What Tesla is contending is deeply troubling to the Court. Their position is that because Mr. Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep fakes, his public statements are immune. In other words, Mr. Musk, and others in his position, can simply say whatever they like in the public domain, then hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep fake to avoid taking ownership of what they did actually say and do. The Court is unwilling to set such a precedent by condoning Tesla's approach here.
Recent articles
- The last six months in LLMs, illustrated by pelicans on bicycles - 6th June 2025
- Tips on prompting ChatGPT for UK technology secretary Peter Kyle - 3rd June 2025
- How often do LLMs snitch? Recreating Theo's SnitchBench with LLM - 31st May 2025