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
- My AI/LLM predictions for the next 1, 3 and 6 years, for Oxide and Friends - 10th January 2025
- Weeknotes: Starting 2025 a little slow - 4th January 2025
- I still don't think companies serve you ads based on spying through your microphone - 2nd January 2025