this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
154 points (78.9% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 35 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 6 months ago

Yeah this is a real: "Let me find a problem and not let them apologize." You don't like Open AI. Ok. I'm sure you have a good reason. So focus on that and stop contriving controversy. You're not changing any minds like that. That only gets kudos from people that already agree with you.

[–] A7thStone@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] CopernicusQwark@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Why not just have both a male and female voice, and ideally one that's as neutral as possible?

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago

They do have 2 male voices. The article is complaining about the choice of sky for the demo.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Neutral is boring? Flaws add as much character to a thing as beauty

[–] toofpic@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

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

[–] CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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"?

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

He’s clearly an asshole who tried to use her voice anyway

Can you explain to me what you think this line meant?Because I'm not sure how I could have made it more clear.

[–] CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

Lol I'm over it. Enjoy. I'm hoping to join you real soon out in this nice weather we're having.

[–] VerticaGG@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.)

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

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.