Scarlett Johansson vs OpenAI, Nvidia's trillion-dollar problem, the "vibecession," plastic in our balls

The hosts recap the dispute as reported. According to Scarlett Johansson, Sam Altman contacted her several times about lending her voice to an OpenAI chatbot. She declined. OpenAI then released a chatbot called Sky, which she says sounded like her, and friends and family thought it was her. On May 13, the day of the GPT-4o launch, Altman tweeted her a reference to the film “Her.” She is threatening legal action.

OpenAI's account differs. Altman apologized and said the voice was never meant to resemble hers. The company showed documents to The Washington Post indicating a different, anonymous actress supplied the voice, and Post reporters say that actress's agent confirmed it.

We're sorry to Ms. Johansson that we didn't communicate better.

After hearing a comparison clip, one host says the voices sound “pretty darn similar,” while another doubts it is exact and calls it a digitally altered version of her voice. The same host finds OpenAI's privacy reason for withholding the actress's name unconvincing, since actors usually want credit. This is an impression from listening, not evidence about how the voice was made.

Several hosts focus on timing. Altman's approach to Johansson's representatives two days before launch looks, to them, like an attempt to secure rights to something already built, and a deal with a major star in two days is unrealistic. They add that, had OpenAI never contacted her, it could call the resemblance coincidence, but it called her twice. They expect discovery to be damaging.

The counterargument is that hiring a performer who resembles a star is allowed. If OpenAI did cast a lookalike nine months earlier, as its statement says, one host thinks it has a defense, but still asks why the company will not name the actor.

I think they've got a decent defense.

Another host proposes a public-confusion test tied to the right of publicity. Johansson's friends congratulating her on a ChatGPT deal is offered as evidence of confusion. The hosts also describe impersonation of podcasters in ads and fake social accounts.