elon musk

elon-musk’s-grok-keeps-making-up-fake-news-based-on-x-users’-jokes

Elon Musk’s Grok keeps making up fake news based on X users’ jokes

chatbots, chatgpt, defamation, elon musk, grok, klay thompson, libel law, LLMs, nba, Policy, Twitter, X, x.AI / /

It’s all jokes until it isn’t —

X likely hopes to avoid liability with disclaimer that Grok “can make mistakes.”

–

Elon Musk’s Grok keeps making up fake news based on X users’ jokes

X’s chatbot Grok is supposed to be an AI engine crunching the platform’s posts to surface and summarize breaking news, but this week, Grok’s flaws were once again exposed when the chatbot got confused and falsely accused an NBA star of criminal vandalism.

“Klay Thompson Accused in Bizarre Brick-Vandalism Spree,” Grok’s headline read in an AI-powered trending-tab post that has remained on X (formerly Twitter) for days. Beneath the headline, Grok went into even more detail to support its fake reporting:

In a bizarre turn of events, NBA star Klay Thompson has been accused of vandalizing multiple houses with bricks in Sacramento. Authorities are investigating the claims after several individuals reported their houses being damaged, with windows shattered by bricks. Klay Thompson has not yet issued a statement regarding the accusations. The incidents have left the community shaken, but no injuries were reported. The motive behind the alleged vandalism remains unclear.

Grok appears to be confusing a common basketball term, where players are said to be throwing “bricks” when they take an airball shot that doesn’t hit the rim. According to SF Gate, which was one of the first outlets to report the Grok error, Thompson had an “all-time rough shooting” night, hitting none of his shots on what was his emotional last game with the Golden State Warriors before becoming an unrestricted free agent.

In small type under Grok’s report, X includes a disclaimer saying, “Grok is an early feature and can make mistakes. Verify its outputs.”

But instead of verifying Grok’s outputs, it appeared that X users—in the service’s famously joke-y spirit—decided to fuel Grok’s misinformation. Under the post, X users, some NBA fans, commented with fake victim reports, using the same joke format to seemingly convince Grok that “several individuals reported their houses being damaged.” Some of these joking comments were viewed by millions.

First off… I am ok.

My house was vandalized by bricks 🧱

After my hands stopped shaking, I managed to call the Sheriff…They were quick to respond🚨

My window was gone and the police asked if I knew who did it👮‍♂️

I said yes, it was Klay Thompson

— LakeShowYo (@LakeShowYo) April 17, 2024

First off…I am ok.

My house was vandalized by bricks in Sacramento.

After my hands stopped shaking, I managed to call the Sheriff, they were quick to respond.

My window is gone, the police asked me if I knew who did it.

I said yes, it was Klay Thompson. pic.twitter.com/smrDs6Yi5M

— KeeganMuse (@KeegMuse) April 17, 2024

First off… I am ok.

My house was vandalized by bricks 🧱

After my hands stopped shaking, I managed to call the Sheriff…They were quick to respond🚨

My window was gone and the police asked if I knew who did it👮‍♂️

I said yes, it was Klay Thompson pic.twitter.com/JaWtdJhFli

— JJJ Muse (@JarenJJMuse) April 17, 2024

X did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment or confirm if the post will be corrected or taken down.

In the past, both Microsoft and chatbot maker OpenAI have faced defamation lawsuits over similar fabrications in which ChatGPT falsely accused a politician and a radio host of completely made-up criminal histories. Microsoft was also sued by an aerospace professor who Bing Chat falsely labeled a terrorist.

Experts told Ars that it remains unclear if disclaimers like X’s will spare companies from liability should more people decide to sue over fake AI outputs. Defamation claims might depend on proving that platforms “knowingly” publish false statements, which disclaimers suggest they do. Last July, the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into OpenAI, demanding that the company address the FTC’s fears of “false, misleading, or disparaging” AI outputs.

Because the FTC doesn’t comment on its investigations, it’s impossible to know if its probe will impact how OpenAI conducts business.

For people suing AI companies, the urgency of protecting against false outputs seems obvious. Last year, the radio host suing OpenAI, Mark Walters, accused the company of “sticking its head in the sand” and “recklessly disregarding whether the statements were false under circumstances when they knew that ChatGPT’s hallucinations were pervasive and severe.”

X just released Grok to all premium users this month, TechCrunch reported, right around the time that X began giving away premium access to the platform’s top users. During that wider rollout, X touted Grok’s new ability to summarize all trending news and topics, perhaps stoking interest in this feature and peaking Grok usage just before Grok spat out the potentially defamatory post about the NBA star.

Thompson has not issued any statements on Grok’s fake reporting.

Grok’s false post about Thompson may be the first widely publicized example of potential defamation from Grok, but it wasn’t the first time that Grok promoted fake news in response to X users joking around on the platform. During the solar eclipse, a Grok-generated headline read, “Sun’s Odd Behavior: Experts Baffled,” Gizmodo reported.

While it’s amusing to some X users to manipulate Grok, the pattern suggests that Grok may also be vulnerable to being manipulated by bad actors into summarizing and spreading more serious misinformation or propaganda. That’s apparently already happening, too. In early April, Grok made up a headline about Iran attacking Israel with heavy missiles, Mashable reported.

Elon Musk’s Grok keeps making up fake news based on X users’ jokes Read More »

so-much-for-free-speech-on-x;-musk-confirms-new-users-must-soon-pay-to-post

So much for free speech on X; Musk confirms new users must soon pay to post

ai bots, elon musk, Policy, spam accounts, spam bots, Twitter, X / /

100 pennies for your thoughts? —

The fee, likely $1, is aimed at stopping “relentless” bots, Musk said.

–

So much for free speech on X; Musk confirms new users must soon pay to post

Elon Musk confirmed Monday that X (formerly Twitter) plans to start charging new users to post on the platform, TechCrunch reported.

“Unfortunately, a small fee for new user write access is the only way to curb the relentless onslaught of bots,” Musk wrote on X.

In October, X confirmed that it was testing whether users would pay a small annual fee to access the platform by suddenly charging new users in New Zealand and the Philippines $1. Paying the fee enabled new users in those countries to post, reply, like, and bookmark X posts.

That test was deemed the “Not-A-Bot” program, and it’s unclear how successful it was at stopping bots. But X deciding to expand the program seems to suggest that the test must have had some success.

Musk has not yet clarified when X’s “small fee” might be required for new users, only confirming in a later post that any new users who avoid paying the fee will be able to post after three months. Ars created new accounts on the web and in the app, and neither signup required any fees yet.

Although Musk’s posts only mention paying for “write access,” it seems likely that the other features limited by the “Not-A-Bot” program will also be limited during those three months for any users who do not pay the fee, too. An X account called @x_alerts_ noticed on Sunday that X was updating its web app text that was seemingly enabling the “Not-A-Bot” program.

“Changes have been detected in the texts of the X web app!” @x_alerts_ wrote, noting that the altered text seemed to limit not just posting and replying, but also liking and bookmarking X posts.

“It looks like this text has been in the app, but they recently changed it, so not sure whether it’s an indication of launch or not!” the user wrote.

Back when X launched the “Not-A-Bot” program, Musk claimed that charging a $1 annual fee would make it “1000X harder to manipulate the platform.” In a help center post, X said that the “test was developed to bolster our already significant efforts to reduce spam, manipulation of our platform, and bot activity.”

Earlier this month, X warned users it was widely purging spam accounts, TechCrunch noted. X Support confirmed that follower counts would likely be impacted during that purge, because “we’re casting a wide net to ensure X remains secure and free of bots.”

But that attempt to purge bots apparently did not work as well as X hoped. This week, Musk confirmed that X is still struggling with “AI (and troll farms)” that he said are easily able to pass X’s “are you a bot” tests.

It’s hard to keep up with X’s inconsistent messaging on its bot problem since Musk took over. Last summer, Musk told attendees of The Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council that the platform had “eliminated at least 90 percent of scams,” claiming there had been a “dramatic improvement” in the platform’s ability to “detect and remove troll armies.”

At that time, experts told The Journal that solving X’s bot problem was nearly impossible because spammers’ tactics were always evolving and bots had begun using generative AI to avoid detection.

Musk’s plan to charge a fee to overcome bots won’t work, experts told WSJ, because anyone determined to spam X can just find credit cards and buy disposable phones on the dark web. And any bad actor who can’t find what they need on the dark web could theoretically just wait three months to launch scams or spread harmful content like disinformation or propaganda. This leads some critics to wonder what the point of charging the small fee really is.

When the “Not-A-Bot” program launched, X Support directly disputed critics’ claims that the program was simply testing whether charging small fees might expand X’s revenue to help Musk get the platform out of debt.

“This new test was developed to bolster our already successful efforts to reduce spam, manipulation of our platform, and bot activity, while balancing platform accessibility with the small fee amount,” X Support wrote on X. “It is not a profit driver.”

It seems likely that Musk is simply trying everything he can think of to reduce bots on the platform, even though it’s widely known that charging a subscription fee has failed to stop bots from overrunning other online platforms (just ask frustrated fans of World of Warcraft). Musk, who famously overpaid for Twitter and has been climbing out of debt since, has claimed since before the Twitter deal closed that his goal was to eliminate bots on the platform.

“We will defeat the spam bots or die trying!” Musk tweeted back in 2022, when a tweet was still a tweet and everyone could depend on accessing Twitter for free.

So much for free speech on X; Musk confirms new users must soon pay to post Read More »

judge-halts-texas-probe-into-media-matters’-reporting-on-x

Judge halts Texas probe into Media Matters’ reporting on X

elon musk, First Amendment, free speech, ken paxton, media matters for America, Policy, texas, Twitter, x twitter / /
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) meeting on February 23, 2024.

Enlarge / Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) meeting on February 23, 2024.

A judge has preliminarily blocked what Media Matters for America (MMFA) described as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s attempt to “rifle through” confidential documents to prove that MMFA fraudulently manipulated X (formerly Twitter) data to ruin X’s advertising business, as Elon Musk has alleged.

After Musk accused MMFA of publishing reports that Musk claimed were designed to scare advertisers off X, Paxton promptly launched his own investigation into MMFA last November.

Suing MMFA over alleged violations of Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act—which prohibits “disparaging the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of facts”—Paxton sought a wide range of MMFA documents through a civil investigative demand (CID). Filing a motion to block the CID, MMFA told the court that the CID had violated the media organization’s First Amendment rights, providing evidence that Paxton’s investigation and CID had chilled MMFA speech.

Paxton had requested Media Matters’ financial records—including “direct and indirect sources of funding for all Media Matters operations involving X research or publications”—as well as “internal and external communications” on “Musk’s purchase of X” and X’s current CEO Linda Yaccarino. He also asked for all of Media Matters’ communications with X representatives and X advertisers.

But perhaps most invasive, Paxton wanted to see all the communications about Media Matters’ X reporting that triggered the lawsuits, which, as US District Judge Amit Mehta wrote in an opinion published Friday, was a compelled disclosure that “poses a serious threat to the vitality of the newsgathering process.”

Mehta was concerned that MMFA showed that “Media Matters’ editorial leaders have pared back reporting and publishing, particularly on any topics that could be perceived as relating to the Paxton investigation”—including two follow-ups on its X reporting. Because of Paxton’s alleged First Amendment retaliation, MMFA said it did not publish “two pieces concerning X’s placement of advertising alongside antisemitic, pro-Nazi accounts”—”not out of legitimate concerns about fairness or accuracy,” but “out of fear of harassment, threats, and retaliation.”

According to Mehta’s order, Paxton did not contest that Texas’ lawsuit had chilled MMFA’s speech. Further, Paxton had given at least one podcast interview where he called upon other state attorneys general to join him in investigating MMFA.

Because Paxton “projected himself across state lines and asserted a pseudo-national executive authority,” Mehta wrote and repeatedly described MMFA as a “radical anti-free speech” or “radical left-wing organization,” the court had seen sufficient “evidence of retaliatory intent.”

“Notably,” Mehta wrote, Paxton remained “silent” and never “submitted a sworn declaration that explains his reasons for opening the investigation.”

In his press release, Paxton justified the investigation by saying, “We are examining the issue closely to ensure that the public has not been deceived by the schemes of radical left-wing organizations who would like nothing more than to limit freedom by reducing participation in the public square.”

Ultimately, Mehta granted MMFA’s request for a preliminary injunction to block Paxton’s CID because the judge found that the investigation and the CID have caused MMFA “to self-censor when making research and publication decisions, adversely affected the relationships between editors and reporters, and restricted communications with sources and journalists.”

“Only injunctive relief will ‘prevent the [ongoing] deprivation of free speech rights,'” Mehta’s opinion said, deeming MMFA’s reporting as “core First Amendment activities.”

Mehta’s order also banned Paxton from taking any steps to further his investigation until the lawsuit is decided.

In a statement Friday, MMFA President and CEO Angelo Carusone celebrated the win as not just against Paxton but also against Musk.

“Elon Musk encouraged Republican state attorneys general to use their power to harass their critics and stifle reporting about X,” Carusone said. “Ken Paxton was one of those AGs that took up the call and he was defeated. Today’s decision is a victory for free speech.”

Paxton has not yet responded to the preliminary injunction and his office did not respond to Ars’ request to comment..

Media Matters’ lawyer, Aria C. Branch, a partner at Elias Law Group, told Ars that “while Attorney General Paxton’s office has not yet responded to Friday’s ruling, the preliminary injunction should certainly put an end to these kind of lawless, politically motivated attempts to muzzle the press.”

Judge halts Texas probe into Media Matters’ reporting on X Read More »

elon-musk’s-x-to-stop-allowing-users-to-hide-their-blue-checks

Elon Musk’s X to stop allowing users to hide their blue checks

blue checkmark, blue tick, elon musk, Policy, Social Media, Twitter, twitter verified, X, x premium / /

Nothing to hide —

X previously promised to “evolve” the “hide your checkmark” feature.

–

Elon Musk’s X to stop allowing users to hide their blue checks

X will soon stop allowing users to hide their blue checkmarks, and some users are not happy.

Previously, a blue tick on Twitter was a mark of a notable account, providing some assurance to followers of the account’s authenticity. But then Elon Musk decided to start charging for the blue tick instead, and mayhem ensued as a wave of imposter accounts began jokingly posing as brands.

After that, paying for a blue checkmark began to attract derision, as non-paying users passed around a meme under blue-checked posts, saying, “This MF paid for Twitter.” To help spare paid subscribers this embarrassment, X began allowing users to hide their blue check last August, turning “hide your checkmark” into a feature of paid subscriptions.

However, earlier this month, X decided that hiding a checkmark would no longer be allowed, deleting the feature from its webpage detailing what comes with X Premium. An archive of X’s page shows that the language about how to hide your checkmark was removed after April 6, with X no longer promising to “continue to evolve this feature to make it better for you” but instead abruptly ending the perk.

X’s decision to stop hiding checkmarks came after the platform began gifting blue checkmarks to popular accounts. Back in April 2023, then-Twitter had awarded blue checks to celebrity accounts with more than a million followers. Last week, now-X doled out even more blue checks to accounts with over 2,500 paid verified followers. Now, accounts with more than 2,500 paid verified followers get Premium features for free, and accounts with more than 5,000 paid verified followers get Premium+.

You might think that X giving out freebies would be well-received, but Business Insider tech reporter Katie Notopoulos, one of many accounts suddenly gifted the blue check, summed up how many X users were feeling about the gifted tick by asking, “does it seem uncool?”

X doesn’t seem to care anymore if blue checks are seen as uncool, though. Anyone who doesn’t want the complimentary check can refuse it, and any paid subscriber upset about losing the ability to hide their checkmark can always just stop paying for Premium features.

According to X, anyone deciding to cancel their subscription over the loss of the “hide your checkmark” feature can expect the check to remain on their account “until the end of the subscription term you paid for, unless your account is suspended or the blue checkmark is otherwise removed by X for any reason.”

X could also suddenly remove a checkmark without refunding users in extreme circumstances.

“X reserves the right without notice to remove your blue checkmark at any time in its sole discretion without offering you a refund, including if you violate our Terms of Service or if your account is suspended,” X’s subscription page warns.

X Daily, an X news account, announced that the change was coming this week, gathering “meltdown reactions” from users who are upset that their blue checks will soon no longer be hidden.

“Let me hide my checkmark, I’m not a fucking bot,” a user called @4gntt posted, the complaint seemingly alluding to Musk’s claim that paid subscriptions are the only way to stop bots from overrunning X.

“Oh no,” another user, @jeremyphoward, posted. “I signed up to X Premium since it’s required for them to pay me… but now they [are] making the cringemark non-optional 🙁 Not sure if it’s worth it.”

It’s currently unclear when the “hide your checkmark” feature will stop working. Neither of those users criticizing X currently display a blue tick on their profile, suggesting that their checks are still hidden, but it’s also possible that some users immediately stopped paying in response to the policy change.

Elon Musk’s X to stop allowing users to hide their blue checks Read More »

elon-musk:-ai-will-be-smarter-than-any-human-around-the-end-of-next-year

Elon Musk: AI will be smarter than any human around the end of next year

AI, Biz & IT, elon musk, Grady Booch, machine learning, Social Media, superintelligence, Twitter, X / /

smarter than the average bear —

While Musk says superintelligence is coming soon, one critic says prediction is “batsh*t crazy.”

–

Elon Musk, owner of Tesla and the X (formerly Twitter) platform, attends a symposium on fighting antisemitism titled 'Never Again : Lip Service or Deep Conversation' in Krakow, Poland on January 22nd, 2024. Musk, who was invited to Poland by the European Jewish Association (EJA) has visited the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp earlier that day, ahead of International Holocaust Remembrance Day. (Photo by Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto)

Enlarge / Elon Musk, owner of Tesla and the X (formerly Twitter) platform on January 22, 2024.

On Monday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk predicted the imminent rise in AI superintelligence during a live interview streamed on the social media platform X. “My guess is we’ll have AI smarter than any one human probably around the end of next year,” Musk said in his conversation with hedge fund manager Nicolai Tangen.

Just prior to that, Tangen had asked Musk, “What’s your take on where we are in the AI race just now?” Musk told Tangen that AI “is the fastest advancing technology I’ve seen of any kind, and I’ve seen a lot of technology.” He described computers dedicated to AI increasing in capability by “a factor of 10 every year, if not every six to nine months.”

Musk made the prediction with an asterisk, saying that shortages of AI chips and high AI power demands could limit AI’s capability until those issues are resolved. “Last year, it was chip-constrained,” Musk told Tangen. “People could not get enough Nvidia chips. This year, it’s transitioning to a voltage transformer supply. In a year or two, it’s just electricity supply.”

But not everyone is convinced that Musk’s crystal ball is free of cracks. Grady Booch, a frequent critic of AI hype on social media who is perhaps best known for his work in software architecture, told Ars in an interview, “Keep in mind that Mr. Musk has a profoundly bad record at predicting anything associated with AI; back in 2016, he promised his cars would ship with FSD safety level 5, and here we are, closing on an a decade later, still waiting.”

Creating artificial intelligence at least as smart as a human (frequently called “AGI” for artificial general intelligence) is often seen as inevitable among AI proponents, but there’s no broad consensus on exactly when that milestone will be reached—or on the exact definition of AGI, for that matter.

“If you define AGI as smarter than the smartest human, I think it’s probably next year, within two years,” Musk added in the interview with Tangen while discussing AGI timelines.

Even with uncertainties about AGI, that hasn’t kept companies from trying. ChatGPT creator OpenAI, which launched with Musk as a co-founder in 2015, lists developing AGI as its main goal. Musk has not been directly associated with OpenAI for years (unless you count a recent lawsuit against the company), but last year, he took aim at the business of large language models by forming a new company called xAI. Its main product, Grok, functions similarly to ChatGPT and is integrated into the X social media platform.

Booch gives credit to Musk’s business successes but casts doubt on his forecasting ability. “Albeit a brilliant if not rapacious businessman, Mr. Musk vastly overestimates both the history as well as the present of AI while simultaneously diminishing the exquisite uniqueness of human intelligence,” says Booch. “So in short, his prediction is—to put it in scientific terms—batshit crazy.”

So when will we get AI that’s smarter than a human? Booch says there’s no real way to know at the moment. “I reject the framing of any question that asks when AI will surpass humans in intelligence because it is a question filled with ambiguous terms and considerable emotional and historic baggage,” he says. “We are a long, long way from understanding the design that would lead us there.”

We also asked Hugging Face AI researcher Dr. Margaret Mitchell to weigh in on Musk’s prediction. “Intelligence … is not a single value where you can make these direct comparisons and have them mean something,” she told us in an interview. “There will likely never be agreement on comparisons between human and machine intelligence.”

But even with that uncertainty, she feels there is one aspect of AI she can more reliably predict: “I do agree that neural network models will reach a point where men in positions of power and influence, particularly ones with investments in AI, will declare that AI is smarter than humans. By end of next year, sure. That doesn’t sound far off base to me.”

Elon Musk: AI will be smarter than any human around the end of next year Read More »

elon-musk-shares-“extremely-false”-allegation-of-voting-fraud-by-“illegals”

Elon Musk shares “extremely false” allegation of voting fraud by “illegals”

elon musk, Policy, texas, voter fraud, woke / /
Elon Musk's account on X (formerly Twitter) displayed on a smartphone next to a large X logo.

Getty Images | Nathan Stirk

Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson yesterday issued a statement debunking claims of widespread voter fraud that were amplified by X owner Elon Musk on the social network formerly named Twitter. Election officials in two other states also disputed the “extremely false” information shared by Musk.

Musk is generally a big fan of Texas, but on Tuesday he shared a post by the account “End Wokeness” that claimed, “The number of voters registering without a photo ID is SKYROCKETING in 3 key swing states: Arizona, Texas, and Pennsylvania.” The account claimed there were 1.25 million such registrations in Texas since the beginning of 2024, over 580,000 in Pennsylvania, and over 220,000 in Arizona.

“Extremely concerning,” Musk wrote in a retweet re-X. The End Wokeness post shared by Musk suggested that “illegals” are registering to vote in large numbers by using Social Security numbers that can be obtained for work authorizations. The End Wokeness post has been viewed 63 million times so far, and Musk’s re-post has been viewed 58.2 million times.

Nelson’s statement on the Texas government’s website called the claim “totally inaccurate.” For one thing, the real number of voter registrations is a small fraction of the number claimed in the post shared by Musk, the secretary of state wrote:

It is totally inaccurate that 1.2 million voters have registered to vote in Texas without a photo ID this year. The truth is our voter rolls have increased by 57,711 voters since the beginning of 2024. This is less than the number of people registered in the same timeframe in 2022 (about 65,000) and in 2020 (about 104,000).

“Extremely false”

The Texas Secretary of State office reports having 17,948,242 registered voters for the March 2024 elections, a gain of just under 189,000 voters since November 2023. The total gain over the past 24 months is a little over 764,000.

Pennsylvania’s data shows the state has 8.7 million registered voters and 87,440 voter registrations so far in 2024. Most of those were applications for party changes, while the other 39,877 were new-voter registrations.

Arizona’s total number of registered voters has been declining. While Arizona had 4.28 million registered voters in 2020 and 4.14 million in 2022, the state’s tally in March 2024 was 4,096,260.

Musk’s “Extremely concerning” post got a reply from Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, who called it “extremely false.”

“We haven’t even had that many new registrants TOTAL in 2024 in Arizona,” stated Richer, an elected official and Republican who has been active in calling out election misinformation on X. “And we have fewer than 35,000 registrants (out of 4.1 million registered voters in Arizona) who haven’t provided documented proof of citizenship.”

Musk’s platform has faced plenty of criticism over its moderation of misinformation on elections and other topics. After reports of deep cuts to X’s election integrity team in September 2023, Musk claimed the ex-X employees were “undermining election integrity.”

Elon Musk shares “extremely false” allegation of voting fraud by “illegals” Read More »

x-filing-“thermonuclear-lawsuit”-in-texas-should-be-“fatal,”-media-matters-says

X filing “thermonuclear lawsuit” in Texas should be “fatal,” Media Matters says

elon musk, First Amendment, free speech, hate speech, media matters for America, online hate speech, Policy, texas, Twitter, X / /
X filing “thermonuclear lawsuit” in Texas should be “fatal,” Media Matters says

Ever since Elon Musk’s X Corp sued Media Matters for America (MMFA) over a pair of reports that X (formerly Twitter) claims caused an advertiser exodus in 2023, one big question has remained for onlookers: Why is this fight happening in Texas?

In a motion to dismiss filed in Texas’ northern district last month, MMFA argued that X’s lawsuit should be dismissed not just because of a “fatal jurisdictional defect,” but “dismissal is also required for lack of venue.”

Notably, MMFA is based in Washington, DC, while “X is organized under Nevada law and maintains its principal place of business in San Francisco, California, where its own terms of service require users of its platform to litigate any disputes.”

“Texas is not a fair or reasonable forum for this lawsuit,” MMFA argued, suggesting that “the case must be dismissed or transferred” because “neither the parties nor the cause of action has any connection to Texas.”

Last Friday, X responded to the motion to dismiss, claiming that the lawsuit—which Musk has described as “thermonuclear”—was appropriately filed in Texas because MMFA “intentionally” targeted readers and at least two X advertisers located in Texas, Oracle and AT&T. According to X, because MMFA “identified Oracle, a Texas-based corporation, by name in its coverage,” MMFA “cannot claim surprise at being held to answer for its conduct in Texas.” X also claimed that Texas has jurisdiction because Musk resides in Texas and “makes numerous critical business decisions about X while in Texas.”

This so-called targeting of Texans caused a “substantial part” of alleged financial harms that X attributes to MMFA’s reporting, X alleged.

According to X, MMFA specifically targeted X in Texas by sending newsletters sharing its reports with “hundreds or thousands” of Texas readers and by allegedly soliciting donations from Texans to support MMFA’s reporting.

But MMFA pushed back, saying that “Texas subscribers comprise a disproportionately small percentage of Media Matters’ newsletter recipients” and that MMFA did “not solicit Texas donors to fund Media Matters’s journalism concerning X.” Because of this, X’s “efforts to concoct claim-related Texas contacts amount to a series of shots in the dark, uninformed guesses, and irrelevant tangents,” MMFA argued.

On top of that, MMFA argued that X could not attribute any financial harms allegedly caused by MMFA’s reports to either of the two Texas-based advertisers that X named in its court filings. Oracle, MMFA said, “by X’s own admission,… did not withdraw its ads” from X, and AT&T was not named in MMFA’s reporting, and thus, “any investigation AT&T did into its ad placement on X was of its own volition and is not plausibly connected to Media Matters.” MMFA has argued that advertisers, particularly sophisticated Fortune 500 companies, made their own decisions to stop advertising on X, perhaps due to widely reported increases in hate speech on X or even Musk’s own seemingly antisemitic posting.

Ars could not immediately reach X, Oracle, or AT&T for comment.

X’s suit allegedly designed to break MMFA

MMFA President Angelo Carusone, who is a defendant in X’s lawsuit, told Ars that X’s recent filing has continued to “expose” the lawsuit as a “meritless and vexatious effort to inflict maximum damage on critical research and reporting about the platform.”

“It’s solely designed to basically break us or stop us from doing the work that we were doing originally,” Carusone said, confirming that the lawsuit has negatively impacted MMFA’s hate speech research on X.

MMFA argued that Musk could have sued in other jurisdictions, such as Maryland, DC, or California, and MMFA would not have disputed the venue, but Carusone suggested that Musk sued in Texas in hopes that it would be “a more friendly jurisdiction.”

X filing “thermonuclear lawsuit” in Texas should be “fatal,” Media Matters says Read More »

openai-clarifies-the-meaning-of-“open”-in-its-name,-responding-to-musk-lawsuit

OpenAI clarifies the meaning of “open” in its name, responding to Musk lawsuit

AI, AI lawsuit, Biz & IT, chatgpt, chatgtp, elon musk, google deepmind, greg brockman, Illya Sutskever, large language models, lawsuit, machine learning, non-profit, openai, sam altman, Tesla / /
The OpenAI logo as an opening to a red brick wall.

Enlarge (credit: Benj Edwards / Getty Images)

On Tuesday, OpenAI published a blog post titled “OpenAI and Elon Musk” in response to a lawsuit Musk filed last week. The ChatGPT maker shared several archived emails from Musk that suggest he once supported a pivot away from open source practices in the company’s quest to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI). The selected emails also imply that the “open” in “OpenAI” means that the ultimate result of its research into AGI should be open to everyone but not necessarily “open source” along the way.

In one telling exchange from January 2016 shared by the company, OpenAI Chief Scientist Illya Sutskever wrote, “As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it’s totally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes).”

In response, Musk replied simply, “Yup.”

Read 8 remaining paragraphs | Comments

OpenAI clarifies the meaning of “open” in its name, responding to Musk lawsuit Read More »

judge-mocks-x-for-“vapid”-argument-in-musk’s-hate-speech-lawsuit

Judge mocks X for “vapid” argument in Musk’s hate speech lawsuit

censorship, center for countering digital hate, defamation, elon musk, hate speech, online censorship, online hate speech, Policy, Twitter, X / /
Judge mocks X for “vapid” argument in Musk’s hate speech lawsuit

It looks like Elon Musk may lose X’s lawsuit against hate speech researchers who encouraged a major brand boycott after flagging ads appearing next to extremist content on X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter.

X is trying to argue that the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) violated the site’s terms of service and illegally accessed non-public data to conduct its reporting, allegedly posing a security risk for X. The boycott, X alleged, cost the company tens of millions of dollars by spooking advertisers, while X contends that the CCDH’s reporting is misleading and ads are rarely served on extremist content.

But at a hearing Thursday, US district judge Charles Breyer told the CCDH that he would consider dismissing X’s lawsuit, repeatedly appearing to mock X’s decision to file it in the first place.

Seemingly skeptical of X’s entire argument, Breyer appeared particularly focused on how X intended to prove that the CCDH could have known that its reporting would trigger such substantial financial losses, as the lawsuit hinges on whether the alleged damages were “foreseeable,” NPR reported.

X’s lawyer, Jon Hawk, argued that when the CCDH joined Twitter in 2019, the group agreed to terms of service that noted those terms could change. So when Musk purchased Twitter and updated rules to reinstate accounts spreading hate speech, the CCDH should have been able to foresee those changes in terms and therefore anticipate that any reporting on spikes in hate speech would cause financial losses.

According to CNN, this is where Breyer became frustrated, telling Hawk, “I’m trying to figure out in my mind how that’s possibly true, because I don’t think it is.”

“What you have to tell me is, why is it foreseeable?” Breyer said. “That they should have understood that, at the time they entered the terms of service, that Twitter would then change its policy and allow this type of material to be disseminated?

“That, of course, reduces foreseeability to one of the most vapid extensions of law I’ve ever heard,” Breyer added. “‘Oh, what’s foreseeable is that things can change, and therefore, if there’s a change, it’s ‘foreseeable.’ I mean, that argument is truly remarkable.”

According to NPR, Breyer suggested that X was trying to “shoehorn” its legal theory by using language from a breach of contract claim, when what the company actually appeared to be alleging was defamation.

“You could’ve brought a defamation case; you didn’t bring a defamation case,” Breyer said. “And that’s significant.”

Breyer directly noted that one reason why X might not bring a defamation suit was if the CCDH’s reporting was accurate, NPR reported.

CCDH’s CEO and founder, Imran Ahmed, provided a statement to Ars, confirming that the group is “very pleased with how yesterday’s argument went, including many of the questions and comments from the court.”

“We remain confident in the strength of our arguments for dismissal,” Ahmed said.

Judge mocks X for “vapid” argument in Musk’s hate speech lawsuit Read More »

elon-musk-sues-openai-and-sam-altman,-accusing-them-of-chasing-profits

Elon Musk sues OpenAI and Sam Altman, accusing them of chasing profits

AI, El, elon musk, openai, Policy, syndication / /

YA Musk lawsuit —

OpenAI is now a “closed-source de facto subsidiary” of Microsoft, says lawsuit.

–

Elon Musk sues OpenAI and Sam Altman, accusing them of chasing profits

Elon Musk has sued OpenAI and its chief executive Sam Altman for breach of contract, alleging they have compromised the start-up’s original mission of building artificial intelligence systems for the benefit of humanity.

In the lawsuit, filed to a San Francisco court on Thursday, Musk’s lawyers wrote that OpenAI’s multibillion-dollar alliance with Microsoft had broken an agreement to make a major breakthrough in AI “freely available to the public.”

Instead, the lawsuit said, OpenAI was working on “proprietary technology to maximise profits for literally the largest company in the world.”

The legal fight escalates a long-running dispute between Musk, who has founded his own AI company, known as xAI, and OpenAI, which has received a $13 billion investment from Microsoft.

Musk, who helped co-found OpenAI in 2015, said in his legal filing he had donated $44 million to the group, and had been “induced” to make contributions by promises, “including in writing,” that it would remain a non-profit organisation.

He left OpenAI’s board in 2018 following disagreements with Altman on the direction of research. A year later, the group established the for-profit arm that Microsoft has invested into.

Microsoft’s president Brad Smith told the Financial Times this week that while the companies were “very important partners,” “Microsoft does not control OpenAI.”

Musk’s lawsuit alleges that OpenAI’s latest AI model, GPT4, released in March last year, breached the threshold for artificial general intelligence (AGI), at which computers function at or above the level of human intelligence.

The Microsoft deal only gives the tech giant a licence to OpenAI’s pre-AGI technology, the lawsuit said, and determining when this threshold is reached is key to Musk’s case.

The lawsuit seeks a court judgment over whether GPT4 should already be considered to be AGI, arguing that OpenAI’s board was “ill-equipped” to make such a determination.

The filing adds that OpenAI is also building another model, Q*, that will be even more powerful and capable than GPT4. It argues that OpenAI is committed under the terms of its founding agreement to make such technology available publicly.

“Mr. Musk has long recognised that AGI poses a grave threat to humanity—perhaps the greatest existential threat we face today,” the lawsuit says.

“To this day, OpenAI, Inc.’s website continues to profess that its charter is to ensure that AGI ‘benefits all of humanity’,” it adds. “In reality, however, OpenAI, Inc. has been transformed into a closed-source de facto subsidiary of the largest technology company in the world: Microsoft.”

OpenAI maintains it has not yet achieved AGI, despite its models’ success in language and reasoning tasks. Large language models like GPT4 still generate errors, fabrications and so-called hallucinations.

The lawsuit also seeks to “compel” OpenAI to adhere to its founding agreement to build technology that does not simply benefit individuals such as Altman and corporations such as Microsoft.

Musk’s own xAI company is a direct competitor to OpenAI and launched its first product, a chatbot named Grok, in December.

OpenAI declined to comment. Representatives for Musk have been approached for comment. Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Microsoft-OpenAI alliance is being reviewed by competition watchdogs in the US, EU and UK.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission issued subpoenas to OpenAI executives in November as part of an investigation into whether Altman had misled its investors, according to people familiar with the move.

That investigation came shortly after OpenAI’s board fired Altman as chief executive only to reinstate him days later. A new board has since been instituted including former Salesforce co-chief executive Bret Taylor as chair.

There is an ongoing internal review of the former board’s allegations against Altman by independent law firm WilmerHale.

© 2024 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

Elon Musk sues OpenAI and Sam Altman, accusing them of chasing profits Read More »

elon-musk’s-x-allows-china-based-propaganda-banned-on-other-platforms

Elon Musk’s X allows China-based propaganda banned on other platforms

AI, Artificial Intelligence, disinformation, election integrity, election misinformation, elon musk, generative ai, Google, Meta, openai, Policy, Social Media, tiktok, Twitter, X / /

Rinse-wash-repeat. —

X accused of overlooking propaganda flagged by Meta and criminal prosecutors.

–

Elon Musk’s X allows China-based propaganda banned on other platforms

Lax content moderation on X (aka Twitter) has disrupted coordinated efforts between social media companies and law enforcement to tamp down on “propaganda accounts controlled by foreign entities aiming to influence US politics,” The Washington Post reported.

Now propaganda is “flourishing” on X, The Post said, while other social media companies are stuck in endless cycles, watching some of the propaganda that they block proliferate on X, then inevitably spread back to their platforms.

Meta, Google, and then-Twitter began coordinating takedown efforts with law enforcement and disinformation researchers after Russian-backed influence campaigns manipulated their platforms in hopes of swaying the 2016 US presidential election.

The next year, all three companies promised Congress to work tirelessly to stop Russian-backed propaganda from spreading on their platforms. The companies created explicit election misinformation policies and began meeting biweekly to compare notes on propaganda networks each platform uncovered, according to The Post’s interviews with anonymous sources who participated in these meetings.

However, after Elon Musk purchased Twitter and rebranded the company as X, his company withdrew from the alliance in May 2023.

Sources told The Post that the last X meeting attendee was Irish intelligence expert Aaron Rodericks—who was allegedly disciplined for liking an X post calling Musk “a dipshit.” Rodericks was subsequently laid off when Musk dismissed the entire election integrity team last September, and after that, X apparently ditched the biweekly meeting entirely and “just kind of disappeared,” a source told The Post.

In 2023, for example, Meta flagged 150 “artificial influence accounts” identified on its platform, of which “136 were still present on X as of Thursday evening,” according to The Post’s analysis. X’s seeming oversight extends to all but eight of the 123 “deceptive China-based campaigns” connected to accounts that Meta flagged last May, August, and December, The Post reported.

The Post’s report also provided an exclusive analysis from the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), which found that 86 propaganda accounts that Meta flagged last November “are still active on X.”

The majority of these accounts—81—were China-based accounts posing as Americans, SIO reported. These accounts frequently ripped photos from Americans’ LinkedIn profiles, then changed the real Americans’ names while posting about both China and US politics, as well as people often trending on X, such as Musk and Joe Biden.

Meta has warned that China-based influence campaigns are “multiplying,” The Post noted, while X’s standards remain seemingly too relaxed. Even accounts linked to criminal investigations remain active on X. One “account that is accused of being run by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security,” The Post reported, remains on X despite its posts being cited by US prosecutors in a criminal complaint.

Prosecutors connected that account to “dozens” of X accounts attempting to “shape public perceptions” about the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese government, and other world leaders. The accounts also comment on hot-button topics like the fentanyl problem or police brutality, seemingly to convey “a sense of dismay over the state of America without any clear partisan bent,” Elise Thomas, an analyst for a London nonprofit called the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, told The Post.

Some X accounts flagged by The Post had more than 1 million followers. Five have paid X for verification, suggesting that their disinformation campaigns—targeting hashtags to confound discourse on US politics—are seemingly being boosted by X.

SIO technical research manager Renée DiResta criticized X’s decision to stop coordinating with other platforms.

“The presence of these accounts reinforces the fact that state actors continue to try to influence US politics by masquerading as media and fellow Americans,” DiResta told The Post. “Ahead of the 2022 midterms, researchers and platform integrity teams were collaborating to disrupt foreign influence efforts. That collaboration seems to have ground to a halt, Twitter does not seem to be addressing even networks identified by its peers, and that’s not great.”

Musk shut down X’s election integrity team because he claimed that the team was actually “undermining” election integrity. But analysts are bracing for floods of misinformation to sway 2024 elections, as some major platforms have removed election misinformation policies just as rapid advances in AI technologies have made misinformation spread via text, images, audio, and video harder for the average person to detect.

In one prominent example, a fake robocaller relied on AI voice technology to pose as Biden to tell Democrats not to vote. That incident seemingly pushed the Federal Trade Commission on Thursday to propose penalizing AI impersonation.

It seems apparent that propaganda accounts from foreign entities on X will use every tool available to get eyes on their content, perhaps expecting Musk’s platform to be the slowest to police them. According to The Post, some of the X accounts spreading propaganda are using what appears to be AI-generated images of Biden and Donald Trump to garner tens of thousands of views on posts.

It’s possible that X will start tightening up on content moderation as elections draw closer. Yesterday, X joined Amazon, Google, Meta, OpenAI, TikTok, and other Big Tech companies in signing an agreement to fight “deceptive use of AI” during 2024 elections. Among the top goals identified in the “AI Elections accord” are identifying where propaganda originates, detecting how propaganda spreads across platforms, and “undertaking collective efforts to evaluate and learn from the experiences and outcomes of dealing” with propaganda.

Elon Musk’s X allows China-based propaganda banned on other platforms Read More »

bluesky-finally-gets-rid-of-invite-codes,-lets-everyone-join

Bluesky finally gets rid of invite codes, lets everyone join

at protocol, bluesky, content moderation, decentralized social media, elon musk, federation, Jack Dorsey, Policy, social media app, Twitter, X / /
Bluesky finally gets rid of invite codes, lets everyone join

After more than a year as an exclusive invite-only social media platform, Bluesky is now open to the public, so anyone can join without needing a once-coveted invite code.

In a blog, Bluesky said that requiring invite codes helped Bluesky “manage growth” while building features that allow users to control what content they see on the social platform.

When Bluesky debuted, many viewed it as a potential Twitter killer, but limited access to Bluesky may have weakened momentum. As of January 2024, Bluesky has more than 3 million users. That’s significantly less than X (formerly Twitter), which estimates suggest currently boasts more than 400 million global users.

But Bluesky CEO Jay Graber wrote in a blog last April that the app needed time because its goal was to piece together a new kind of social network built on its own decentralized protocol, AT Protocol. This technology allows users to freely port their social media accounts to different social platforms—including followers—rather than being locked into walled-off experiences on a platform owned by “a single company” like Meta’s Threads.

Perhaps most critically, the team wanted time to build out content moderation features before opening Bluesky to the masses to “prioritize user safety from the start.”

Bluesky plans to take a threefold approach to content moderation. The first layer is automated filtering that removes illegal, harmful content like child sexual abuse materials. Beyond that, Bluesky will soon give users extra layers of protection, including community labels and options to enable admins running servers to filter content manually.

Labeling services will be rolled out “in the coming weeks,” the blog said. These labels will make it possible for individuals or organizations to run their own moderation services, such as a trusted fact-checking organization. Users who trust these sources can subscribe to labeling services that filter out or appropriately label different types of content, like “spam” or “NSFW.”

“The human-generated label sets can be thought of as something similar to shared mute/block lists,” Bluesky explained last year.

Currently, Bluesky is recruiting partners for labeling services and did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment on any initial partnerships already formed.

It appears that Bluesky is hoping to bring in new users while introducing some of its flashiest features. Within the next month, Bluesky will also “be rolling out an experimental early version of ‘federation,’ or the feature that makes the network so open and customizable,” the blog said. The sales pitch is simple:

On Bluesky, you’ll have the freedom to choose (and the right to leave) instead of being held to the whims of private companies or black box algorithms. And wherever you go, your friends and relationships can go with you.

Developers interested in experimenting with the earliest version of AT Protocol can start testing out self-hosting servers now.

In addition to allowing users to customize content moderation, Bluesky also provides ways to customize feeds. Anyone joining will be defaulted to only see posts from users they follow, but they can also set up filters to discover content they enjoy without relying on a company’s algorithm to learn what interests them.

Bluesky users who sat on invite codes over the past year have joked about their uselessness now, with some designating themselves as legacy users. Seeming to reference Twitter’s once-coveted blue checks, one Bluesky user responding to a post from Graber joked, “When does everyone from the invite-only days get their Bluesky Elder profile badge?”

Bluesky finally gets rid of invite codes, lets everyone join Read More »