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
- Image segmentation using Gemini 2.5 - 18th April 2025
- GPT-4.1: Three new million token input models from OpenAI, including their cheapest model yet - 14th April 2025
- CaMeL offers a promising new direction for mitigating prompt injection attacks - 11th April 2025