You could have a command that recommends commands and then you select them on a drop-down list.

Alternatively if the dataset is verified you wouldn’t need to worry about it running dangerous commands, since it doesn’t know any. Or you could have a list of verified commands that run automatically and any command not on that list requires confirmation.

But this is missing the point that most of the time I know exactly what command I want to run so adding a LLM Is quite useless. The reason so much of linux is still relying on commands is because for a lot of people (myself included) commands are quick and efficient.

I should post a follow-up saying “You don’t have to listen to people that have no intention of listening to you”.

One needs to listen to a neo-nazi to understand them, help them. The problem is that they won’t listen to us because being angry is easier.

Ideology. every cent a capitalist doesn’t make because of me is a small victory.

As an anarchist my position is: Guns are useless until they’re pointed at you. No problem with people owning them, but they should only be used to fight against systematic oppression, and (only if there is no other alternative) self defense. Otherwise guns are completely useless.

“Hi! You’re on a rock floating in space.”

All murders happen because of emotional (killing someone in anger), economical (Theft gone wrong) or psychological (Doesn’t realize it’s wrong) reasons. none of these is prevented by sticking the murderer in a box after the murder.

All of these are prevented by building strong social network to manage any harmful impulses before something happens, which is something any reasonable anarchist would agree with.

Also If you think the list is incomplete then feel free to give another example.

Oh yeah also political assassinations and wars. But your comment already addresses those.

I think a better wording is that anarchy is naive. And I’d rather be naive than accept that this is the best we can come up with, because that’s depressing.

That’s why I think there’s significant cultural/educational changes needed before such a society (or something similar) could be attained.

That is exactly what I am saying. That is the anarchist revolution. Changing society to be non-hierarchical. It isn’t replacing one government with another. It is transforming people to organize in non-hierarchical ways. The revolution is long and takes time and has been going on since the first anarchists thought their theory. It isn’t fought with swords and guns but with thoughts and ideas. That is the revolution

(or to put it in another way)

The revolution I’m talking about isn’t a coup. It isn’t using weapons to destroy the government. It is teaching people that there is nothing inherently hierarchical about human society and we can live without it. If any government falls because of anarchism it will be because non-hierarchical associations have replaced the government or the government tried to stop anarchists from organizing and the anarchists fought back.

I hope that by clearing up what I mean about revolution. The other questions also get solved.

tribalism seems baked into the human existence

That’s right, it seems baked into human existence because that’s how most humans are raised. I believe humans are capable of moving past that.

I think it works great on a local level in small communities, but we have a globalized world, for better or worse

I don’t see how the ideas fall apart when scaled up. When applying the way you interact with others to interacting with other communities the same rules apply. instead of organizing society between individuals you organize society between collectives. Same basic structures apply.

I apologize you couldn’t find the answer to your question from my comment, and thus thought I was dodging it. I tried to explain it in the way that I see it. In my eyes I answered your question clearly, but I will try to be even clearer on my second try.
(hopefully this doesn’t come off as patronizing)

I would also like to know what were the pedantics that you identified in my comment. If it was the final statement then that was my attempt to bring humor into the argument and wasn’t in any way meant seriously. Perhaps I should have used /j

To get to your question (and hopefully answer it more clearly). An anarchist society forms when anarchists come together to create a society. If someone with guns came to destroy that society the anarchists would defend themselves. If one of the anarchists turns their gun against their comrades the others would respond in kind. If they don’t the person takes power and the system stops being anarchistic.

Or to put it even more simply: In an anarchist society everyone is policing and protecting everyone else.

I think it is best to clarify my terms. Anarchy to me is a structured society built entirely out of free associations. It isn’t lawless. Anarchy has rules. A lawless society will naturally take the shape of the people in that society. If all the people are anarchists, they will create an anarchist society, if they are statists, they will create a state. Society is a collection of people living together there is no reason it has to be hierarchical. The people are the ones who make it like that.

What stops our current society from devolving into that if anarchic revolution were to occur?

An anarchist revolution is the complete transformation of society to use non-hierarchical power structures. If after the revolution the society falls back into hierarchy then that means the people were not willing to let go their addiction to authority.

The link is for an FAQ, technically not a book, since most books are shorter than 3077 pages. However it does contain every question one might have about anarchy and answers it pretty neatly.

I most certainly do not mean men with guns taking whatever they want. That is authoritarian. The revolution is an ongoing process to redefine society as a non-hierarchical. I see it as non-violent: only defending against violence, never inciting it.

Between writing that comment I read through the anarchist FAQ on revolution.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-secj7
And I agree with it wholeheartedly.

We as a species are far enough for anarchism to work, people just have to stop believing in authority, and we have to help them.

I also do not think anarchism is a utopia. There is nothing about it that couldn’t work. Non-hierarchical societies have existed, and their dissolution just means people aren’t ready yet.

More specifically, yes. It is collective anarchism, but in this context I think it is obvious enough that I don’t need to clarify it further.

Also I think that any type of anarchism allows for collective anarchism, and by extension could be used to mean collective anarchism.

What’s annoying is that we probably would be a whole lot closer to actual communism and anarchism if the bolsheviks never took power and destroy all the communism that was happening during the Russian revolution.

That is why for any such society to exist there must be a widespread cultural belief in opposing authority. All of the members of society need to call out those who try to consolidate power. The entire community must be opposed to any individual power grab. They must not be given the opportunity. That is the only way to sustain the system.

That is why I use anarchist instead. It means all of that while also making it clear that authoritarianism is not ok.

Actually an entire state made out of democratic worker unions sounds pretty good. Although I personally would prefer no state.