hi.
I imagine the state as more a liberal representative democracy. Some place that has freedom of speech and relatively fair elections. The kind of country that actually needs public support to enact their rule. Not an authoritarian hell-scape, I wouldn't trust any deal they make anyway.
I wouldn't be fighting someone capable of honesty
What if the fighting started accidentality? What if the state that is actually a pretty decent liberal democracy where there is a large amount of political freedom. Would you still be part of the revolt? and would you take the deal if, at least for the time being, the current government is sympathetic to your cause?
As for guarantees, what could they offer that would be enough? Lets say the deal gives you the city and surrounding area, opens up trade between you, and allows for free movement of people. There would be a guarded border on the state side but no troops or cops would be allowed inside. Or maybe a DMZ?
Also fooling them with a silly counter-offer is a really good idea, but a part of me thinks that it's kinda cruel to ridicule their genuine offer.
So you would rather keep fighting a hopeless war? Slowly losing people until they break through your lines? Alienating those in the state by allowing the state to paint you as warmongers? Instead of accepting a refuge and using what you have to keep fighting?
And is being a reservation really a problem? Why must it lead to collapse? You can start leeching all of the radicals from the state. Slowly building up a collective industry, maybe have some of those collectives/syndicates operate inside the state. If they pay tax why should the state mind.
I think there could exist potential in a dual-system. Obviously I don't like it, and would fight against it, but if it could be a path forward to practically achieve our goals should we not at least try to examine it?
I expanded on the scenario in the other comment in this thread. But what If you wouldn’t have a choice? If it's between fighting to the last person or taking the deal?
I would rather compromise and trust that the spirit that started this is strong enough to withstand any future attacks. With this time you have the opportunity to build up your defences, reach out to the people in the state and build networks that will keep you safe in case they attack again.
I think they can be trusted to act in their best self-interest and this deal is that.
It allows them to:
- Stop the trickle of casualties.
- Gain back most of the lost territory.
- Regroup to potentially take the city back later. (Of course they would stand no chance but obviously they would think differently)
- Win public support.
- Have a sink for the more radical people in the populous. (Wanna live in anarchy? Go over there!)
Ok, let's expand upon this.
The fighting has been going on for a while now. thousands of people have been killed, every day new causalities are ticking up on both sides due to small raids, but there is no end in sight. Nighter side has enough resources to push forward but, if you decline the deal the people of the state will start considering you unreasonable, push up support for the war and allow for more extreme actions to be taken against you.
No one from the outside is coming to help and due to the fighting the people who support you cannot get to you. This is presented as your only way out, it's either this or fighting to the last man.
The deal would stop the hostilities between you and allow for others sympathetic to your cause to join. There might even be a chance to negotiate for more territory down the line.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Because people are lonely and the internet is telling men it's the women’s fault.
Honestly if you want to boil water quickly just use a pan. Takes like 30 seconds.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
The latin names had -um suffixes
- Gold - Aurum
- Silver - Argentum
- Lead - Plumbum
also:
- Copper - Cuprum
- Iron - Ferrum
Actually useful uses for LLMs:
- Text checking - being a language model LLMs can look over written text and provide fixes traditional tools might have a problem with.
- ... I guess answering very general or language based questions, the kind that doesn't require specifics or is specifically about language and understanding meaning. (eg. summerization, definitions etc.)
- ... ... Entertainment? although an actual human being would almost certainly do a better job.
- Can't think of any more. I don't even trust it enough to structure speech into a machine readable output.
In reality I think it actually just needs to be known that LLMs cannot reason and are just guessing and relying on their output is stupid. At that point it becomes really hard to profit off of them as all of the above can be achieved with small models running locally, which you can't really monetise.
It's a bubble. It will pop, and everyone laid off because of it will be rehired.
This got me thinking that Valve is the best competitor to Xbox. Instead of getting to release some walled garden, single store handheld they have to open it up to other stores because otherwise people would just buy a SteamDeck.
But everyone who cares about handheld gaming already has a steam deck and this is going to be more expensive so I don't see the point anyway.
Don't worry it's going to launch with silksong. Don't really know what's the point of releasing a game along a cross-platform console but I guess the publicity is good.
I find it interesting that with just the description of "A state" you have immediately imagined a worst possible enemy for yourself.
Against a state like that I'm inclined to agree with you. If they truly have no intention of coexisting then obviously the deal would be a trap. However I would immediately ask how, in such hostile environment, did you manage to get a revolt started in the first place. My original scenario imagined a lot more liberal state that would not have enough power to stop the movement before it grew to open revolt, however with the monster you've imagined I don't think it's possible.
Do we? Is every person in the world capable of being an anarchist? What would you do with the people who don't want to be? To say we pose an existential threat to states is to say that no person would voluntarily choose to live in the state if they have the option. I don't know if that's the case but I do think that states think that some people will always be loyal to them.
There is a crucial difference here they owned the land before. Our revolt is carving it out. Obviously being forced to a reservation by a colonial power is wrong. But I don't see this like that. It's closer to a revolt down-sizing in order to maintain cohesion.