To find this "extremely hard to believe", you have to argue that this story, which has multiple sources unaffiliated with OpenAI, contemporaneous documentary evidence, and is written by a reporter with every incentive in the world to roast OpenAI, is directly wrong about facts plainly reported in the story.
I think you have to want this story to be wrong to think it's wrong. It's a tough beat! Everyone was super sure OpenAI did this bad thing just a couple days ago, and now they're feeling sheepish about it.
OpenAI reached out to SJ to use her as a voice actor.
Why was the casting call for non-union actors only? SJ is a SAG union member. "Non-union actors, unless you happen to be her?"
Her agent feared for her client's safety? Why? And to the point where the agent wants to stay anonymous, too?
Highly ironic, given that ultimately, a single voice statement from the voice actor could be far more conclusive of OpenAI's defense.
Altman was not "intimately involved"... well, other than the latter attempt to sign SJ two days prior to launch coming from him personally...
The agent said the actress confirmed that neither Johansson nor the movie “Her” were ever mentioned by OpenAI. Weird they'd not say anything to her when they were making these references public.
Out of all journalistic outlets, WaPo, being owned by Bezos, has the least incentive to roast OpenAI in this case.
Wouldn't it be nice if Bezos/Amazon could make Alexa sound like a voice actress that sounds a lot like ScarJo without repercussions? First step is to shape the public opinion.
It isn't the specific facts covered by the article that I find hard to believe. It's claims like "they probably weren't even aware of the movie and definitely weren't trying to create a voice that sounded like it".
It's true that their behavior is less damning, with the facts from this reporting. And that's a good thing. But it's not true, in my opinion, that the article demonstrates that there is no behavior to criticize.
I wrote a comment to this exact effect yesterday. We didn't have both sides of the story, let's give Sam/OAI, like, literally just a single day to present their own side. And now he did, and I am sure all the people shouting down Sam at every turn still give no shits and will move the goalposts.
I think you have to want this story to be wrong to think it's wrong. It's a tough beat! Everyone was super sure OpenAI did this bad thing just a couple days ago, and now they're feeling sheepish about it.