3 ms·

I honestly wonder if Apple should come after him for libel after yesterday's comments. Apple exhaustively demonstrated privacy-focused AI integration in the OS

I honestly wonder if Apple should come after him for libel after yesterday's comments. Apple exhaustively demonstrated privacy-focused AI integration in the OS using local models, and the ability to dial out to the OpenAI API, but only with the user authorizing every single call. If Apple isn't going to publicly insult Elon's intelligence by accepting that he really believes his mentally bankrupt statements, he leaves them no choice but to file a libel case. His statements seemed to be carefully and maliciously prepared in a way that would damage Apple.

loceng 2y ago
Good luck to Apple to prove damages. Could you actually outline for us what comments of his you're saying are libel, and explain why they're libel? Rather than just seemingly piling on the ad hominem in this thread.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  His shrill statements implying that Apple will be piping all your private data to OpenAI are the exact opposite of what Apple demo'd. It's like they were designed to destroy consumer confidence in Apple's privacy protections across their entire product line, protections which Apple obviously designed at great expense and effort and are core to their business strategy. This is someone with 187 million twitter followers who knew his statements would reach headlines to influence far beyond even the massive following. I don't think it would be hard to prove a billion dollars or more in damages for the kind of legal team Apple could easily assemble.
  - loceng 2y ago
    Can you quote him directly please? You're saying implying but it's more likely you're placing that assumption or interpretation on it. Was it actually concerns he put forward of how easy it would actually be for Apple to do so, rather than claiming they will 100% do so? Re: "I don't think it would be hard to prove a billion dollars or more in damages for the kind of legal team Apple could easily assemble." It's practically impossible to prove - in fact his statement and his reach you talk about could perhaps even have driven up their revenue, if we're just going to play armchair expert and put assumptions forward as reality.
  - stale2002 2y ago
    Thats not how libel works. He is allowed to dislike the fact that Apple is working with OpenAI. And whether or not it is good security practice isn't an objective fact and is instead a matter of opinion. In the USA, free speech protections are very strong and you aren't going to win a lawsuit just because someone doesn't like your product.
brodo 2y ago
Most people know that Musk lies constantly. I think the smart thing for Apple is just to ignore him.
- chipdart 2y ago
  I don't think that allowing a bully to smear anyone's reputation with each tantrum is a smart thing to do, specially as Musk's tantrum consists of attacking a central piece of Apple's sales pitch: security.
  - stale2002 2y ago
    Well fortunately we live in the USA, where free speech protections are extremely strong. Someone not liking your product isn't going to result in a winning defamation lawsuit. Musk is free to attack the reputation of the trillion dollar for profit company all he likes.
    - chipdart 2y ago
      > Someone not liking your product isn't going to result in a winning defamation lawsuit. I think you're grossly misrepresenting the issue. In the very least, you're seeing a top representative of a company resorting to libel to attack companies who consume the product of a competitor.
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    My point is that it's arguably not a 'tantrum,' it's actually a strategically worded statement designed for maximum damage to Apple's business. The man isn't actually stupid. Musk is desperately trying to carve out space for his personal brand in AI, and to do that he needs to drag down major players like Apple. I think there's a strong case to be made that that's exactly what his move was. If he gets serious blowback he can try to claim 'free speech,' but weaponizing speech for malicious purposes/personal gain has never been a protected activity.
    - chipdart 2y ago

loceng 2y ago

Good luck to Apple to prove damages. Could you actually outline for us what comments of his you're saying are libel, and explain why they're libel? Rather than just seemingly piling on the ad hominem in this thread.

mullingitover 2y ago
His shrill statements implying that Apple will be piping all your private data to OpenAI are the exact opposite of what Apple demo'd. It's like they were designed to destroy consumer confidence in Apple's privacy protections across their entire product line, protections which Apple obviously designed at great expense and effort and are core to their business strategy. This is someone with 187 million twitter followers who knew his statements would reach headlines to influence far beyond even the massive following. I don't think it would be hard to prove a billion dollars or more in damages for the kind of legal team Apple could easily assemble.
- loceng 2y ago
  Can you quote him directly please? You're saying implying but it's more likely you're placing that assumption or interpretation on it. Was it actually concerns he put forward of how easy it would actually be for Apple to do so, rather than claiming they will 100% do so? Re: "I don't think it would be hard to prove a billion dollars or more in damages for the kind of legal team Apple could easily assemble." It's practically impossible to prove - in fact his statement and his reach you talk about could perhaps even have driven up their revenue, if we're just going to play armchair expert and put assumptions forward as reality.
- stale2002 2y ago
  Thats not how libel works. He is allowed to dislike the fact that Apple is working with OpenAI. And whether or not it is good security practice isn't an objective fact and is instead a matter of opinion. In the USA, free speech protections are very strong and you aren't going to win a lawsuit just because someone doesn't like your product.

brodo 2y ago

Most people know that Musk lies constantly. I think the smart thing for Apple is just to ignore him.

chipdart 2y ago
I don't think that allowing a bully to smear anyone's reputation with each tantrum is a smart thing to do, specially as Musk's tantrum consists of attacking a central piece of Apple's sales pitch: security.
- stale2002 2y ago
  Well fortunately we live in the USA, where free speech protections are extremely strong. Someone not liking your product isn't going to result in a winning defamation lawsuit. Musk is free to attack the reputation of the trillion dollar for profit company all he likes.
  - chipdart 2y ago
    > Someone not liking your product isn't going to result in a winning defamation lawsuit. I think you're grossly misrepresenting the issue. In the very least, you're seeing a top representative of a company resorting to libel to attack companies who consume the product of a competitor.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  My point is that it's arguably not a 'tantrum,' it's actually a strategically worded statement designed for maximum damage to Apple's business. The man isn't actually stupid. Musk is desperately trying to carve out space for his personal brand in AI, and to do that he needs to drag down major players like Apple. I think there's a strong case to be made that that's exactly what his move was. If he gets serious blowback he can try to claim 'free speech,' but weaponizing speech for malicious purposes/personal gain has never been a protected activity.
  - chipdart 2y ago