News
Tesla Power Play: Why running a contested Elon Musk narrative is playing with fire
Award-winning journalist Tim Higgins‘ book, “Power Play: Tesla, Elon Musk, and the Bet of the Century,” is among the most recent explorations into the fascinating character of Elon Musk. But unlike other works such as the still-definitive biography from writer Ashley Vance, Higgins’ book chronicled Tesla’s story during the Model X and Model 3 ramp (among others), periods that Musk himself admitted were among the most challenging times of his professional life.
Filled with stories from numerous sources and spanning Tesla’s history from its early days to last year’s pandemic, Power Play painted a picture of how an incredibly determined Elon Musk practically willed Tesla into being, and how his ego and pettiness caused the company to pay the price more than once. This was a point that moderate Tesla critics would argue: Tesla is a success today not because of its CEO, but in spite of Elon Musk.
After all, as the book noted in its Prologue, Musk may be a very public figure, but there is still a question surrounding him. “Is Elon Musk an underdog, an antihero, a con man, or some combination of the three?” Higgins noted in the book.
A Strong Story with Strong Denials
A book written about Tesla’s most turbulent years is bound to have some controversial elements. And in Power Play, few excerpts would be as controversial as a supposed call between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Apple CEO Tim Cook in 2016. At the time, Tesla was in dire financial straits as it attempted to produce the Model 3 and master the Model X’s production. According to the book, Tim Cook then had an idea: Perhaps it would be a good idea to buy Tesla. Musk reportedly proved interested, but on one condition: he stays on as CEO.
Cook thought the condition was reasonable. After all, when Apple bought Beats in 2014, it decided to keep the company’s original founders. Musk, however, supposedly clarified his request, stating that he’d have to be the CEO of Apple. Gobsmacked at the request, Cook reportedly gave Musk a solid “F*ck you” before hanging up the phone.
The anecdote was shocking enough, and it prompted quite a lot of coverage from the mainstream media, several of whom argued that the story was believable. This was despite the story being denied by both Musk and Cook. Last year, Musk remarked on Twitter that he did try to arrange a meeting with the Apple CEO during the Model 3’s most painful days, but Cook declined the meeting. Cook, on the other hand, clearly told The New York Times‘ Kara Swisher during an appearance at the Sway podcast that he’d never spoken to the Tesla CEO.
Power Play did mention that Cook denied the anecdote presented in the book, though it did not include Musk’s comments about him and the Apple CEO never speaking with each other. The book mentioned, however, that while the two executives claimed to have never spoken to each other, Musk and Cook have been photographed sitting close together at a meeting held by former US President Donald Trump in 2016.
A Compelling Narrative for a Compelling Character
In a Twitter post, Higgins stated that the tale of Musk and Cook’s phone conversation was a story told inside Tesla, and its details were related by individuals who heard it. That being said, it is still quite interesting to see that the anecdote made it to Power Play despite solid denials from both Cook and Musk. The book was published August 2021, after all, and Cook’s comments in the Sway podcast were published on April 2021. Musk’s statements about never meeting Cook, despite relating to a different time in Tesla’s history, were made even earlier in December 2020.
It should be noted that Power Play is, at its core, a nonfiction book that aims to provide a nonfictional account of some of Tesla’s most challenging times. This is why, at least to some degree, a story denied by both participants like the supposed Musk-Cook conversation seems far too risky. A nonfiction writing coach contacted by Teslarati noted that an author would typically be hard-pressed to find a more reliable source than the actual participants of an event.
That being said, the anecdote does help establish the character of Elon Musk in the book as someone egoistic enough that he would make an obviously unreasonable demand on Tim Cook at a time when Tesla desperately needed Apple’s help. There is no doubt that the image of Tim Cook, who is known for always being soft-spoken and well-mannered, giving Elon Musk a sharp “F*ck you” on the phone definitely makes for a compelling narrative.
Dr. John Cook, founder of Skeptical Science and a specialist on false news, noted in a statement to Teslarati that stories such as the two CEOs’ supposed conversation could easily become an inspiration for conspiracy theories, or at least confirm people’s preconceptions of individuals in power. The Skeptical Science founder noted that when people encounter new information that confirms their own preconceptions, there is simply a high likelihood that they would believe it, even if the anecdote’s turthfulness is contested.
“When you have powerful people involved in misinformation, that’s ground for conspiracy theories. So having people like Elon Musk and Tim Cook — inevitably, people get suspicious of people in positions of power, and that’s a very human and natural bias called intentionality bias. We tend to ascribe motives and intent behind what can even be random events. And that’s especially the case when you have powerful people,” Dr. Cook said.
The Burden of Truth
Nonfiction writers have a huge burden on their shoulders, as the stories they tell serve the purpose of relating a truthful recounting of real-life events. As such, it is pretty common practice for books in the genre not to include stories that don’t have corroborating evidence. Otherwise, a nonfiction author might end up countering the nonfiction values of truth and honesty.
Emma Frances Bloomfield, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, told Teslarati that the burden of proof ultimately rests on the author in cases like the Musk-Cook phone call. And if an author does decide to push through with a story denied by the people involved, then the anecdote would be best presented as a contested account so that readers could decide for themselves. Power Play did this to a point for Cook’s side with its note about the Apple CEO’s denial, but the book did not mention Musk’s comments on Twitter at all.
“If a story is presented as being truthful and accurate (such as in a nonfiction book), the storyteller has a burden of proof to verify the story or provide evidence of its truthfulness, which is hard to do when the people the story is about are denying it. If the author has some external reason to believe it still happened, then it could certainly be told, but with the caveat that the people in question dispute it.
“We don’t, of course, want to promote falsehoods and inaccuracies, so making it clear how much evidence there is for certain occurrences is crucial. Because this book is under ‘nonfiction’ as opposed to historical fiction, I would expect that there is a minimum truth quality to all of the work therein. In other words, the author must have a compelling reason to believe the conversation took place even though Musk and Cook dispute it,” she wrote.
Playing with Fire
There is some irony in the idea that by publishing the contested story of Musk and Cook’s supposed conversation, Higgins ended up playing with fire himself, much like the character depicting the Tesla CEO in Power Play. Pushing through with a contested narrative carries some risk, and not just in terms of social media clout. In a message to Teslarati, Jonathan Crafts, a partner at Fields & Dennis LLP, Wellesley, MA, stated that both the author and publisher of Power Play might be at risk of legal trouble, at least if either Musk or Cook seeks an injunction against them.
Intellectual Property Litigation Law partner Craig R. Smith of Lando & Anastasi, LLP, Boston, MA, added more insights to the potential risks involved when an author runs with a contested story. Smith noted in a message to Teslarati that overall, authors and publishers of nonfiction are at an increased risk of being sued for defamation due to the nature of their work. “In this situation, either Musk or Cook could allege that the statements made in the book are false and that the false statements harmed his reputation,” Smith said.
Every book has a narrative, regardless of whether it is fiction or nonfiction. Books such as Power Play are character-driven since it focuses on people’s struggles as they attempt what could very well be described as the impossible at the time. And central to the book’s narrative is the polarizing figure of Elon Musk, whose persona both online and offline could be the perfect bait for misinformation and conspiracy theories. And while tales with little truth are definitely questionable, Dr. Cook noted that it is easy to see why people tend to gravitate towards them.
“Conspiracy theories can be compelling because they’re simple stories with compelling characters. A conspiracy theory doesn’t even have to have a relation to the truth at all. But if it’s a simple story with villains, with nefarious intent — that grabs people’s imaginations — and simple stories like that are easier to process and understand than more complicated truths,” Dr. John Cook remarked.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with account tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk proposes Grok 5 vs world’s best League of Legends team match
Musk’s proposal has received positive reception from professional players and Riot Games alike.
Elon Musk has proposed a high-profile gaming challenge for xAI’s upcoming Grok 5. As per Musk, it would be interesting to see if the large language model could beat the world’ best human League of Legends team with specific constraints.
Musk’s proposal has received positive reception from professional players and Riot Games alike, suggesting that the exciting exhibition match might indeed happen.
Musk outlines restrictions for Grok
In his post on X, Musk detailed constraints to keep the match competitive, including limiting Grok to human-level reaction times, human-speed clicking, and viewing the game only through a camera feed with standard 20/20 vision. The idea quickly circulated across the esports community, drawing commentary from former pros and AI researchers, as noted in a Dexerto report.
Former League pro Eugene “Pobelter” Park expressed enthusiasm, offering to help Musk’s team and noting the unique comparison to past AI-versus-human breakthroughs, such as OpenAI’s Dota 2 bots. AI researcher Oriol Vinyals, who previously reached Grandmaster rank in StarCraft, suggested testing Grok in RTS gameplay as well.
Musk welcomed the idea, even responding positively to Vinyals’ comment that it would be nice to see Optimus operate the mouse and keyboard.
Pros debate Grok’s chances, T1 and Riot show interest
Reactions weren’t universally optimistic. Former professional mid-laner Joedat “Voyboy” Esfahani argued that even with Grok’s rapid learning capabilities, League of Legends requires deep synergy, game-state interpretation, and team coordination that may be difficult for AI to master at top competitive levels. Yiliang “Doublelift” Peng was similarly skeptical, publicly stating he doubted Grok could beat T1, or even himself, and jokingly promised to shave his head if Grok managed to win.
T1, however, embraced the proposal, responding with a GIF of Faker and the message “We are ready,” signaling their willingness to participate. Riot Games itself also reacted, with co-founder Marc Merrill replying to Musk with “let’s discuss.” Needless to say, it appears that Riot Games in onboard with the idea.
Though no match has been confirmed, interest from players, teams, and Riot suggests the concept could materialize into a landmark AI-versus-human matchup, potentially becoming one of the most viewed League of Legends events in history. The fact that Grok 5 will be constrained to human limits would definitely add an interesting dimension to the matchup, as it could truly demonstrate how human-like the large language model could be like in real-time scenarios.
Tesla has passed a key milestone, and it was one that CEO Elon Musk initially mentioned more than nine years ago when he published Master Plan, Part Deux.
As per Tesla China in a post on its official Weibo account, the company’s Autopilot system has accumulated over 10 billion kilometers of real-world driving experience.
Tesla China’s subtle, but huge announcement
In its Weibo post, Tesla China announced that the company’s Autopilot system has accumulated 10 billion kilometers of driving experience. “In this respect, Tesla vehicles equipped with Autopilot technology can be considered to have the world’s most experienced and seasoned driver.”
Tesla AI’s handle on Weibo also highlighted a key advantage of the company’s self-driving system. “It will never drive under the influence of alcohol, be distracted, or be fatigued,” the team wrote. “We believe that advancements in Autopilot technology will save more lives.”
Tesla China did not clarify exactly what it meant by “Autopilot” in its Weibo post, though the company’s intense focus on FSD over the past years suggests that the term includes miles that were driven by FSD (Beta) and Full Self-Driving (Supervised). Either way, 10 billion cumulative miles of real-world data is something that few, if any, competitors could compete with.
Advertisement
–>
Elon Musk’s 10-billion-km estimate, way back in 2016
When Elon Musk published Master Plan Part Deux, he outlined his vision for the company’s autonomous driving system. At the time, Autopilot was still very new, though Musk was already envisioning how the system could get regulatory approval worldwide. He estimated that worldwide regulatory approval will probably require around 10 billion miles of real-world driving data, which was an impossible-sounding amount at the time.
“Even once the software is highly refined and far better than the average human driver, there will still be a significant time gap, varying widely by jurisdiction, before true self-driving is approved by regulators. We expect that worldwide regulatory approval will require something on the order of 6 billion miles (10 billion km). Current fleet learning is happening at just over 3 million miles (5 million km) per day,” Musk wrote.
It’s quite interesting but Tesla is indeed getting regulatory approval for FSD (Supervised) at a steady pace today, at a time when 10 billion miles of data has been achieved. The system has been active in the United States and has since been rolled out to other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, China, and, more recently, South Korea. Expectations are high that Tesla could secure FSD approval in Europe sometime next year as well.
News
Elon Musk’s Boring Company reveals Prufrock TBM’s most disruptive feature
As it turns out, the tunneling startup, similar to other Elon Musk-backed ventures, is also dead serious about pursuing reusability.
The Boring Company has quietly revealed one of its tunnel boring machines’ (TBMs) most underrated feature. As it turns out, the tunneling startup, similar to other Elon Musk-backed ventures, is also dead serious about pursuing reusability.
Prufrock 5 leaves the factory
The Boring Company is arguably the quietest venture currently backed by Elon Musk, inspiring far fewer headlines than his other, more high-profile companies such as Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI. Still, the Boring Company’s mission is ambitious, as it is a company designed to solve the problem of congestion in cities.
To accomplish this, the Boring Company would need to develop tunnel boring machines that could dig incredibly quickly. To this end, the startup has designed Prufrock, an all-electric TBM that’s designed to eventually be fast enough as an everyday garden snail. Among TBMs, such a speed would be revolutionary.
The startup has taken a step towards this recently, when The Boring Company posted a photo of Prufrock-5 coming out of its Bastrop, Texas facility. “On a rainy day in Bastrop, Prufrock-5 has left the factory. Will begin tunneling by December 1. Hoping for a step function increase in speed,” the Boring Company wrote.
Prufrock’s quiet disruption
Interestingly enough, the Boring Company also mentioned a key feature of its Prufrock machines that makes them significantly more sustainable and reusable than conventional TBMs. As per a user on X, standard tunnel boring machines are often left underground at the conclusion of a project because retrieving them is usually more expensive and impractical than abandoning them in the location.
As per the Boring Company, however, this is not the case for its Prufrock machines, as they are retrieved, upgraded, and deployed again with improvements. “All Prufrocks are reused, usually with upgrades between launches. Prufrock-1 has now dug six tunnels,” the Boring Company wrote in its reply on X.
The Boring Company’s reply is quite exciting as it suggests that the TBMs from the tunneling startup could eventually be as reusable as SpaceX’s boosters. This is on brand for an Elon Musk-backed venture, of course, though the Boring Company’s disruption is a bit more underground.
Tesla is being accused of infringing robotics patents by a company called Perrone Robotics, which is based out of Charlottesville, Virginia.
The suit was filed in Alexandria, Virginia, and accuses Tesla of knowingly infringing upon five patents related to robotics systems for self-driving vehicles.
The company said its founder, Paul Perrone, developed general-purpose robotics operating systems for individual robots and automated devices.
Perrone Robotics claims that all Tesla vehicles utilizing the company’s Autopilot suite within the last six years infringe the five patents, according to a report from Reuters.
Tesla’s new Safety Report shows Autopilot is nine times safer than humans
One patent was something the company attempted to sell to Tesla back in 2017. The five patents cover a “General Purpose Operating System for Robotics,” otherwise known as GPROS.
The GPROS suite includes extensions for autonomous vehicle controls, path planning, and sensor fusion. One key patent, U.S. 10,331,136, was explicitly offered to Tesla by Perrone back in 2017, but the company rejected it.
The suit aims to halt any further infringements and seeks unspecified damages.
This is far from the first suit Tesla has been involved in, including one from his year with Perceptive Automata LLC, which accused Tesla of infringing on AI models to interpret pedestrian/cyclist intent via cameras without licensing. Tesla appeared in court in August, but its motion to dismiss was partially denied earlier this month.
Tesla also settled a suit with Arsus LLC, which accused Autopilot’s electronic stability features of infringing on rollover prevention tech. Tesla won via an inter partes review in September.
Most of these cases involve non-practicing entities or startups asserting broad autonomous vehicle patents against Tesla’s rapid iteration.
Tesla typically counters with those inter partes reviews, claiming invalidity. Tesla has successfully defended about 70 percent of the autonomous vehicle lawsuits it has been involved in since 2020, but settlements are common to avoid discovery costs.
The case is Perrone Robotics Inc v Tesla Inc, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, No. 25-02156. Tesla has not yet listed an attorney for the case, according to the report.
Elon Musk proposes Grok 5 vs world’s best League of Legends team match
Elon Musk’s Boring Company reveals Prufrock TBM’s most disruptive feature
