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 Lethal Trifecta talk at the Bay Area AI Security Meetup - 9th August 2025
- The surprise deprecation of GPT-4o for ChatGPT consumers - 8th August 2025
- GPT-5: Key characteristics, pricing and model card - 7th August 2025