4 ms·

What Musk is doing is sneakier and more deceptive in a different way than that, at an earlier stage. He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive sta

What Musk is doing is sneakier and more deceptive in a different way than that, at an earlier stage. He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not. From a linked article from the one posted here, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/27/elon-musks-statements-could-be-deepfakes-tesla-defence-lawyers-tell-court https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/27/elon-musk... : > The attorneys for Huang’s family sought to depose Musk regarding recorded statements from 2016 in which he allegedly said: “A Model S and Model X, at this point, can drive autonomously with greater safety than a person. Right now.” > Tesla, however, opposed the request in court filings, arguing that Musk, the Tesla CEO, cannot recall details about the statement and questioning the authenticity of the recording. The judge's ruling here is "ok then if you want me to think it's fake, tell me that under oath." It's doubtful Musk would be willing to claim this one was fake - there are a lot of witnesses that could be dug up. He could do the weaker "I don't remember" song and dance, but he's trying to just avoid the issue entirely.

DoreenMichele 4y ago
Funny, I got the impression he was basically saying "I'm free to say anything at all now and can no longer be held in any way accountable for my own words."
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
> He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not. How do you propose to prove if he actually remembers or not? > It's doubtful Musk would be willing to claim this one was fake - there are a lot of witnesses that could be dug up. But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't be authenticated?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > How do you propose to prove if he actually remembers or not? He doesn't have to remember it for it to be good evidence. If he wants to say "I don't think I would've said that", go for it. > But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't be authenticated? The video is perfectly good evidence (and its age and provenance make it pretty reputable). If the defense contests its veracity, that's when you start going to witnesses.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    > He doesn't have to remember it for it to be good evidence. He doesn't have to remember it for it to be bad evidence either. > If he wants to say "I don't think I would've said that", go for it. But then what are you trying to hold him to? A subjective opinion? > The video is perfectly good evidence (and its age and provenance make it pretty reputable). If the defense contests its veracity, that's when you start going to witnesses. The defense will always contest its veracity if the burden is on the prosecution to prove it and they haven't. The point is that they should have to prove it. Sometimes they'll be able to.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > But then what are you trying to hold him to? A subjective opinion? He needs to make a claim about the evidence in question if he thinks it's fake. (He doesn't. He knows it's a genuine video.) Again, a vague assertion that "sometimes people make deepfakes about me" doesn't cut it. > The defense will always contest its veracity if the burden is on the prosecution to prove it and they haven't. The defense is highly unlikely to make the claim that a seven year old video on a prominent channel with top industry reporters didn't happen. Plenty of pieces of evidence get entered into the court's records without being contested.
      - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
        > He needs to make a claim about the evidence in question if he thinks it's fake. Why? What if he thinks it could be fake, and doesn't know? Why should that reduce the other party's burden? > The defense is highly unlikely to make the claim that a seven year old video on a prominent channel with top industry reporters didn't happen. But it's not the defense claiming that it didn't happen, it's the plaintiff claiming that it did. They should have to prove their claims. And sometimes they'll be able to. > Plenty of pieces of evidence get entered into the court's records without being contested. They don't get contested when the defense doesn't want to aggravate the judge by demanding proof of something they know the other party has, even if they have a right to. That's a different question than whether the other party should have the burden of proof in the cases where they might not be able to meet it.
- majormajor 4y ago
  > But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't be authenticated? There's not a "prosecution." Did you read the article I linked? This is a civil lawsuit (which also means a different level of evidence required, ultimately) still in fairly early stages. The trial hasn't even started. "Judge Evette Pennypacker tentatively ordered a limited, three-hour deposition where Musk could be asked whether he actually made the statements on the recordings" - there's no ruling of fact yet about if the video is real, the Judge is just saying "this looks like a bullshit excuse to avoid having to talk about your past comments." The plaintiff is trying to get Musk to give a deposition regarding his claims about self-driving. Musk is trying to not even have to give that testimony. This is exactly that "we need to figure out if this evidence is real or not" process that you say is needed! Musk is just trying to throw that out and say "nah we don't even need it, it could be fake, ya know." The judge seems to think that a 6+ year old video from a fairly well-known publication carries enough weight compared to a lazy "IDK, sometimes people deep fake me" statement to be worth asking Musk further questions. That seems reasonable to me. > How do you propose to prove if he actually remembers or not? Obviously that's impossible, but it's also irrelevant. If he says he doesn't remember, but you have a video with an uploaded-to-Youtube-timestamp from 2016, and contemporary coverage, then you say "well, since you don't remember for sure, we're gonna go with all the evidence that suggests you did say this."
FireBeyond 4y ago
"Is it likely, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that Musk, who has stated multiple times in hundreds of interviews, and company statements, and videos that the company created on websites entirely under their control, would or would not have made a statement materially and structurally similar to this one?" Also, how good was deep faking in 2016? The video has been around since then. Is Musk's argument that this was a long con to sue Tesla seven years later? And then you have the concept that all it would take is alternate footage of same statement, B-roll, etc., to add to the "what, were all these deep fakes, too?"
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  How would you establish this video has been around since 2016? I could easily upload the same video and put a caption under it of "filmed shortly after the birth of Elon Musk" on it.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    And could you also fake news articles referencing it all the way back to then? Or the Internet Archive? At some point you recognize that "reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "insurmountable evidence to disprove even the worse conspiracy theorist/asshole wrong".
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > I could easily upload the same video and put a caption under it of "filmed shortly after the birth of Elon Musk" on it. Except it's on YouTube, not a website under their control, which means you now need to argue - with convincing evidence - that YouTube is in on a conspiracy to defraud the court to get at Musk.
xur17 4y ago
> The judge's ruling here is "ok then if you want me to think it's fake, tell me that under oath." Which seems quite reasonable to me. Tbh, reading the initial article, I almost imagine Musk discussing his case with his lawyers, and saying something off the cuft like "can't we just argue that this was a deep-fake", and forcing them to run with it.

DoreenMichele 4y ago

Funny, I got the impression he was basically saying "I'm free to say anything at all now and can no longer be held in any way accountable for my own words."

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

> He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not. How do you propose to prove if he actually remembers or not? > It's doubtful Musk would be willing to claim this one was fake - there are a lot of witnesses that could be dug up. But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't be authenticated?

ceejayoz 4y ago
> How do you propose to prove if he actually remembers or not? He doesn't have to remember it for it to be good evidence. If he wants to say "I don't think I would've said that", go for it. > But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't be authenticated? The video is perfectly good evidence (and its age and provenance make it pretty reputable). If the defense contests its veracity, that's when you start going to witnesses.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  > He doesn't have to remember it for it to be good evidence. He doesn't have to remember it for it to be bad evidence either. > If he wants to say "I don't think I would've said that", go for it. But then what are you trying to hold him to? A subjective opinion? > The video is perfectly good evidence (and its age and provenance make it pretty reputable). If the defense contests its veracity, that's when you start going to witnesses. The defense will always contest its veracity if the burden is on the prosecution to prove it and they haven't. The point is that they should have to prove it. Sometimes they'll be able to.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > But then what are you trying to hold him to? A subjective opinion? He needs to make a claim about the evidence in question if he thinks it's fake. (He doesn't. He knows it's a genuine video.) Again, a vague assertion that "sometimes people make deepfakes about me" doesn't cut it. > The defense will always contest its veracity if the burden is on the prosecution to prove it and they haven't. The defense is highly unlikely to make the claim that a seven year old video on a prominent channel with top industry reporters didn't happen. Plenty of pieces of evidence get entered into the court's records without being contested.
    - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
      > He needs to make a claim about the evidence in question if he thinks it's fake. Why? What if he thinks it could be fake, and doesn't know? Why should that reduce the other party's burden? > The defense is highly unlikely to make the claim that a seven year old video on a prominent channel with top industry reporters didn't happen. But it's not the defense claiming that it didn't happen, it's the plaintiff claiming that it did. They should have to prove their claims. And sometimes they'll be able to. > Plenty of pieces of evidence get entered into the court's records without being contested. They don't get contested when the defense doesn't want to aggravate the judge by demanding proof of something they know the other party has, even if they have a right to. That's a different question than whether the other party should have the burden of proof in the cases where they might not be able to meet it.
majormajor 4y ago
> But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't be authenticated? There's not a "prosecution." Did you read the article I linked? This is a civil lawsuit (which also means a different level of evidence required, ultimately) still in fairly early stages. The trial hasn't even started. "Judge Evette Pennypacker tentatively ordered a limited, three-hour deposition where Musk could be asked whether he actually made the statements on the recordings" - there's no ruling of fact yet about if the video is real, the Judge is just saying "this looks like a bullshit excuse to avoid having to talk about your past comments." The plaintiff is trying to get Musk to give a deposition regarding his claims about self-driving. Musk is trying to not even have to give that testimony. This is exactly that "we need to figure out if this evidence is real or not" process that you say is needed! Musk is just trying to throw that out and say "nah we don't even need it, it could be fake, ya know." The judge seems to think that a 6+ year old video from a fairly well-known publication carries enough weight compared to a lazy "IDK, sometimes people deep fake me" statement to be worth asking Musk further questions. That seems reasonable to me. > How do you propose to prove if he actually remembers or not? Obviously that's impossible, but it's also irrelevant. If he says he doesn't remember, but you have a video with an uploaded-to-Youtube-timestamp from 2016, and contemporary coverage, then you say "well, since you don't remember for sure, we're gonna go with all the evidence that suggests you did say this."

FireBeyond 4y ago

"Is it likely, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that Musk, who has stated multiple times in hundreds of interviews, and company statements, and videos that the company created on websites entirely under their control, would or would not have made a statement materially and structurally similar to this one?" Also, how good was deep faking in 2016? The video has been around since then. Is Musk's argument that this was a long con to sue Tesla seven years later? And then you have the concept that all it would take is alternate footage of same statement, B-roll, etc., to add to the "what, were all these deep fakes, too?"

sidewndr46 4y ago
How would you establish this video has been around since 2016? I could easily upload the same video and put a caption under it of "filmed shortly after the birth of Elon Musk" on it.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  And could you also fake news articles referencing it all the way back to then? Or the Internet Archive? At some point you recognize that "reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "insurmountable evidence to disprove even the worse conspiracy theorist/asshole wrong".
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > I could easily upload the same video and put a caption under it of "filmed shortly after the birth of Elon Musk" on it. Except it's on YouTube, not a website under their control, which means you now need to argue - with convincing evidence - that YouTube is in on a conspiracy to defraud the court to get at Musk.

xur17 4y ago

> The judge's ruling here is "ok then if you want me to think it's fake, tell me that under oath." Which seems quite reasonable to me. Tbh, reading the initial article, I almost imagine Musk discussing his case with his lawyers, and saying something off the cuft like "can't we just argue that this was a deep-fake", and forcing them to run with it.