets it when they used a similar voice.
          I suspect OpenAI is playing a Reverse israelite-no in which they'll likely file a countersuit with proof it's not her and sue her for defamation and damages for publicly calling them thieves.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it's obviously not her voice
            Doesn't seem to be so obvious for a lot of people, including to the broad herself and the company. Otherwise there'd be no reason to backpedal
            >I suspect OpenAI is playing a Reverse israelite-no in which they'll likely file a countersuit with proof it's not her
            What a terrible idea that would be. I hope they do that

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Otherwise there'd be no reason to backpedal
              They could be acting in "good faith" to make their own case stronger.
              "We took it down even though it wasn't her so that deaf people wouldn't be confused"
              >What a terrible idea that would be.
              In a non-clownworld this would be true, but OpenAI has signed government defense contracts and has a seat on the newly-formed Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security Board.
              They will prove the voice isn't actually hers in court, then it's an argument whether or not AIs are allowed to sound like actual people at all.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Asking her about it and coincidentally reaching a very similar sounding voice and then "acting in good faith" when people call them out on it, they've made themselves seem very very guilty. Like I said, I think it's a terrible idea for them to go to court, which is why I really hope they do it. Would be funny
                >They will prove the voice isn't actually hers in court
                The issue isn't that it's literally her voice but that they've clearly copied her voice. It's like using someone's likeness to sell something. But a court case would be fun, doubt they're that stupid but you never know

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The issue isn't that it's literally her voice but that they've clearly copied her voice.
                How do you quantify "clearly copied" in this case if the voice isn't the same?
                >It's like using someone's likeness to sell something.
                I agree with the sentiment but I don't believe it applies since it will be proven they didn't use her likeness, voice, or otherwise.

                Imagine she was offered a role in a movie and she declined, then the director used a different actress that resembles her to fit a certain character. She couldn't then claim that it was her personal likeness being portrayed by another person.

                Thank you for engaging in a civil way even though we disagree.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They're using a very very similar voice right after they asked her to be the voice and she declined. Absolutely nobody is going to believe they didn't just copy her voice. With that in mind, going to court now would be lunacy imo. If they hadn't asked her though, they'd have a much easier time.
                >Imagine she was offered a role in a movie and she declined, then the director used a different actress that resembles her to fit a certain character. She couldn't then claim that it was her personal likeness being portrayed by another person.
                I don't think it really fits since the voice is something they created artificially and something you CAN actually copy. With humans, it would just be finding similar looking person. If it was CGI person and it'd look exactly like her, I think we'd be back at the same point of using someone's likeness.

                Impersonation is legal so good fricking luck. If I try to hire a voice actor and they say no, I can find someone who sounds like them to do it instead. They'd only be fricked if they trained a voice model on her sound samples.

                I think this is similar case to mentioned above of a similar looking or sounding human vs creating curiously similar sounding voice or likeness. And this is AFTER they asked her, so clearly imo the intent was to get her voice. Like said, if they hadn't asked her, it could just be "I guess it could sound a bit like her but it's just a coincidence :-)". Now of course everyone will believe they just ripped her off.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Absolutely nobody is going to believe they didn't just copy her voice.
                Horny anons have done a much better job copying her voice, if OpenAI was doing it on purpose then they suck at it.
                Just show them actual models trained on her voice and no one with a brain will think OpenAI's model is one too.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It doesn't matter if their intent was to get her voice. She said no, they wanted a flirty voice as was in Her, she didn't want to do it, they found someone who would. Refusing to do work for someone doesn't mean you get to claim the work of someone else because they're like you. If I wanted a Van Gogh style painting and Van Gogh told me no or gave me a laughable quote and I found someone who would do a Van Gogh style painting instead, Van Gogh can't sue me.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >absolutely nobody is going to believe they didn't just copy her voice
                I would of they just showed me the methodology. But as far as I'm concerned they don't even have to do that. She has made a claim, now she needs to prove it.
                >it sounds just like her
                So what?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why are we pretending SJ's voice is even that unique, I didn't even know Her was her until this lawsuit. It's just a generic flirty white woman voice.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >white
                That's how they get you!

                But yeah, if you asked me to pick her voice from a line up, I doubt I could. She's not Arnold Schwarzenegger or some shit. Getting an AI to imitate her without using any of her voice work probably wouldn't be hard.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >and sue her for defamation and damages for publicly calling them thieves.
            not gonna happen, suing for defamation is largely a meme. it doesn't actually matter if they can prove her statement was untrue because for it to be defamation they have to prove that she consciously knew it was untrue when she said it.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >have to prove that she consciously knew it was untrue when she said it.
              She knows it's not her actual voice.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                and she never claimed it was, so it still wouldn't be defamation.
                >“When I heard the released demo, 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,” Johansson said. “Mr. Altman even insinuated that the similarity was intentional, tweeting a single word ‘her’ — a reference to the film in which I voiced a chat system, Samantha, who forms an intimate relationship with a human.”

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Impersonation is legal so good fricking luck. If I try to hire a voice actor and they say no, I can find someone who sounds like them to do it instead. They'd only be fricked if they trained a voice model on her sound samples.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >She sits, she shits, simple.
    Just cause it rhymes doesn't make it right. The entity with the authority here is whoever owns the copyright on whatever movies and interviews she's been in.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The voice they replaced her with is a black. woman.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh hell naw!

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what the frick they really did

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I bet that voice actor got paid a lot less as well.
        But at least she got paid.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Altman is not OpenAI, he gets a fairly minimal salary and if OpenAI gets screwed by Johansson it doesn't cost him anything.

    Altman did Johansson a favour ... purely coincidentally of course.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I didn't recognize her sexy raspy voice in their "ads", but I think she's overly based for her position.

    Also, I'm not sure if OpenAI get the point of the Spike Jonze's movie "her".

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its hilarious watching ai clowns beat around the bush that open ai etc didn’t just use gross amounts of copyrighted material without permission to train and then claim the have no idea how the voice sounds just like SJ. Its obviously theft.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      watch as this is a marketing stunt and they prove it produced the voice via a text prompt description of the voice and not from SJ's recordings

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >muh heckin copyright
      You really think I care about this shit?

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is just a typical female money grab. Are voice actresses who sound like her supposed to change careers because of this?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Clearly you sucking the skin off of Sam’s dick,
      Hope you wipe your mouth after

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i rape scarlett johansson every day in my VR game and there's nothing she can do to stop me (in VR)

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not any more theft than someone changing their voice to sound like her. What if someone is born with an extremely similar voice? A similar face? Who gets the rights? Should artists not be allowed to use reference materials because they might accidentally infringe on someone's copyright?

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > OAI using scarjo voice for sampling, bc it's easy there's lots of samples with text
    > Try to buy rights after the fact
    > lol $$$$$
    > Use voice anyway bc frick her
    > Get sued
    > This is wrong bc we all love OAI and MS
    wtf. Since when does BOT worship ms

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Doesn't even sound like her nor do they sell it as her voice.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't give a frick about tech companies, I just want to be able to choose whatever celebrity voice I please for my own personal assistant bot and there's nothing you or the copyright trannies can do about it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ripping off voice, likeness, etc. for personal use is 100pct AOK in my book. If you want to erp with your scarjo holocaust denial trainer, knock yourself out.
        MS being able to rip off, and sell, everyone else's likeness etc. is not. Doesn't matter if it's a celebrity or not; it's basic personal rights.
        And I don't believe for a hot second that OAI / Altman didn't rip off scarjo's voice; OAI's been using the
        > "we'll steal it and if you have a problem with it sue us"
        legal use strategy from day 1. So frick them; I hope the courts make them pay her.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          shouldn't have put your likeness on the internet if you didn't want it to be scraped boyo

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I somehow managed to refrain from putting my pictures in publicly accessible internet spaces. If the general public can view your pictures without logging in, you fricked up.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine being in this thread and siding with Altman, an absolute sociopath that was unwilling to provide details on how the voice was made immediately after scarjo turned down a deal to make the voice

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      All celebrities are scum and she's probably taken miles of shriveled israelite egg penis. Non-leftists don't worship celebrities like you do

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Frick copyright. Burn Hollywood to the ground.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >uhm you used a similar voice to mine after I rejected a role that was solely based on me being the voice of a fake computer woman in a critically acclaimed, widely known film
    This is like if they asked the HAL 9000 voice guy to do the voice for the AI and when he rejected it they just got someone who sounds similar. Or if they sued everyone who ever made reference or parody of that voice in a movie. There no controversy there. Voice actors get recast and aped all the fricking time - there a million Gilbert Godfrey impressionists. But somehow this is different because it's a sweet little pwincess that we need to pwotect... Pathetic. When will we stop fricking infantilizng women.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      She's just mad because she didn't realize how much free publicity this would've given her. Celebrities, at the end of the day, are greedy prostitutes.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >This is like if they asked the HAL 9000 voice guy to do the voice for the AI and when he rejected it they just got someone who sounds similar
      More like if they asked him to do the voice for the AI and when he rejected it they meticulously reconstructed his voice using recorded samples of him talking without even asking him for permission

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >wealthy israelite "forced" to hire legal counsel
    probably half of her family are lawyers
    they'll help her for free just to get more well-known

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      After her Disney lawsuit she's basically done in Hollywood, this just seals the deal.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It sounds nothing like her. She and GPT4o both sound like generic 30+ American white women. Scarlett has main character syndrome.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why does she feel so self important? She was never hot, she needs to get over it.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    she will be suing all the women in the world that sound "like her"
    I wish her good luck

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if i use my imagination to, let's say, deepfake johansson getting railed by an african king
    would that be stealing too?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, and you should post it to chub.ai when you're done so we can review your work.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder what'll happen when people start making their AI sexbots look like certain people
    It's a victimless crime but I know femcells and their orbiters will make a big deal over nothing like usual

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    your moronic belief in "intellectual property" and treating math and lines the same as bars of gold is going to become less compatible with reality every day until you are forced to concede

    technology isn't going to stop for you, ever

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    israeli bawd, literally born for daily breeding!

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Current AI is built on copyright infringement and copyright infringement is based. Frick your intellectual "property".

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why don't they ship it with a robotic voice as default and ask the user to define a speaker of their choice and to provide some links where the ai can learn from?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Branding
      They want a natural voice and for the product to be seen as the next gen beyond Siri, because that's what normies will think about when seeing it

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    oh Scarlett you are so cute why do you have to be this stupid..

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do not tell me they're removing the voice

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    surely 2 people out of billions have a similar voice

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    she's not even pretty, she hit the wall and has the worst personality, not even for rape

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >NOOOOOO MY AI GF

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *