His lawyers are now claiming that Musk cannot recall making any exaggerated statements about the capabilities of Tesla's self-driving systems, and that it all might be, "Deep Fakes."
The ability of the Apartheid Era Emerald Heir™ exceed my lowest expectations buggers the mind.
I am left staring with an expression on my face that must surely resemble that of a cow that just stepped on its own udder:
The judge overseeing a wrongful death lawsuit involving Tesla's Autopilot system rejected Tesla's claim that videos of CEO Elon Musk's public statements might be deepfakes.
Tesla's deepfake claim "is deeply troubling to the Court," Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Evette Pennypacker wrote in a tentative ruling this week. "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."
Plaintiffs want Tesla to admit the authenticity of various statements Musk made about the self-driving capabilities in Tesla cars. Pennypacker's tentative ruling ordered Musk to be interviewed for a deposition at which plaintiffs can ask whether he made the statements.
"Mr. Musk was either at these places or he was not; he either said these things or he did not. Ironically, Tesla's refusal to answer these questions only makes a clearer record that Mr. Musk is the only person that has this information to respond to this discovery, one of the pre-requisites to permitting an Apex deposition," Pennypacker wrote.
That is a pissed off judge.
………Oh dear. There are nude Elon photos? Make it stop.
As Pennypacker wrote, the court stated at a February 23 hearing that "it is not necessary to have a chain of custody like history for a video for a person depicted in the video to confirm (a) if that is the person, (b) if the person did or did not perform the act shown in the video and/or (c) if the person did or did not say something depicted in the video."
Pennypacker decided that the deposition of Musk could last up to three hours "and can only address the Requests for Admission seeking to confirm that Mr. Musk was at specific interviews and made specific already identified statements during those interviews. Plaintiffs must bring the recorded statements and show them to Mr. Musk at the deposition, so that he can state under oath whether or not he made the statements."
In one case, "audio is attributed to Mr. Musk that he says he did not say," Pennypacker wrote. "Tellingly, Mr. Musk is able to identify that these videos are fake because (as must be the case) he can recall that he did not give that particular Ted Talk (even though he did give a Ted Talk) or actually give an interview about nude photos. Thus, plainly, Mr. Musk is able to have some recall as to what interviews he did and did not do."
Tesla's claim that Musk didn't necessarily make statements on video shows the company is "still trying to have it both ways, or, perhaps put more accurately, Tesla is trying to avoid at all costs tying itself to Mr. Musk's statements or denying outright that Mr. Musk made the statements," the judge wrote.
This is one pissed off judge.
Musk will probably win, but his lawyers will not have a good time doing so.
0 comments :
Post a Comment