“They said it wasn’t intentional, but of course it was.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
OpenAI intentionally made its voice resemble Scarlett Johansson's.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, The OpenAI board was right, paragraph 11.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-the-openai-board-was-right-353bb1-a1
We recorded 8 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-29. The source may have been edited after 2024-05-21. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
- They said it wasn’t intentional
- of course it was
Our interpretation
- In context, intentional means that OpenAI sought a voice resembling Johansson through selection, direction, training, or tuning.
- The claim concerns Sky's creation and presentation before the post. No beginning date is stated, so the target period has an unspecified start.
- Using another actress's natural voice does not by itself exclude deliberately selecting her for a resemblance.
Counts as supported if: Reliable records or testimony establish that resembling Johansson was an objective in creating or selecting Sky.
Counts as contradicted if: Reliable records establish independent selection and production without a Johansson-imitation objective.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Unresolved
The record was checked, and the evidence available by the cutoff does not settle it.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
OpenAI's chronology is material counterevidence to the suggestion that it hired a substitute after Johansson refused. But chronology alone does not establish whether resemblance influenced the original selection. Johansson's refusal and complaint do not establish that intent either. The public evidence reviewed leaves the central production decision unresolved.
Limitations
- The primary production account comes from the company whose conduct is disputed.
- A different actress and an earlier casting date do not logically exclude deliberate resemblance.
Evidence (2 items)
Goes against the claim: OpenAI,
We cast the voice actor behind Sky’s voice before any outreach to Ms. Johansson.
Why it matters here: OpenAI says selection and recording preceded its September approach and denies an imitation objective. This weighs against Marcus's account, but an interested party's chronology cannot rule out intentional selection for resemblance.
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: BBC News,
But she eventually rejected the offer for personal reasons, she said.
Why it matters here: The refusal and subsequent complaint explain the suspicion of intentional substitution. They do not establish why the other actress was selected or how Sky was produced.
- Publisher
- BBC News
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
Contemporaneous casting and production instructions, internal selection discussions, credible testimony, or adjudicated findings establishing whether resemblance to Johansson was intended.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, The OpenAI board was right
They said it wasn’t intentional, but of course it was.
- Where
- paragraph 11
- Published
- 2024-05-21
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-the-openai-board-was-right-353bb1-a1: Current. Outcome: Unresolved. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment marcus-the-openai-board-was-right-353bb1-a1.