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
- Two publishers and three authors fail to understand what "vibe coding" means - 1st May 2025
- Understanding the recent criticism of the Chatbot Arena - 30th April 2025
- Qwen 3 offers a case study in how to effectively release a model - 29th April 2025