Cars don't run. And even if they did, or you tortured the definition to include rolling on fairly straight prepared paths as running, it is only better for specific definitions of better.
Cars are faster on reasonable traversable terrain. Are they more or less energy efficient? Under what circumstances? Do they self navigate the best path around obstacles? Better is really subjective.
And this applies to the large language models too. Just like calculators, they are going to do some things better, or maybe cheaper. But I've played with them trying to get them to write non-trivial programs, and they really do fail confidently. I suspect the amount of source code online means that any common problem has been included in the training data, and the LLM constitutes a program. So, at this point for programming, it's fancy Google. And that has value, but it is not intelligence.
I am not saying we (as a society) shouldn't be worried about these developments. Near as I can tell, they will mostly be used to further concentrate wealth among the few, and drive people apart because we already can't settle on a common set of (reasonably) objective facts about what is going on -- both problems are probably the same thing from different perspectives...
Except it is the speech of those pressuring the company that is free. I can tell a company that supports things I don't agree with that I won't be a customer. If enough of customers vote with their wallets, the company will change it's policies because it cares about profit.
No one is obligated to give either their money or attention to Elon Musk, or to third parties that are perceived to support Musk's companies.
The internet was meant to be used by people who knew how the internet worked. Herein lies the problem.
This might sound like gatekeeping, and maybe it is. When these systems were designed, they were not designed to be used by everyone. They were not designed to be commodities that are bought and sold, with the most valuable trinket available being the attention of the user. But this is where we are.
Few are capable of running their own _anything_ on the internet, and even fewer have the desire to do it, because if you run it well for yourself (as an individual), someone else will want you to do it for them because you are already doing it, so it's not that much more work, right? \s
Decentralization limits monetization of anything, so that is going to be a non-starter for investment of resources. Unless you are trying to have your infrastructure survive a nuclear war, no one is going to provide the means to build anything big unless you can sell it or the users of it.
The notion that anything really works on the internet with the assumptions that were made in the 70s and 80s, and the realization that what holds most of it together is the blood and sweat of ops, duck tape, and fever dreams consistently astonishes me. In the not so distant past, someone paid me to write them a custom FTP server. In the 21st century. It's like being asked to whittle an engine block out of a tree.
There is not a direct relationship between Fox News and Fox 45. That is true.
But...
Fox 45 Baltimore is owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, and corporation with a definite pro-Trump bias, and a history of making editorial decisions pushing stories to the right.
So you can say that Fox News and Fox 45 don't have anything to do with each other in a corporate tree, but the are both pushing the far right narrative because they largely follow the same editorial dictates.
Unless Trump is challenging the terms of service that he had to agree to when getting his account, this is largely a non-issue. Trump _agreed_ that Facebook/Twitter could ban him whenever he crossed their usage policy, which they can alter at any time.
Essentially, Trump agreed that they had the right to ban him before he posted anything to their services.
So sure, the government may be able to force people to host things they don't want to, but I don't think the government will force anybody to break a contract that both parties agreed to in this case.
Or because sequels often add new characters. And the Trump Republicans made themselves ridiculously easy targets...see the Four Seasons Landscaping fiasco, paying off Playboy models and pornstars, suggesting publicly that people inject themselves with bleach or somehow use sunlight internally...
People mock them because they do stupid things. Those are called consequences.
That is a definition of God that is so amorphous that it is completely useless. God is whatever you want it to be in that particular moment. So much so, that there is nothing concrete there.
You are simply living from moment to moment, with no grounding connecting your beliefs aside from your personal desires for them.
The Church is composed of the people in it. And should be judged by the actions of those that comprise it, otherwise you are abandoning all agency, and it may as well be dismantled as it could not be responsible for anything it does.
Also, no evidence of any god exists, but that is another argument. Let's stick with arguments that postulates the existence of a God in the Catholic tradition.
First, according to the Bible, papal infallibility has whatever the Church does held as law in Heaven. Stupid rule, but there you are. Therefore, if we judge that covering up and enabling child abuse is immoral, then the Church is by its own rule, immoral. Well, that doesn't work out so well for the Church. So let's leave that aside.
The Catholic Church (and other denominations) tries explain evil (and thus side step the "All Good, All Power, and All Knowing -- pick two problem of God), but claiming that it is all part of God's greater plan. The difficulty here is that it doesn't side step the problem, but tried to solve it by adding a layer of abstraction to it. What you end up with is that God's plan has to be definitionally immoral because it came from the mind of God.
The answer is, of course, who can know the mind of God? It sort of kicks the can down the road much the way the Millerites (now Seventh Day Adventists) do on the end of the world and QAnon does with Trump coming back (was it January 20th? Or March 6th? Or March 20th?). Evil exists because God's plan demands it, but somehow removes the responsibility of God's plan from God.
So, the children were abused by the men acting in God's name because God's plan demanded their suffering, but God owns none of the responsibility because you can't possibly understand the reason that God required the suffering of those children. Nice work, if you can get it.
Free will (in the Catholic tradition) allows the ability to see the harm that actions do upon others, but somehow we are supposed to turn a blind eye to that done under the protection of God. Because those children were clearly not under the protection of God.
And no one is claiming that there aren't sinners in the Church, and no one is outraged that there are. The problem is that the "hospital" was moving abusers around from floor to floor to avoid responsibility.
Heck, if the Church defrocked the abusers (those in need of its "cures") when they were reported, and took actions to keep them from abusing and answer for their crimes to the legal authorities, no one would have this (particular) problem. But the Church didn't, because it was protecting itself. The Church is more important to the Church than the victims of those crimes.
Hence, the Church exists to ensure the existent of itself, and all it's actions are in service of that singular goal.
Frankly, moral outrage at child sexual abuse and the systematic cover up of the abuse and protection of the abusers is justified. If the Bible is written in such a way that such moral outrage is a sickness, then it is truly awful foundation to base your morality upon.
But thank _you_ for minimizing the responsibility of those covering up the crimes and ensuring that they could continue.
"Virtually every youth-serving organization used to not handle abuse of youth properly."
This again? The existence of others committing the same crimes does not indemnify the Church.
Love the "Society has changed" argument. Clearly, recognizing that pedophilia is wrong by the Church is a product of changing times...not like they moved clergy from parish to parish to avoid them being caught.