Copy protection on the original sleeping beauty is long expired.
Copy protection on the Disney version is good for years yet.

In the original versions, the scene i quoted? There is no scene like that in the original version. But it is beat for beat straight from the Disney version. If you want to tell a sleeping beauty story, you absolutely can, the original source material not copy protected, you can faithfully tell that story, including the unconscious rape of the princess to impregnate her so that she finally wakes up at child birth... or you can create more family friendly version all your own with whatever you like. But you can't simply lift a bunch of scenes that only exist in the copy protected Disney version and call it your own original interpretation by changing a few details.

The chatgpt story is a ripoff of the Disney version though.

The scene I quoted with the three "magical gaurdians" bestowing three gifts at a celebration crashed by the sorcerous who places the curse -- that is not from the original source material, its not novel either, its a scene ripped straight from the Disney version. And its not an isolated issue with the AI version.

There is no question that Disney doesn't "own" sleeping beauty, but they do own their telling of it. This was an obvious ripoff of that particular telling in several places.

If a child handed in the Moonlit Princess the teacher would give them a lecture about plagiarism. Because its not remotely original enough. It is so clearly taking so many things straight from Disney's version. Sure the names are changed, and the words "aren't the same", but its far too derivative of that particular version to credibly claim its an original telling of the sleeping beauty story.

"No. It is not copyright infringement"

Go ahead, prompt for that story and publish your own 'moonlit princess". It is not a court case you'd win; the details taken from the Disney version are beyond excessive.

" and there's no reason to hold copyright so sacred anyway. Are you seriously wanting to protect hundred year old fairy tails from being retold?"

That's an entirely separate discussion. Legally it is infringement. Whether it should be is completely separate question, or how long it should be are separate questions.

FWIW, I don't agree with copyright being 100 years.

Who is they? And what database are you referring to?

Dictionaries often contain quotes from original source material, or references to where it was first used, or first used a certain way.

Dictionary publishers have never been accused of downloading massive torrents of pirated copies of books and processing them.

Google on the other hand HAS been accused of that, and the decade of litigation related to that ultimately rules that the limited things google was doing with it was fair use. The dictionary companies are likely paying for enhanced access to that google data now.

The AI companies are singing the same fair use tune, but its really quite different. Google was doing it (at the time) to allow for search so you could enter phrase or quote and find the book it was from and the page it was on, and to collect other meta data - word count, word frequency, analyze sentence complexity, etc... all factual information.

AI companies are using the content of that digitized corpus and everything else they can get their hands on to generate new content, much of which non-factual in nature, and often very arguably explicitly creatively derivative.

prompt: "Make a story like sleeping beauty" ... 2 seconds later we have "The Moonlit Princess" and we'll just self-publish that on Amazon... boom I'm an author!

You seriously telling me this is NOT copyright infringement? Even if you wanted to argue that sleeping beauty is a classic fairytale from the 17th century and not under copyright, the prose above is a pretty blatant Disney ripoff.

You can replace your entire BMW seat if you like with seats from another vendor. Put in a racing seat, or even install a seat you designed yourself.

This probably was not the brilliant analogy you thought it was going to be. :p

And for some reason, Discord went to Klipy...?

But if fewer people performing this behaviour died of starvation (or were too low in nutritional status to raise offspring to maturity - same thing really) than died of Salmonella it would still be a net benefit.

Earlier in his career he had a law firm with Michael Tang

I'm not even sure if it's that deliberate, or it's just the fact that Trump is thinking about rigging the election... so he talks about rigging the election.

But it's hilarious how consistent the pattern is. Normally with something like that there's just a few occasional examples. But with Trump if he says "Democrats are kicking puppies!" chances are that we're about to find out that Trump kicked a puppy.

He's not a genius, I sincerely think he's average to slightly below average intelligence for a software dev. Just look how clueless he really is when he pretends to be a technical guru in front of actual experts.

That doesn't mean he doesn't have some exceptional skills, but IQ isn't one of them.

First, he's hard working, at least in spurts (during critical deadlines), and he's willing to make and implement big decisions quickly. Just look at DOGE, Republicans have been trying to lay waste to the US government for decades, but Musk is the only one to actually do it. It was a complete disaster, but it wasn't ethics or common sense that stopped the previous attempts, that's a legit talent for Musk.

Second, CEOs aren't allowed to lie, but Musk has figured out that you can get around that by building a cult of personality and then making ridiculously optimistic predictions and then sell minor advancements as progress. The result is he has a core group of retail investors that buy his stocks based on vibes and refuse to sell once in. Since these retail investors prevent the stock from going down too much institutional investors also jump in on the ride. It's basically tulip bulbs.

I agree he has an extremely high risk tolerance, though that doesn't make him a good person.

His car company is pretty small as car companies go, SpaceX means some new satellites, but Starlink is the only thing that's really making a difference to normal people. And Neuralink might help a lot of people in the future, but it largely R&D now.

His wealth doesn't come from what his companies have done. It comes from his ability as a promoter and its ridiculous effect on the stock price.

He worked hard to get Trump re-elected, if he was in fact the tipping point, he has harmed the environment far more than he has helped.

Not to mention all the potentially hundreds of thousands of people who died due to his cuts to DOGE.

It sounds like this is more to do with your ideology than Elon Musk.

Humans are tribal, in modern times that tribe is usually their nation, and they care deeply about the survival of their tribe.

If immigration is seen as changing the fundamental nature of that tribe (nation) people will resist it.

We need to figure out a way to deal with that fact if we want to continue to have relatively open borders.

It's not hype, Anthropic is literally saying there's no actual risk they're aware of.

What actually happened is they refused to let US Intelligence agencies use their models to perform illegal surveillance. So now the US government is illegally punishing them.

The whole point of stock markets and such is that you have hard core rational investors ensuring valuations are accurate.

But Musk figured out that you don't need solid fundamentals, all you need is a hyper-loyal core following of retail investors who support you regardless of fundamentals. So you just bullshit just enough to keep them happy, without crossing too far into fraud, and the retail investors stay on board.

The retail investors create a floor for the price and their crowing about their winnings creates a bubble. The institutional investors then see what's happening and hop along for the ride.

The result is the two most overvalued companies in history (Tesla and SpaceX). In theory, the whole pile eventually comes crashing down, but just like any bubble the fund managers who buy are unlikely to be the fund managers left holding the bag.