8th May 2023
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
- Conceptual integrity and counting lines of code - 19th August 2026
- Qwen 3.8 27B is excellent, but it defaults to wildly overthinking things - 16th August 2026
- Now we have a timeline of the OpenAI accidental attack against Hugging Face - 7th August 2026