Agreed, but it's all a bit vague and there's other contrary points from Ram Tah.
It doesn't say the politicians started taking a religious overtone. It says:
"The politicians were the first to react to the changing social landscape, but soon the resistance to the technological revolution took on a religious overtone."
No, and RT doesn't say it was.
That's not the truth at all. That's just putting a human twist on it. Their culture and society is completely different.
Politicians are always the first the first to react to certain events, at least publicly and often they try to manipulate events to their agenda. Human twist it has because the story was written by a human. And I disagree, there very little about their society than is different than ours.
So in the scenario you're setting out, why wouldn't the rich have just kept the implants for themselves and why were the Guardians with implants exiled?
Not to say some didn't. But being if your already on top why allow the field to be equalised? Best just to get rid of the new factor.
Why would the zealots have been at a huge disadvantage? And where does the bit about the sentient AI helping those who are keeping them shackled come from?
Well the Zealots were either using AIs or they weren't. If they weren't they they are at a mass disadvantage. If they were, somehow forcing a sentient AI to work with them... It makes no sense. Why would a sentient so work against its own interest?
This only applies if there are distinct regions of space which form a boundary between the two groups. That's not the case though. As per my reply to Moribus:
There is a huge boundary between each system. In either case one side one or lost. How is it that ALL systems became irradiated? Which side had the nukes and bioweapons? All planets had these? Either way one side would have one. And more details would have gone into their database.
“The war was ostensibly fought between the people of the homeworld and the colonies, but in truth there were divisions even among individual city-states.”
So the two groups weren't even separated by city-state boundaries, let alone planetary or interstellar boundaries.
Yet in combat their is always someone who has the upper hand. None of the entries detail this nor how is it possible no side was able to write about it.
Although it didn't have to be that way for the reasons above, this might still have happened. L20 certainly suggests that possibility:
"As is always the case with research of this nature, finding answers tends to raise further questions. I’ve found references to another form of communication in this data packet, but not one used by the Guardians, or not all of them, at least. As far as I can tell it references some kind of foe or adversary. Combined with the devastation seen at a number of sites, it indicates the Guardians may not have been the cause of their own demise."
Why would the AIs have betrayed those who were fighting and dying in support of them? Apart from the independence issue, the AIs were full parts of Guardian society.
Why not? If the logical reason stands that you'd want to annihilate that which that which is trying to impose it's will on you, yet your ally will not let you, and might turn against you If you did it anyways... Why not?
A. You don't know that. The Thargoids could very well be capable of doing that should they want to.
They can't. They cant wipe themselves out. They can't find their own kind.
B. You don't know how much 'everywhere' entails in this scenario. Was it the entirety of Guardian civilisation at its peak, or was it the last remnants who were already dying after the 2nd civil war?
Sounds to me like they were amongst the second civil war when they died out.
Why would they have these if the war was taking place within city-states?
Because it would only make sense to provide aid to your same minded folk. Wouldn't want reinforcements to get into the planet. Again the whole even tide on one planet makes zero sense. That's not how war works.
Bit of an assumption about what the AIs can do and how the act there.
Sentient... AI just by the books NON sentient algorithm are pretty smart. To me sentient means can think and do on its own free will. Now add the capability to process things faster than any human and remember every detail of everything. There is a reason Ellon Musk believes it's a deamon getaway.
The only reason? So, sound military strategy by the third party wouldn't constitute a sensible and more plausible reason? - (Why would a third party attack and risk uniting two strong warring forces when they could just sit back, wait for the two forces to largely wipe each other out, and then move in and clear up the mess with pretty much zero risk to themselves?)
Reason is not just it. Capability is also not there. If there was a race that was that widespread and advanced we'd seen remnants all over the galaxy just like anyone running into a human bubble would see it.
In your scenario, yes.
On a meta tack, we already have an AI gone wrong story. That's human AI. It's a bit of a hackneyed sci-fi trope, and personally I don't think FD would do it twice. The Guardian story seems to be almost the inverse - AI going right and parts of the society that created them going wrong. (Still slightly hackneyed in-fairness but a lot less so than the AI gone wrong version.)
Meta I think the AI went rogue and regrets it. Or the AI being multiple AIs and having different views. But that's just being hopeful of IT being a different trope. But most likely it's the same. Because the backstory has already been written in Braben's mind before a lot of rogue AI tropes.
Sorry posting from phone. Check through qoutes for replies.