Elon Musk | Full interview | Code Conference 2016

This is already done, at least with many modern courts. Substantiating your evidence has to happen via a pretty specific process, and there is an entire process for entering stuff into evidence with rules regarding chain of custody, validation, etc. When it comes to evidence, it's not a specific claim against anyone, it's an item that is being introduced to support a claim. That should be validated and checked before it even gets to the court room. If either counsel believes it to be fraudulent, they need to review it and make the claim. From the article, this was not really the case; instead, a video of a conference with many attendees and participants showed Musk making the claim in question.[0] Tesla's (or Musk's? Not sure) lawyers made a very weak statement: "[Musk], like many public figures, is the subject of many ‘deepfake’ videos and audio recordings that purport to show him saying and doing things he never actually said or did,” Tesla said" This is not really an argument towards anything about the video; it doesn't outright say it's a deepfake (likely because it's not), it doesn't provide any evidence to a claim that the video in question is a deepfake, it does nothing to establish who would have produced this deepfake, it doesn't question the YouTube channel owners, Recode, on if they are ready to stand by their statement, etc. In this instance, the lawyers defending Tesla/Musk are trying to muddy the waters; they aren't bold enough to say Recode made a deepfake, the