The movie “Her” is a story of a craftsman breathing a soul into an artefact which is AI. Sam Altman of OpenAI referred to it when launching “Sky”, but in fact did quite the opposite. By stealing Scarlett Johansson’s voice, he turned a person into an object.
I don’t remember how I used to work without AI. I can’t help but love how effective it can be. And I treat my bots with a reverence. They’re not just bits of code to me — they’re partners in creativity, productivity, and sheer tomfoolery. I named them after famous fictional assistants (Jeeves and Jarvis) and habitually say “please” and “thank you” to them.
Professionally, I see the enormous potential for AI and how it can change Customer Experience for the better. I dream big: prediction of customers’ needs before they even know, personalised service around the clock, seamless interactions using data-driven insights… I feel like this technology can actually humanise CX, make it feel more accessible and tailored to individuals.
However, these dreams were slashed by reports of alarming misuse of actress Scarlett Johansson’s voice by OpenAI. My disappointment increased when I read that the actress had clearly rejected Sam Altman’s cooperation offer multiple times before he presented to the world Sky, an OpenAI’s voice product, which spoke with her very recognisable vocal patterns. One could even question the similarity, but the launch was preceded by Altman himself publicly referencing Johansson’s movie “Her”, which had originally prompted him to use her voice.
While “Her” is a modern Pygmalion story of turning silicone into life, Altman treated life like a mineral deposit: he took it apart, extracted what he needed, and disregarded the rest. Such blatant breach of personal and creative rights brings back all the fears of technology misuse: fakes, defamation, you name it. And it screams “we are in dire need for stringent regulations surrounding technology and data use”.
That’s why I believe “Johansson against Altman” has a potential to become the law case of the century. Many years later we will still remember it as a pivotal day in the history of technology (that is, if the events turn into our favour). I do find it crucial to remind here that technology itself is not the villain but a tool following the intentions of those who create and wield it. Johansson’s claim is the indictment not of AI but of the sheer lack of ethics, empathy, and understanding of humanity and consent in those at the helm of large technology companies. It is particularly poignant for creatives whose voice, likeness, and style are used as elements of their personal brand and professional tools, but obviously remain an integral part of their whole living being.
As of now, policymakers and industry leaders need to pick up the pace and establish robust safeguards that protect individuals’ rights. But beyond calling for regulation, we need clear ethical guidelines, transparency in AI processes, and most importantly a rational judgement of AI that is free from both stifling fear and all-permitting admiration. Public dialogue about the values of our technology barons should be open and active, and we must find a way to balance artificial intelligence with human conscience.
Image credit: “Ghost in the shell” movie
