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
- GPT-5 Thinking in ChatGPT (aka Research Goblin) is shockingly good at search - 6th September 2025
- V&A East Storehouse and Operation Mincemeat in London - 27th August 2025
- The Summer of Johann: prompt injections as far as the eye can see - 15th August 2025