×

new study by MIT’s Anand Shah and USC’s Joshua Levy, reported on by the New York Times on Monday. The study has not yet been peer reviewed.

It says that since the rollout of widely available LLMs, 18 percent of pro se filings now contain what the authors have deemed AI-generated text. Perhaps consequently, “the total volume of pro se docket entries per court in the first 180 days of a case has grown by 64% on average across the post-AI period,” the study finds.

Typically, pro se filings come from prisoners working on their cases from behind bars, but the study notes that “national non-prisoner pro se filing share rose sharply from its approximately 11% historical steady state to 16.8% in fiscal year 2025, a gain that has no precedent in 25 years of administrative records.”

According to the Times, pro se plaintiffs lost 96% of their cases from 1998-2017.

The Times is largely spotlighting frivolous lawsuits generated with AI—and what a waste of time it is for the courts to painstakingly read and process all these slop-filled filings. A Minnesota federal judge named Patrick J. Schiltz, called it “an existential threat to the federal courts.”

To illustrate their point, the Times interviewed a man who uses AI to generate lawsuits. This person gave the paper his name, and allowed himself to be photographed for the story. Courts have alleged some unsavory things about this person, and the Times says he lives in his car. He is, to use one of the president’s favorite terms, straight from central casting—so much so that the Times’ story borders on, well, mean.

I can’t dispute that AI lawsuits sound like a massive problem. At the same time, lawsuits are often the only weapon downtrodden Americans have—a substitute for institutions and politicians that actually help make us whole when we’re harmed and it’s not our fault. Part of me can’t help but long to read a David and Goliath story about a rando armed with Claude who bootstraps their way to some life-changing, ten-figure legal victory—presumably after using the LLM to figure out how to argue a case in a courtroom as well.

#Random #People #Armed #Lawyer #Reportedly #Filling #Judicial #Dockets #LawsuitsArtificial intelligence,lawsuits"> Random People Armed with AI and No Lawyer Are Reportedly Filling Judicial Dockets with Lawsuits Don’t play innocent. If you’re a non-lawyer in the 2020s, you’ve at least had the passing thought that you could use an LLM to help you generate a killer lawsuit against someone who pissed you off. Or at least now I know it’s not just me. Thanks to AI, plaintiffs representing themselves, also known as “pro se” plaintiffs, are changing the legal landscape for the worse, according to a new study by MIT’s Anand Shah and USC’s Joshua Levy, reported on by the New York Times on Monday. The study has not yet been peer reviewed. It says that since the rollout of widely available LLMs, 18 percent of pro se filings now contain what the authors have deemed AI-generated text. Perhaps consequently, “the total volume of pro se docket entries per court in the first 180 days of a case has grown by 64% on average across the post-AI period,” the study finds. Typically, pro se filings come from prisoners working on their cases from behind bars, but the study notes that “national non-prisoner pro se filing share rose sharply from its approximately 11% historical steady state to 16.8% in fiscal year 2025, a gain that has no precedent in 25 years of administrative records.” According to the Times, pro se plaintiffs lost 96% of their cases from 1998-2017. The Times is largely spotlighting frivolous lawsuits generated with AI—and what a waste of time it is for the courts to painstakingly read and process all these slop-filled filings. A Minnesota federal judge named Patrick J. Schiltz, called it “an existential threat to the federal courts.” To illustrate their point, the Times interviewed a man who uses AI to generate lawsuits. This person gave the paper his name, and allowed himself to be photographed for the story. Courts have alleged some unsavory things about this person, and the Times says he lives in his car. He is, to use one of the president’s favorite terms, straight from central casting—so much so that the Times’ story borders on, well, mean. I can’t dispute that AI lawsuits sound like a massive problem. At the same time, lawsuits are often the only weapon downtrodden Americans have—a substitute for institutions and politicians that actually help make us whole when we’re harmed and it’s not our fault. Part of me can’t help but long to read a David and Goliath story about a rando armed with Claude who bootstraps their way to some life-changing, ten-figure legal victory—presumably after using the LLM to figure out how to argue a case in a courtroom as well. #Random #People #Armed #Lawyer #Reportedly #Filling #Judicial #Dockets #LawsuitsArtificial intelligence,lawsuits
Tech-news

new study by MIT’s Anand Shah and USC’s Joshua Levy, reported on by the New York Times on Monday. The study has not yet been peer reviewed.

It says that since the rollout of widely available LLMs, 18 percent of pro se filings now contain what the authors have deemed AI-generated text. Perhaps consequently, “the total volume of pro se docket entries per court in the first 180 days of a case has grown by 64% on average across the post-AI period,” the study finds.

Typically, pro se filings come from prisoners working on their cases from behind bars, but the study notes that “national non-prisoner pro se filing share rose sharply from its approximately 11% historical steady state to 16.8% in fiscal year 2025, a gain that has no precedent in 25 years of administrative records.”

According to the Times, pro se plaintiffs lost 96% of their cases from 1998-2017.

The Times is largely spotlighting frivolous lawsuits generated with AI—and what a waste of time it is for the courts to painstakingly read and process all these slop-filled filings. A Minnesota federal judge named Patrick J. Schiltz, called it “an existential threat to the federal courts.”

To illustrate their point, the Times interviewed a man who uses AI to generate lawsuits. This person gave the paper his name, and allowed himself to be photographed for the story. Courts have alleged some unsavory things about this person, and the Times says he lives in his car. He is, to use one of the president’s favorite terms, straight from central casting—so much so that the Times’ story borders on, well, mean.

I can’t dispute that AI lawsuits sound like a massive problem. At the same time, lawsuits are often the only weapon downtrodden Americans have—a substitute for institutions and politicians that actually help make us whole when we’re harmed and it’s not our fault. Part of me can’t help but long to read a David and Goliath story about a rando armed with Claude who bootstraps their way to some life-changing, ten-figure legal victory—presumably after using the LLM to figure out how to argue a case in a courtroom as well.

#Random #People #Armed #Lawyer #Reportedly #Filling #Judicial #Dockets #LawsuitsArtificial intelligence,lawsuits">Random People Armed with AI and No Lawyer Are Reportedly Filling Judicial Dockets with LawsuitsRandom People Armed with AI and No Lawyer Are Reportedly Filling Judicial Dockets with Lawsuits Don’t play innocent. If you’re a non-lawyer in the 2020s, you’ve at least had the passing thought that you could use an LLM to help you generate a killer lawsuit against someone who pissed you off. Or at least now I know it’s not just me. Thanks to AI, plaintiffs representing themselves, also known as “pro se” plaintiffs, are changing the legal landscape for the worse, according to a new study by MIT’s Anand Shah and USC’s Joshua Levy, reported on by the New York Times on Monday. The study has not yet been peer reviewed. It says that since the rollout of widely available LLMs, 18 percent of pro se filings now contain what the authors have deemed AI-generated text. Perhaps consequently, “the total volume of pro se docket entries per court in the first 180 days of a case has grown by 64% on average across the post-AI period,” the study finds. Typically, pro se filings come from prisoners working on their cases from behind bars, but the study notes that “national non-prisoner pro se filing share rose sharply from its approximately 11% historical steady state to 16.8% in fiscal year 2025, a gain that has no precedent in 25 years of administrative records.” According to the Times, pro se plaintiffs lost 96% of their cases from 1998-2017. The Times is largely spotlighting frivolous lawsuits generated with AI—and what a waste of time it is for the courts to painstakingly read and process all these slop-filled filings. A Minnesota federal judge named Patrick J. Schiltz, called it “an existential threat to the federal courts.” To illustrate their point, the Times interviewed a man who uses AI to generate lawsuits. This person gave the paper his name, and allowed himself to be photographed for the story. Courts have alleged some unsavory things about this person, and the Times says he lives in his car. He is, to use one of the president’s favorite terms, straight from central casting—so much so that the Times’ story borders on, well, mean. I can’t dispute that AI lawsuits sound like a massive problem. At the same time, lawsuits are often the only weapon downtrodden Americans have—a substitute for institutions and politicians that actually help make us whole when we’re harmed and it’s not our fault. Part of me can’t help but long to read a David and Goliath story about a rando armed with Claude who bootstraps their way to some life-changing, ten-figure legal victory—presumably after using the LLM to figure out how to argue a case in a courtroom as well. #Random #People #Armed #Lawyer #Reportedly #Filling #Judicial #Dockets #LawsuitsArtificial intelligence,lawsuits

Don’t play innocent. If you’re a non-lawyer in the 2020s, you’ve at least had the passing thought that you could use an LLM to help you generate a killer lawsuit against someone who pissed you off.

Or at least now I know it’s not just me.

Thanks to AI, plaintiffs representing themselves, also known as “pro se” plaintiffs, are changing the legal landscape for the worse, according to a new study by MIT’s Anand Shah and USC’s Joshua Levy, reported on by the New York Times on Monday. The study has not yet been peer reviewed.

It says that since the rollout of widely available LLMs, 18 percent of pro se filings now contain what the authors have deemed AI-generated text. Perhaps consequently, “the total volume of pro se docket entries per court in the first 180 days of a case has grown by 64% on average across the post-AI period,” the study finds.

Typically, pro se filings come from prisoners working on their cases from behind bars, but the study notes that “national non-prisoner pro se filing share rose sharply from its approximately 11% historical steady state to 16.8% in fiscal year 2025, a gain that has no precedent in 25 years of administrative records.”

According to the Times, pro se plaintiffs lost 96% of their cases from 1998-2017.

The Times is largely spotlighting frivolous lawsuits generated with AI—and what a waste of time it is for the courts to painstakingly read and process all these slop-filled filings. A Minnesota federal judge named Patrick J. Schiltz, called it “an existential threat to the federal courts.”

To illustrate their point, the Times interviewed a man who uses AI to generate lawsuits. This person gave the paper his name, and allowed himself to be photographed for the story. Courts have alleged some unsavory things about this person, and the Times says he lives in his car. He is, to use one of the president’s favorite terms, straight from central casting—so much so that the Times’ story borders on, well, mean.

I can’t dispute that AI lawsuits sound like a massive problem. At the same time, lawsuits are often the only weapon downtrodden Americans have—a substitute for institutions and politicians that actually help make us whole when we’re harmed and it’s not our fault. Part of me can’t help but long to read a David and Goliath story about a rando armed with Claude who bootstraps their way to some life-changing, ten-figure legal victory—presumably after using the LLM to figure out how to argue a case in a courtroom as well.

#Random #People #Armed #Lawyer #Reportedly #Filling #Judicial #Dockets #LawsuitsArtificial intelligence,lawsuits

Don’t play innocent. If you’re a non-lawyer in the 2020s, you’ve at least had the…

According to the New York Times, if you bought an iPhone 16 or certain iPhone 15 between June of 2024 and March of 2025, you may soon be eligible to receive a check for as much as $95 per device as part of a class action lawsuit related to Apple Intelligence and Siri. The allegedly flawed Apple Intelligence features that were part of the suit originally shipped on iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max in June of 2024. The Apple Intelligence-native iPhone 16 line shipped later that year.

On Tuesday, Apple settled claims in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California over alleged false advertising. The suit argued that Apple led consumers to believe the Apple Intelligence suite of features was more capable than it actually was. The total settlement amount, still awaiting a judge’s approval, is $250 million.

Apple maintains that it did nothing wrong. Marni Goldberg, an Apple spokesperson gave a statement to the Times, claiming that beginning with “the launch of Apple Intelligence,” Apple has “introduced dozens of features across many languages that are integrated across Apple’s platforms,” and that the company had “resolved this matter to stay focused on doing what we do best, delivering the most innovative products and services to our users.”

This lawsuit was “fallout,” according to Axios, from Apple’s acknowledgement last year that AI upgrades to Siri were not going to be released on schedule. A statement to Daring Fireball at the time said Apple had “been working on a more personalized Siri, giving it more awareness of your personal context, as well as the ability to take action for you within and across your apps,” but added, “It’s going to take us longer than we thought to deliver on these features and we anticipate rolling them out in the coming year.”

The next day, it was reported that Apple had pulled a now-notorious ad starring Bella Ramsey:

The ad is a nice summary of the “more personal” Siri concept that still has not been realized. We see Ramsey notice a person whose name they know they should know, so they quickly ask Siri “the name of the guy I had a meeting with a couple of months ago at Cafe Grenel?” It’s up to the viewer to presume this beefed-up version of Siri is able to use this prompt to draw on, say, an email, and produce the right answer. It immediately replies, “You met Zac Wingate at Cafe Grenel a couple of months ago.” 

To put this class action settlement in context, Apple had been struggling mightily with Siri ever since—deservedly or not—ChatGPT created new consumer expectations for an AI-powered assistant. “AI is what most investors are really excited about. Almost all momentum in the market in general is being fueled by AI,” a portfolio manager named Brian Mulberry told the Wall Street Journal in February of 2024. Mulberry lamented that “Apple really hasn’t made a big splash in the AI space yet.”   

So the Apple Intelligence rollout was perceived as coming late, but it was also, it seems, too early—given that it was sued and ended up settling for $250 million. In an interview with TechRadar last year after the smoke cleared around Siri’s underperformance, Apple software chief Craig Federighi explained that the company was working on a “version 2” of the new Siri that would work in all the personalized ways consumers had come to expect, but that Apple was no longer publicly offering a speculative release schedule for that version.

#Apple #Settles #Alleged #False #Advertising #Suit #AIPowered #SiriApple,lawsuits,Siri"> Apple Settles Alleged False Advertising Suit Over AI-Powered Siri According to the New York Times, if you bought an iPhone 16 or certain iPhone 15 between June of 2024 and March of 2025, you may soon be eligible to receive a check for as much as per device as part of a class action lawsuit related to Apple Intelligence and Siri. The allegedly flawed Apple Intelligence features that were part of the suit originally shipped on iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max in June of 2024. The Apple Intelligence-native iPhone 16 line shipped later that year. On Tuesday, Apple settled claims in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California over alleged false advertising. The suit argued that Apple led consumers to believe the Apple Intelligence suite of features was more capable than it actually was. The total settlement amount, still awaiting a judge’s approval, is 0 million. Apple maintains that it did nothing wrong. Marni Goldberg, an Apple spokesperson gave a statement to the Times, claiming that beginning with “the launch of Apple Intelligence,” Apple has “introduced dozens of features across many languages that are integrated across Apple’s platforms,” and that the company had “resolved this matter to stay focused on doing what we do best, delivering the most innovative products and services to our users.” This lawsuit was “fallout,” according to Axios, from Apple’s acknowledgement last year that AI upgrades to Siri were not going to be released on schedule. A statement to Daring Fireball at the time said Apple had “been working on a more personalized Siri, giving it more awareness of your personal context, as well as the ability to take action for you within and across your apps,” but added, “It’s going to take us longer than we thought to deliver on these features and we anticipate rolling them out in the coming year.” The next day, it was reported that Apple had pulled a now-notorious ad starring Bella Ramsey: The ad is a nice summary of the “more personal” Siri concept that still has not been realized. We see Ramsey notice a person whose name they know they should know, so they quickly ask Siri “the name of the guy I had a meeting with a couple of months ago at Cafe Grenel?” It’s up to the viewer to presume this beefed-up version of Siri is able to use this prompt to draw on, say, an email, and produce the right answer. It immediately replies, “You met Zac Wingate at Cafe Grenel a couple of months ago.”  To put this class action settlement in context, Apple had been struggling mightily with Siri ever since—deservedly or not—ChatGPT created new consumer expectations for an AI-powered assistant. “AI is what most investors are really excited about. Almost all momentum in the market in general is being fueled by AI,” a portfolio manager named Brian Mulberry told the Wall Street Journal in February of 2024. Mulberry lamented that “Apple really hasn’t made a big splash in the AI space yet.”    So the Apple Intelligence rollout was perceived as coming late, but it was also, it seems, too early—given that it was sued and ended up settling for 0 million. In an interview with TechRadar last year after the smoke cleared around Siri’s underperformance, Apple software chief Craig Federighi explained that the company was working on a “version 2” of the new Siri that would work in all the personalized ways consumers had come to expect, but that Apple was no longer publicly offering a speculative release schedule for that version. #Apple #Settles #Alleged #False #Advertising #Suit #AIPowered #SiriApple,lawsuits,Siri
Tech-news

According to the New York Times, if you bought an iPhone 16 or certain iPhone 15 between June of 2024 and March of 2025, you may soon be eligible to receive a check for as much as $95 per device as part of a class action lawsuit related to Apple Intelligence and Siri. The allegedly flawed Apple Intelligence features that were part of the suit originally shipped on iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max in June of 2024. The Apple Intelligence-native iPhone 16 line shipped later that year.

On Tuesday, Apple settled claims in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California over alleged false advertising. The suit argued that Apple led consumers to believe the Apple Intelligence suite of features was more capable than it actually was. The total settlement amount, still awaiting a judge’s approval, is $250 million.

Apple maintains that it did nothing wrong. Marni Goldberg, an Apple spokesperson gave a statement to the Times, claiming that beginning with “the launch of Apple Intelligence,” Apple has “introduced dozens of features across many languages that are integrated across Apple’s platforms,” and that the company had “resolved this matter to stay focused on doing what we do best, delivering the most innovative products and services to our users.”

This lawsuit was “fallout,” according to Axios, from Apple’s acknowledgement last year that AI upgrades to Siri were not going to be released on schedule. A statement to Daring Fireball at the time said Apple had “been working on a more personalized Siri, giving it more awareness of your personal context, as well as the ability to take action for you within and across your apps,” but added, “It’s going to take us longer than we thought to deliver on these features and we anticipate rolling them out in the coming year.”

The next day, it was reported that Apple had pulled a now-notorious ad starring Bella Ramsey:

The ad is a nice summary of the “more personal” Siri concept that still has not been realized. We see Ramsey notice a person whose name they know they should know, so they quickly ask Siri “the name of the guy I had a meeting with a couple of months ago at Cafe Grenel?” It’s up to the viewer to presume this beefed-up version of Siri is able to use this prompt to draw on, say, an email, and produce the right answer. It immediately replies, “You met Zac Wingate at Cafe Grenel a couple of months ago.” 

To put this class action settlement in context, Apple had been struggling mightily with Siri ever since—deservedly or not—ChatGPT created new consumer expectations for an AI-powered assistant. “AI is what most investors are really excited about. Almost all momentum in the market in general is being fueled by AI,” a portfolio manager named Brian Mulberry told the Wall Street Journal in February of 2024. Mulberry lamented that “Apple really hasn’t made a big splash in the AI space yet.”   

So the Apple Intelligence rollout was perceived as coming late, but it was also, it seems, too early—given that it was sued and ended up settling for $250 million. In an interview with TechRadar last year after the smoke cleared around Siri’s underperformance, Apple software chief Craig Federighi explained that the company was working on a “version 2” of the new Siri that would work in all the personalized ways consumers had come to expect, but that Apple was no longer publicly offering a speculative release schedule for that version.

#Apple #Settles #Alleged #False #Advertising #Suit #AIPowered #SiriApple,lawsuits,Siri">Apple Settles Alleged False Advertising Suit Over AI-Powered SiriApple Settles Alleged False Advertising Suit Over AI-Powered Siri According to the New York Times, if you bought an iPhone 16 or certain iPhone 15 between June of 2024 and March of 2025, you may soon be eligible to receive a check for as much as $95 per device as part of a class action lawsuit related to Apple Intelligence and Siri. The allegedly flawed Apple Intelligence features that were part of the suit originally shipped on iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max in June of 2024. The Apple Intelligence-native iPhone 16 line shipped later that year. On Tuesday, Apple settled claims in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California over alleged false advertising. The suit argued that Apple led consumers to believe the Apple Intelligence suite of features was more capable than it actually was. The total settlement amount, still awaiting a judge’s approval, is $250 million. Apple maintains that it did nothing wrong. Marni Goldberg, an Apple spokesperson gave a statement to the Times, claiming that beginning with “the launch of Apple Intelligence,” Apple has “introduced dozens of features across many languages that are integrated across Apple’s platforms,” and that the company had “resolved this matter to stay focused on doing what we do best, delivering the most innovative products and services to our users.” This lawsuit was “fallout,” according to Axios, from Apple’s acknowledgement last year that AI upgrades to Siri were not going to be released on schedule. A statement to Daring Fireball at the time said Apple had “been working on a more personalized Siri, giving it more awareness of your personal context, as well as the ability to take action for you within and across your apps,” but added, “It’s going to take us longer than we thought to deliver on these features and we anticipate rolling them out in the coming year.” The next day, it was reported that Apple had pulled a now-notorious ad starring Bella Ramsey: The ad is a nice summary of the “more personal” Siri concept that still has not been realized. We see Ramsey notice a person whose name they know they should know, so they quickly ask Siri “the name of the guy I had a meeting with a couple of months ago at Cafe Grenel?” It’s up to the viewer to presume this beefed-up version of Siri is able to use this prompt to draw on, say, an email, and produce the right answer. It immediately replies, “You met Zac Wingate at Cafe Grenel a couple of months ago.”  To put this class action settlement in context, Apple had been struggling mightily with Siri ever since—deservedly or not—ChatGPT created new consumer expectations for an AI-powered assistant. “AI is what most investors are really excited about. Almost all momentum in the market in general is being fueled by AI,” a portfolio manager named Brian Mulberry told the Wall Street Journal in February of 2024. Mulberry lamented that “Apple really hasn’t made a big splash in the AI space yet.”    So the Apple Intelligence rollout was perceived as coming late, but it was also, it seems, too early—given that it was sued and ended up settling for $250 million. In an interview with TechRadar last year after the smoke cleared around Siri’s underperformance, Apple software chief Craig Federighi explained that the company was working on a “version 2” of the new Siri that would work in all the personalized ways consumers had come to expect, but that Apple was no longer publicly offering a speculative release schedule for that version. #Apple #Settles #Alleged #False #Advertising #Suit #AIPowered #SiriApple,lawsuits,Siri

According to the New York Times, if you bought an iPhone 16 or certain iPhone 15 between June of 2024 and March of 2025, you may soon be eligible to receive a check for as much as $95 per device as part of a class action lawsuit related to Apple Intelligence and Siri. The allegedly flawed Apple Intelligence features that were part of the suit originally shipped on iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max in June of 2024. The Apple Intelligence-native iPhone 16 line shipped later that year.

On Tuesday, Apple settled claims in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California over alleged false advertising. The suit argued that Apple led consumers to believe the Apple Intelligence suite of features was more capable than it actually was. The total settlement amount, still awaiting a judge’s approval, is $250 million.

Apple maintains that it did nothing wrong. Marni Goldberg, an Apple spokesperson gave a statement to the Times, claiming that beginning with “the launch of Apple Intelligence,” Apple has “introduced dozens of features across many languages that are integrated across Apple’s platforms,” and that the company had “resolved this matter to stay focused on doing what we do best, delivering the most innovative products and services to our users.”

This lawsuit was “fallout,” according to Axios, from Apple’s acknowledgement last year that AI upgrades to Siri were not going to be released on schedule. A statement to Daring Fireball at the time said Apple had “been working on a more personalized Siri, giving it more awareness of your personal context, as well as the ability to take action for you within and across your apps,” but added, “It’s going to take us longer than we thought to deliver on these features and we anticipate rolling them out in the coming year.”

The next day, it was reported that Apple had pulled a now-notorious ad starring Bella Ramsey:

The ad is a nice summary of the “more personal” Siri concept that still has not been realized. We see Ramsey notice a person whose name they know they should know, so they quickly ask Siri “the name of the guy I had a meeting with a couple of months ago at Cafe Grenel?” It’s up to the viewer to presume this beefed-up version of Siri is able to use this prompt to draw on, say, an email, and produce the right answer. It immediately replies, “You met Zac Wingate at Cafe Grenel a couple of months ago.” 

To put this class action settlement in context, Apple had been struggling mightily with Siri ever since—deservedly or not—ChatGPT created new consumer expectations for an AI-powered assistant. “AI is what most investors are really excited about. Almost all momentum in the market in general is being fueled by AI,” a portfolio manager named Brian Mulberry told the Wall Street Journal in February of 2024. Mulberry lamented that “Apple really hasn’t made a big splash in the AI space yet.”   

So the Apple Intelligence rollout was perceived as coming late, but it was also, it seems, too early—given that it was sued and ended up settling for $250 million. In an interview with TechRadar last year after the smoke cleared around Siri’s underperformance, Apple software chief Craig Federighi explained that the company was working on a “version 2” of the new Siri that would work in all the personalized ways consumers had come to expect, but that Apple was no longer publicly offering a speculative release schedule for that version.

#Apple #Settles #Alleged #False #Advertising #Suit #AIPowered #SiriApple,lawsuits,Siri

According to the New York Times, if you bought an iPhone 16 or certain iPhone…

his side of the story in his legal battle against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman. Under cross-examination from OpenAI’s lawyers, Musk was pressed on all the ways he tried to squeeze the organization over a 2017 power struggle that he ultimately lost. Around this time, Musk tried to hire away OpenAI researchers and stopped sending it funding he had previously promised, according to emails presented as evidence in the case.

As the cross-examination began, tension rippled through the courtroom. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers started the day by reprimanding someone in the gallery for taking a picture of Musk. OpenAI president and cofounder Greg Brockman sat behind his lawyers with a yellow legal pad in his lap, giving Musk a cold stare as he testified. Musk grew visibly frustrated on the witness stand, pausing frequently to tell OpenAI’s lawyer, William Savitt, that he saw his questions as misleading. Meanwhile, Savitt’s cross-examination was derailed by objections, technical issues, and Musk continuously claiming he doesn’t recall key details of OpenAI’s history.

Savitt showed the courtroom emails from September 2017 between Musk, Brockman, and researcher Ilya Sutskever discussing the formation of what would become OpenAI’s for-profit arm. In the thread, Musk demanded the right to choose four members of its board of directors, giving him more voting power than his cofounders, who would be left with three in total. “I would unequivocally have initial control of the company, but this will change quickly,” said Musk in one message. Sutskever wrote back rejecting the idea because he said he feared it would give Musk too much power.

Months before these negotiations started, Musk had halted payments to OpenAI, which was particularly difficult for the organization because he was then its main source of funding. Since 2016, Musk had been sending $5 million payments to OpenAI quarterly as part of a broader $1 billion pledge he made at the organization’s launch. But in the spring of 2017, he stopped sending the money. In another email from August 2017, the head of Musk’s family office, Jared Birchall, asked Musk if he should continue withholding it. Musk responded simply, “Yes.”

Around the time Musk lost the power struggle, emails show that he held discussions with executives at Tesla and Neuralink, his brain-computer interface company, about hiring OpenAI employees. At the time, Musk was still a board member of OpenAI.

Musk sent an email to a Tesla vice president in June 2017 about hiring an early OpenAI researcher, Andrej Karpathy. “Just talked to Andrej and he accepted as joining as director of Tesla Vision,” Musk wrote. “Andrej is arguably the #2 guy in the world in computer vision … The openai guys are gonna want to kill me, but it had to be done.”

On the stand, Musk argued that Karpathy was already interested in leaving OpenAI when he tried to recruit him to Tesla. “Andrej had made his decision. If he’s going to leave OpenAI, he might as well work at Tesla,” Musk said.

In October 2017, Musk also wrote to Ben Rapoport, a cofounder of Neuralink. “Hire independently or directly from OpenAI,” said Musk. “I have no problem if you pitch people at OpenAI to work at Neuralink.”

When pressed about this by Savitt, Musk argued that it would have been illegal for him not to allow Tesla and Neuralink to hire from OpenAI. “It’s illegal to restrict employment. It would be illegal to say you can’t employ people from OpenAI. You can’t have some cabal that stops people from working at the company they want to work at,” Musk said.

#Elon #Musk #Squeezed #OpenAI #Gonna #Killmodel behavior,artificial intelligence,elon musk,openai,sam altman,lawsuits"> How Elon Musk Squeezed OpenAI: They ‘Are Gonna Want to Kill Me’Elon Musk returned to the witness stand on Wednesday to continue telling his side of the story in his legal battle against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman. Under cross-examination from OpenAI’s lawyers, Musk was pressed on all the ways he tried to squeeze the organization over a 2017 power struggle that he ultimately lost. Around this time, Musk tried to hire away OpenAI researchers and stopped sending it funding he had previously promised, according to emails presented as evidence in the case.As the cross-examination began, tension rippled through the courtroom. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers started the day by reprimanding someone in the gallery for taking a picture of Musk. OpenAI president and cofounder Greg Brockman sat behind his lawyers with a yellow legal pad in his lap, giving Musk a cold stare as he testified. Musk grew visibly frustrated on the witness stand, pausing frequently to tell OpenAI’s lawyer, William Savitt, that he saw his questions as misleading. Meanwhile, Savitt’s cross-examination was derailed by objections, technical issues, and Musk continuously claiming he doesn’t recall key details of OpenAI’s history.Savitt showed the courtroom emails from September 2017 between Musk, Brockman, and researcher Ilya Sutskever discussing the formation of what would become OpenAI’s for-profit arm. In the thread, Musk demanded the right to choose four members of its board of directors, giving him more voting power than his cofounders, who would be left with three in total. “I would unequivocally have initial control of the company, but this will change quickly,” said Musk in one message. Sutskever wrote back rejecting the idea because he said he feared it would give Musk too much power.Months before these negotiations started, Musk had halted payments to OpenAI, which was particularly difficult for the organization because he was then its main source of funding. Since 2016, Musk had been sending million payments to OpenAI quarterly as part of a broader billion pledge he made at the organization’s launch. But in the spring of 2017, he stopped sending the money. In another email from August 2017, the head of Musk’s family office, Jared Birchall, asked Musk if he should continue withholding it. Musk responded simply, “Yes.”Around the time Musk lost the power struggle, emails show that he held discussions with executives at Tesla and Neuralink, his brain-computer interface company, about hiring OpenAI employees. At the time, Musk was still a board member of OpenAI.Musk sent an email to a Tesla vice president in June 2017 about hiring an early OpenAI researcher, Andrej Karpathy. “Just talked to Andrej and he accepted as joining as director of Tesla Vision,” Musk wrote. “Andrej is arguably the #2 guy in the world in computer vision … The openai guys are gonna want to kill me, but it had to be done.”On the stand, Musk argued that Karpathy was already interested in leaving OpenAI when he tried to recruit him to Tesla. “Andrej had made his decision. If he’s going to leave OpenAI, he might as well work at Tesla,” Musk said.In October 2017, Musk also wrote to Ben Rapoport, a cofounder of Neuralink. “Hire independently or directly from OpenAI,” said Musk. “I have no problem if you pitch people at OpenAI to work at Neuralink.”When pressed about this by Savitt, Musk argued that it would have been illegal for him not to allow Tesla and Neuralink to hire from OpenAI. “It’s illegal to restrict employment. It would be illegal to say you can’t employ people from OpenAI. You can’t have some cabal that stops people from working at the company they want to work at,” Musk said.#Elon #Musk #Squeezed #OpenAI #Gonna #Killmodel behavior,artificial intelligence,elon musk,openai,sam altman,lawsuits
Tech-news

his side of the story in his legal battle against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman. Under cross-examination from OpenAI’s lawyers, Musk was pressed on all the ways he tried to squeeze the organization over a 2017 power struggle that he ultimately lost. Around this time, Musk tried to hire away OpenAI researchers and stopped sending it funding he had previously promised, according to emails presented as evidence in the case.

As the cross-examination began, tension rippled through the courtroom. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers started the day by reprimanding someone in the gallery for taking a picture of Musk. OpenAI president and cofounder Greg Brockman sat behind his lawyers with a yellow legal pad in his lap, giving Musk a cold stare as he testified. Musk grew visibly frustrated on the witness stand, pausing frequently to tell OpenAI’s lawyer, William Savitt, that he saw his questions as misleading. Meanwhile, Savitt’s cross-examination was derailed by objections, technical issues, and Musk continuously claiming he doesn’t recall key details of OpenAI’s history.

Savitt showed the courtroom emails from September 2017 between Musk, Brockman, and researcher Ilya Sutskever discussing the formation of what would become OpenAI’s for-profit arm. In the thread, Musk demanded the right to choose four members of its board of directors, giving him more voting power than his cofounders, who would be left with three in total. “I would unequivocally have initial control of the company, but this will change quickly,” said Musk in one message. Sutskever wrote back rejecting the idea because he said he feared it would give Musk too much power.

Months before these negotiations started, Musk had halted payments to OpenAI, which was particularly difficult for the organization because he was then its main source of funding. Since 2016, Musk had been sending $5 million payments to OpenAI quarterly as part of a broader $1 billion pledge he made at the organization’s launch. But in the spring of 2017, he stopped sending the money. In another email from August 2017, the head of Musk’s family office, Jared Birchall, asked Musk if he should continue withholding it. Musk responded simply, “Yes.”

Around the time Musk lost the power struggle, emails show that he held discussions with executives at Tesla and Neuralink, his brain-computer interface company, about hiring OpenAI employees. At the time, Musk was still a board member of OpenAI.

Musk sent an email to a Tesla vice president in June 2017 about hiring an early OpenAI researcher, Andrej Karpathy. “Just talked to Andrej and he accepted as joining as director of Tesla Vision,” Musk wrote. “Andrej is arguably the #2 guy in the world in computer vision … The openai guys are gonna want to kill me, but it had to be done.”

On the stand, Musk argued that Karpathy was already interested in leaving OpenAI when he tried to recruit him to Tesla. “Andrej had made his decision. If he’s going to leave OpenAI, he might as well work at Tesla,” Musk said.

In October 2017, Musk also wrote to Ben Rapoport, a cofounder of Neuralink. “Hire independently or directly from OpenAI,” said Musk. “I have no problem if you pitch people at OpenAI to work at Neuralink.”

When pressed about this by Savitt, Musk argued that it would have been illegal for him not to allow Tesla and Neuralink to hire from OpenAI. “It’s illegal to restrict employment. It would be illegal to say you can’t employ people from OpenAI. You can’t have some cabal that stops people from working at the company they want to work at,” Musk said.

#Elon #Musk #Squeezed #OpenAI #Gonna #Killmodel behavior,artificial intelligence,elon musk,openai,sam altman,lawsuits">How Elon Musk Squeezed OpenAI: They ‘Are Gonna Want to Kill Me’

Elon Musk returned to the witness stand on Wednesday to continue telling his side of the story in his legal battle against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman. Under cross-examination from OpenAI’s lawyers, Musk was pressed on all the ways he tried to squeeze the organization over a 2017 power struggle that he ultimately lost. Around this time, Musk tried to hire away OpenAI researchers and stopped sending it funding he had previously promised, according to emails presented as evidence in the case.

As the cross-examination began, tension rippled through the courtroom. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers started the day by reprimanding someone in the gallery for taking a picture of Musk. OpenAI president and cofounder Greg Brockman sat behind his lawyers with a yellow legal pad in his lap, giving Musk a cold stare as he testified. Musk grew visibly frustrated on the witness stand, pausing frequently to tell OpenAI’s lawyer, William Savitt, that he saw his questions as misleading. Meanwhile, Savitt’s cross-examination was derailed by objections, technical issues, and Musk continuously claiming he doesn’t recall key details of OpenAI’s history.

Savitt showed the courtroom emails from September 2017 between Musk, Brockman, and researcher Ilya Sutskever discussing the formation of what would become OpenAI’s for-profit arm. In the thread, Musk demanded the right to choose four members of its board of directors, giving him more voting power than his cofounders, who would be left with three in total. “I would unequivocally have initial control of the company, but this will change quickly,” said Musk in one message. Sutskever wrote back rejecting the idea because he said he feared it would give Musk too much power.

Months before these negotiations started, Musk had halted payments to OpenAI, which was particularly difficult for the organization because he was then its main source of funding. Since 2016, Musk had been sending $5 million payments to OpenAI quarterly as part of a broader $1 billion pledge he made at the organization’s launch. But in the spring of 2017, he stopped sending the money. In another email from August 2017, the head of Musk’s family office, Jared Birchall, asked Musk if he should continue withholding it. Musk responded simply, “Yes.”

Around the time Musk lost the power struggle, emails show that he held discussions with executives at Tesla and Neuralink, his brain-computer interface company, about hiring OpenAI employees. At the time, Musk was still a board member of OpenAI.

Musk sent an email to a Tesla vice president in June 2017 about hiring an early OpenAI researcher, Andrej Karpathy. “Just talked to Andrej and he accepted as joining as director of Tesla Vision,” Musk wrote. “Andrej is arguably the #2 guy in the world in computer vision … The openai guys are gonna want to kill me, but it had to be done.”

On the stand, Musk argued that Karpathy was already interested in leaving OpenAI when he tried to recruit him to Tesla. “Andrej had made his decision. If he’s going to leave OpenAI, he might as well work at Tesla,” Musk said.

In October 2017, Musk also wrote to Ben Rapoport, a cofounder of Neuralink. “Hire independently or directly from OpenAI,” said Musk. “I have no problem if you pitch people at OpenAI to work at Neuralink.”

When pressed about this by Savitt, Musk argued that it would have been illegal for him not to allow Tesla and Neuralink to hire from OpenAI. “It’s illegal to restrict employment. It would be illegal to say you can’t employ people from OpenAI. You can’t have some cabal that stops people from working at the company they want to work at,” Musk said.

#Elon #Musk #Squeezed #OpenAI #Gonna #Killmodel behavior,artificial intelligence,elon musk,openai,sam altman,lawsuits

Elon Musk returned to the witness stand on Wednesday to continue telling his side of…