• President Donald Trump suggested he would be open to tariff “flexibility,” but doesn’t seem too keen on granting more exceptions to specific industries. Trump’s comments helped Wall Street rebound to finish with narrow gains after indexes initially sold off Friday morning.

President Donald Trump resisted the idea of granting more tariff relief but appeared open to  reciprocal tariff “flexibility.”

At the Oval Office on Friday, Trump was asked about granting industries exemptions to his tariffs.

“People are coming to me and talking about tariffs, and a lot of people are asking me if they could have exceptions,” he replied. “And once you do that for one, you have to do that for all.”

During the first couple months in office, Trump has most notably implemented a 20% tariff on Chinese goods as well as on-again, off-again 25% duties on goods from Canada and Mexico but granted the auto industry a one-month exemption on vehicles that comply with the US-Mexico-Canada trade deal. 

Additionally, Trump has levied a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum while threatening duties on microchips, and pharma imports into the U.S. He also threatened to impose a 25% duty on all goods imported from the European Union.

“I gave the American car companies a break because it would have been unfair if I didn’t,” Trump said, adding that he didn’t change his mind on tariffs.

The tariff on the auto industry will go back into effect early next month.

“I don’t change. But the word flexibility is an important word,” Trump said. “Sometimes it’s flexibility. So there’ll be flexibility, but basically it’s reciprocal.”

The White House did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for elaboration on Trump’s use of the word “flexibility.”

Trump affirmed the self-proclaimed “liberation day” on April 2, when he will impose reciprocal tariffs on countries that have assigned tariffs on U.S. goods as well as value-added taxes and other non-tariff trade barriers. 

While market volatility over tariff concerns has ravaged Wall Street in recent weeks, stocks rallied after Trump’s comments, bouncing back from a morning selloff. After falling as much as 1.6% Friday, the S&P 500 finished 0.08% higher on the day, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq Composite gained 0.08% and 0.52%, respectively.

Additionally, Trump announced Friday he plans to speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping, but has not indicated when. 

China has levied retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agriculture imports in response to the 20% all-encompassing tariff Trump placed on the country. 

“I’ll be speaking to President Xi, have a great relationship with him. We’re going to have a very good relationship, but we have a trillion-dollar deficit,” Trump said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

• Arve Hjalmar Holmen, a citizen of Norway, said he asked ChatGPT to tell him what it knows about him, and its response was a horrifying hallucination that claimed he’d murdered his children and gone to jail for the violent act. Given how the AI mixed its false response with real details about his personal life, Holmen filed an official complaint against ChatGPT maker OpenAI.

Have you ever Googled yourself just to see what the internet has to say about you? Well, one man had that same idea with ChatGPT, and now he’s filed a complaint against OpenAI based off what its AI said about him.

Arve Hjalmar Holmen, from Trondheim, Norway, said he asked ChatGPT the question, “Who is Arve Hjalmar Holmen?”, and the response—which we won’t print in full—said he was convicted of murdering his two sons, aged 7 and 10, and sentenced to 21 years in prison as a result. It also said Holmen attempted murder of his third son.

None of these things actually happened, though. ChatGPT appeared to spit out a completely false story it believed was completely true, which is called an AI “hallucination.” 

Based on its response, Holmen filed a complaint against OpenAI with the help of Noyb, a European center for digital rights, which accuses the AI giant of violating the principle of accuracy that’s set forth in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

“The complainant was deeply troubled by these outputs, which could have harmful effect in his private life, if they were reproduced or somehow leaked in his community or in his home town,” the complaint said.

What’s dangerous about ChatGPT’s response, according to the complaint, is it blends real elements of Holmen’s personal life with total fabrications. ChatGPT got Holmen’s home town correct, and it was also correct about the number of children—specifically, sons—he has.

JD Harriman, partner at Foundation Law Group LLP in Burbank, Calif., told Fortune that Holmen might have a difficult time proving defamation.

“If I am defending the AI, the first question is ‘should people believe that a statement made by AI is a fact?'” Harriman asked. “There are numerous examples of AI lying.”

Furthermore, the AI didn’t publish or communicate its results to a third party. “If the man forwarded the false AI message to others, then he becomes the publisher and he would have to sue himself,” Harriman said.

Holmen would probably also have a hard time proving the negligence aspect of defamation, since “AI may not qualify as an actor that could commit negligence” compared to people or corporations, Harriman said. Holmen would also have to prove that some harm was caused, like he lost income or business, or experienced pain and suffering. 

Avrohom Gefen, partner at Vishnick McGovern Milizio LLP in New York, told Fortune that defamation cases surrounding AI hallucinations are “untested” in the U.S., but mentioned a pending case in Georgia where a radio host filed a defamation lawsuit that survived OpenAI’s motion to dismiss, so “we may soon get some indication as to how a court will treat these claims.” 

The official complaint asks OpenAI to “delete the defamatory output on the complainant,” tweak its model so it produces accurate results about Holmen, and be fined for its alleged violation of GDPR rules, which compel OpenAI to take “every reasonable” step to ensure personal data is “erased or rectified without delay.”

“With all lawsuits, nothing is automatic or easy,” Harriman told Fortune. “As Ambrose Bierce has said, you go into litigation as a pig and come out as a sausage.”

OpenAI did not immediately respond to Fortune‘s request for comment.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

• Elon Musk’s Friday visit to the Pentagon drew criticism and highlighted his companies’ links to both the federal government and China. The billionaire’s rocket company SpaceX has $22 billion in contracts with the federal government. In China, Musk’s Tesla operates its biggest factory, Gigafactory Shanghai, which as of last year produced about half of all Tesla vehicles.

Elon Musk visited the Pentagon Friday for a briefing on China which underscored the billionaire’s steadily growing influence in the Trump administration as well as his businesses’ deep ties to both the federal government and China.

Musk was originally meant to receive a briefing on top-secret information related to a potential war with China, The New York Times reported, although defense officials later said he would receive an unclassified briefing, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Trump have both denied that Musk visited the Pentagon to receive top-secret information on a possible war with China, as was reported by the Times prior to Musk’s visit Friday. 

Before reporters in the Oval Office, Trump noted that Musk would not see top-secret information on a potential war with China, and mentioned that the billionaire’s businesses could play a role.

“We don’t want to have a potential war with China, but I can tell you if we did, we’re very well-equipped to handle it, but I don’t want to show that to anybody but certainly you wouldn’t show it to a businessman,” Trump said. “Elon has businesses in China and he would be susceptible perhaps to that.” 

Whatever information he received (he replied “Why should I tell you?” to a reporter’s question about the subject of the meeting), the potential high-level nature of his Pentagon visit has drawn scrutiny.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who is also a senior member of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, wrote in a post that Musk should not have been at the Pentagon.

“Elon Musk is an unelected, self-interested billionaire with no business anywhere near the Pentagon,” Gillibrand wrote in a post on X.

It’s unclear whether other defense companies would file lawsuits based on Musk’s access, but even if they do it’s doubtful they would prevail in court, said Case Western Reserve University law professor Anat Alon-Beck. 

“Nobody’s promised equal access to that type of information,” Alon-Beck told Fortune. “We’ve always had people—with the previous administrations as well—having access versus others who don’t. So it’s not just about Musk.”

Still, Musk’s businesses have deep ties to China. His EV maker Tesla has been selling vehicles in the country for a decade and Musk has often spoken positively about the country. In 2023, during an audio interview with U.S. lawmakers on his social media network X, the CEO said he was “pro-China.”

“I have some vested interests in China but honestly, I think China is underrated and I think the people of China are really awesome and there’s a lot of positive energy there,” he said at the time.

Among his “vested interests” and involvements with China are the following:

• Tesla’s biggest factory, Gigafactory Shanghai, is located in China. Half of Tesla’s vehicles globally were made there as of last year.
• Despite a recent 49% drop in deliveries, China is still one of Tesla’s biggest markets behind the U.S. 
• The Chinese government has reportedly “sought assurances” that Musk would not sell Starlink in China, the Financial Times reported. Musk last year told companies making Starlink components in Taiwan to move manufacturing to other countries because of “geopolitical concerns.”

In the U.S., SpaceX is a major government contractor with about $22 billion in government contracts, according to its CEO. Its subsidiary, Starlink, helps the Pentagon provide internet access in remote environments. 

Tesla, for its part, has received $11.4 billion in regulatory credits from federal and state governments, according to a Washington Post analysis. Cumulatively, Musk’s companies have received $38 billion worth of government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits going back 20 years, the Post reported.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com