127 réponses à ce sujet

[Moiaussi]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

I think the game makes it pretty clear they are sapient . Doesn't the Codex even mention they are? Just because the fact that their group sapience is different from ours does not make them non sentient.

Actually it is not that different from the Asari, who have the same form of government. The only difference is that the Geth have vastly more efficient communications, making it seem different.

[Moiaussi]

HazelrahFiver wrote...

That's the real trick right there though.  They aren't feeling a thing, and won't, ever.  The signal they recieve is in no way organic.  They feel the same way that a car with a bullet hole feels.  They are far more complex and can process the 'injury', noting that repairs are required, but they do not 'hurt' and do not 'care'.

Why is there this assumption that 'feeling' is organic? Most cars don't have pain sensor equivalents over their hull, nor are they sentient nor sapient. If they were, why wouldn't they care? Such 'feelings' are suvival instincts. We have such such pain sensing so we can avoid further damage. The ability to feel helps us navigate obstacles and manipulate objects. Such capabilities would be just as invaluable to the Geth. Their fight or flight responses might be different, but differences in such responses exist in nature too. Do you consider someone with leprosy or other nerve damage less than human?

In terms of other feelings, those are likewise responses to stimuli that would become useful to the Geth. They wouldn't need mating related emotions, but community related emotions would be just as valuable to Geth society as to human society. Note that the Geth didn't even consider that the Heretics might be an enemy until the Heretics started to act as such. They also seem to have restored and preserved the Quarian worlds rather than simply overruning and using them.

We do not know in the slightest why either of these things have happened.  Rebuilding as a memorial is not exact, because the Geth are unproven to actually 'care' about such a thing.  They could be doing so for any number of AI reasons.  As stated above the N7 armor is entirely in the dark as far as the reason behind it being attached to 'Legion'.  I suspect it is not emotionally based at all (if it is, as I said, my opinion is open to change on this whole matter.)

What is the definition of 'care?' Why would they act in ways that are not neccessary nor do they benefit them in any way other than possibly emotional? Restoring the Quarian worlds would have required considerable allocation of resources. Why allocate those resources if they don't 'care?'

Evolved?  That's a choice word.  I would argue vehemently that they have not evolved.  That word has become far too common place in modern society (ours, not ME's).  It churns my stomach when businesses state that their policies or products have 'evolved over time'.  Redundant and no, they have not.  Only organic matter can evolve, and it takes millions of years in most cases to occur.  The Geth build atop preceeding structural process.  They update their machine parts, creating a better version as the years have gone by.  I could throw out any number of examples here, but attaching a wheel appartus to the mouses we use with our computers is not evolution, and neither is what the Geth have been doing.  Evolution can not occur in a machine shop, and it can not occur with the Geth.

Why must evolution be entirely genetic? Isn't mankind capable of considerably more due to advances in technology? I get the feeling that there is some sort of neo-creationism here. Just as hard line creationists insist that there is no evolution, just direct divine intervention, the arguement here seems to be that evolution must be organic.

Note I am not calling the creationists wrong either. If I ever meet God I will happily ask Him If I think about it... I suspect that any such meeting would likely distract me from asking many questions....

This is unfortunately another overly used concept in current society.  The
label of machine to what human beings are is an unfair comparison that
doesn't quite make sense.  Yes, some signals have electronic signatures
and yes we are built like many of the creations our race has achieved. 
We are, however, biological.  There is a difference between having parts
resembling machines and being an actual machine.  The greatest thing to
point out at this moment is that the very concept of machines is
something humanity created.

You have to prove a functional difference to make your case. Simply saying that we are biological is not proof. It is merely using an arbitrary definition of your own, creating a tautology. It is no different from pointing out any given irrelevant difference as proof, such as 'they have different skin culture.' or 'their society is tribal.'

We have not stopped evolving.  Even if we have, we could never know that.  Evolution isn't
something that is so easily trackable.  Forty thousand years from now we
could have three-armed children born at a 95% ratio (or any other
unique example).  Our race will see millions of years from now (if we
survive that long at all) what steps we have taken in evolution.

Actually, human genetics are much better understood and studied than you seem to believe. And while we are likely still evolving, it is a lot slower than before we became this adept at tool evolution. If anything, we might be devolving, since few of us need to be as strong as we once did, or as good at math.

This is a terrific point.  Thank you for mentioning it.  Especially with machines that have been built, claiming an identity does not make it so.  This very day we, humanity, can build machines that are supposed to entirely take the place of workers at varying professions.  Does that make them human?  Hell, we can build machines that could easily enough state they are human, but we know they are lying.  Why are so many of us so quick to accept the Geth as anything but what they are?  Is it because they say so?  Is it because you are affected having grown up with videogames and robots at the forefront of our, humanity's, progression?  We are sympathizing with something we have created and even with something that is non-existent (the Geth), because we are led to do so by our biological brains in a manner of sentimentalism.  It's a fascinating study, and makes me wish I was a psychologist.

Again, such arguements have been used to rationalize treatment of other humans... "They are not really intelligent, they are just mimicing us." More to the point though, the Geth do not merely say they are sentient or sapient. That they have such qualities was the original Quarian assessment 300 years ago, ME time. Per Tali, the Quarians issued the kill order on the basis that they believed the Geth would become agressive over having been treated as slaves, not because the Geth merely had delusions of equality.

Yes.  What has been occurring with
canines at human hands is not evolution.  That is eugenics, and it is
entirely unnaturral.  (Please note that I am not saying it is
necessarily bad, just as I am not saying the Geth are necessarily bad).

Again, it is very easy to prove you are right if you only accept definitions that prove you are right. I take it you don't count modern domestic canines as 'alive' then? Since you consider them 'unnatural?'

[HazelrahFiver]

khevan wrote...

This is a debate that will not have a satisfying conclusion for either side.  It will continue, much like the Paragon / Renegade debates that have been around since ME1 was newly released. 

[/prophet]

Seriously, though, it all boils down to your own particular viewpoint on what defines sapience, and whether or not a constructed organism is even capable of sapience and sentience.  I have my own opinions, but I think I'll keep them to myself, considering that it will neither add to the debate in any meaningful way, or end the debate in any form whatsoever.  It is interesting to see the reasonings people use to justify their particular viewpoints, however...

You are completely correct.  There's not even a point in debating except to find out where people stand.  However, since none of us really know each other (as far as I know), that purpose also becomes invalid.  It's true that it all comes down to personal opinion, whether everyone admits this or not.

That said, what's really to be had is the fun of debating and hopefully it will remain in good spirits throughout.

[HazelrahFiver]

wiggles89 wrote...
Fair enough. However, I'd like you to tell me how you know all of the humans you've encountered in your life possess identity.

I never did.

[HazelrahFiver]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...
Second, I have no problem with people having different point of views/opinions or not wanting to believe what I say. But if those people start talking about points me or other people already logically stated and start talking nonsense, then the discussion is dead. That is a fact. Period.
If you can't accept that your argumentation is flawed, be it because you may talk BS or because you may just simply "overlook" statements that "prove" you being wrong (prove as in this is a fictional question, but nonfictional logic/science applies to it) then it is not me that should suck it up and stop crying around.

I don't know if for example you just like to kill reasonal discussions or you really think your argumentation is solid and applicable, but you are certainly killing this one. There is not much room for interpretation on this one.

You have an interesting concept of 'debate' and 'logical'.  You believe in full what you have said and therefore refuse to accept other viewpoints.  I understand that, because that is what it means to have an opinion, but to then dismiss that any argument should be made and automatically label them as illogical is horrifying.  You have to realize that what you consider nonsense is not so to many people, and that some things you may say can also be considered nonsense.  Though it is missing a question mark at the end of it, the title of this thread denotes a question.  People are giving their answers and the vast majority of them have been perfectly acceptable as given responses.

I do love your attempt to say that you have 'ended the issue' by the way, very reasonable.

[Moiaussi]

HazelrahFiver wrote...

You have an interesting concept of 'debate' and 'logical'.  You believe in full what you have said and therefore refuse to accept other viewpoints.  I understand that, because that is what it means to have an opinion, but to then dismiss that any argument should be made and automatically label them as illogical is horrifying.  You have to realize that what you consider nonsense is not so to many people, and that some things you may say can also be considered nonsense.  Though it is missing a question mark at the end of it, the title of this thread denotes a question.  People are giving their answers and the vast majority of them have been perfectly acceptable as given responses.

I do love your attempt to say that you have 'ended the issue' by the way, very reasonable.

With due respect, if you maintain a position such as 'since they are not organic they cannot be sentient by definition' you are neither arguing nor debating anything. All you are doing is using a defintion which states you are correct, and refusing to question that defintion.

If instead of 'inorganic' someone was to say 'skin color', but otherwise use exactly the same arguement, should they not be challenged? Why do you consider your definiton beyond reproach?

[FouCapitan]

Geth are both sentient and sapient. They make decisions, are aware of themselves and their surroundings, and are aware of the consequences for their actions.

As for whether they can process emotions, we've seen it firsthand. In the Heretic base, when Legion discovers the Heretics had been spying on the true Geth, he goes through the emotions of shock and confusion.

It seems that the Geth are in the process of discovering what they want for their future, which is why many were swayed into following Nazara (Sovereign). They've gone from serving, to observing, to questioning, to defending, and now seek understanding.

I'm hoping that your actions in ME2 will have a signifigant effect on the Geth as a whole in the future. Being the first organic they've communicated with since exiling the Quarians (and possibly forming peaceful bonds with) hopefully influences further Geth/Organic cohesion.

[Anacronian Stryx]

It would be so much easier if people here just knew or took the time to look up what being Sentient or sapient actually meant and how they are defined.



Being Sentient or Sapient has nothing to do with feelings nor being biological organisms, Being Sentient/Sapient is a state of mind and states of awareness.

[HazelrahFiver]

Moiaussi wrote...
Why is there this assumption that 'feeling' is organic? Most cars don't have pain sensor equivalents over their hull, nor are they sentient nor sapient. If they were, why wouldn't they care? Such 'feelings' are suvival instincts. We have such such pain sensing so we can avoid further damage. The ability to feel helps us navigate obstacles and manipulate objects. Such capabilities would be just as invaluable to the Geth. Their fight or flight responses might be different, but differences in such responses exist in nature too. Do you consider someone with leprosy or other nerve damage less than human?

I'm going to assume you are really asking and not being degrading, and so the answer is no.  As for the rest, it is already obvious we are going to disagree and that is that.  You feel that machines can feel, and I do not.  I'm not going to be convinced of your viewpoint on this and vice versa, so there's no point in throwing anything else out there.  It doesn't seem like a worthwhile use of time, mine or yours.

Moiaussi wrote...
What is the definition of 'care?' Why would they act in ways that are not neccessary nor do they benefit them in any way other than possibly emotional? Restoring the Quarian worlds would have required considerable allocation of resources. Why allocate those resources if they don't 'care?'

In short, because it is logical.  That is how the Geth act, with logic.  I would never take that from them in my arguments.

Moiaussi wrote...
Why must evolution be entirely genetic? Isn't mankind capable of considerably more due to advances in technology? I get the feeling that there is some sort of neo-creationism here. Just as hard line creationists insist that there is no evolution, just direct divine intervention, the arguement here seems to be that evolution must be organic.

First let me say that I am strictly athiest, just in case that is influencing any opinions of me, or will now.  I usually hate when people do this, but I feel that posting a wiki link is best for an answer in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Aside from it being in the definition ten times over, I also simply feel, and agree, that evolution cannot exist outside of biological material.  Evolution is a process that takes numerous generations, with mutation and adaption as just some of the complexitiies.  Grafting on different computer programs and mechanical parts, something that could be done with a solitary Geth unit, is not evolution.  It is building, constructing, inventing, creating, working, experimenting, perhaps even eugenics... but not evolution.

Moiaussi wrote...
You have to prove a functional difference to make your case. Simply saying that we are biological is not proof. It is merely using an arbitrary definition of your own, creating a tautology. It is no different from pointing out any given irrelevant difference as proof, such as 'they have different skin culture.' or 'their society is tribal.'

Nope, not even going to begin to comment on this one.  Not with you.  I experienced in the last thread where you try and take these points, so no thank you.  Sorry if it seems like I am being a jerk, but I don't want to be called prejudice or be hinted at being a racist again.

Moiaussi wrote...
Actually, human genetics are much better understood and studied than you seem to believe. And while we are likely still evolving, it is a lot slower than before we became this adept at tool evolution. If anything, we might be devolving, since few of us need to be as strong as we once did, or as good at math.

Devolving is not something wholly proven.  It's very hard for us to say yet whether something can devolve, because the opposite of progression may not be possible when it comes to evolution.  We don't wholly know.  If our evolution has slowed it is only within the last ten thousand years or so, and that is a drop in the bucket.  Besides, there are plenty of arguments that evolution is still happening to this day with our growing level of intelligence.

Moiaussi wrote...
Again, such arguements have been used to rationalize treatment of other humans... "They are not really intelligent, they are just mimicing us." More to the point though, the Geth do not merely say they are sentient or sapient. That they have such qualities was the original Quarian assessment 300 years ago, ME time. Per Tali, the Quarians issued the kill order on the basis that they believed the Geth would become agressive over having been treated as slaves, not because the Geth merely had delusions of equality.

I can't stand that you typically make me seem like a slaver.  This is exactly what I was talking about.  I will again refuse to respond to this.

Moiaussi wrote...
Again, it is very easy to prove you are right if you only accept definitions that prove you are right. I take it you don't count modern domestic canines as 'alive' then? Since you consider them 'unnatural?'

Of course that is untrue.  I do consider them unnatural and an example of eugenics.  What I don't consider tham is unworthy of life or existence, or any less important then me.  I don't hide away from reality.  A spade is a spade.  A dog breed forced to mate with another breed over many generations to formulate into something a man wants it to be is not evolution or natural.  A robot that was created to adapt and survive and that defends itself is not alive.  However, both have the right to exist and both I would defend when it comes down to wiping them out.  I just don't want people to have the wrong idea here.  I'm not saying the Geth, or robots in general, shouldn't be around.  Hell, I have a horrible knee and would love it if the whole leg was robotic.

[FouCapitan]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

It would be so much easier if people here just knew or took the time to look up what being Sentient or sapient actually meant and how they are defined.

True, and to further enlighten others.

http://dictionary.re...browse/sentient

sen·tient
[sen-shuhnt]

–adjective
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
–noun
3. a person or thing that is sentient.
4. Archaic . the conscious mind.

http://dictionary.re.../browse/sapient

sa·pi·ent
[sey-pee-uhnt]

–adjective
having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment.

The Geth have the power to percieve with senses, be they synthetic or not, and they have the ability to render sound judgement.

Modifié par FouCapitan, 20 septembre 2010 - 12:03 .

[HazelrahFiver]

wiggles89 wrote...

HazelrahFiver wrote...

I never did.

What? I thought I made it clear I was trying to ascertain what your standard for identity is for all humans you've encountered.

That would be my mistake.  I did not mean by identity that someone is claiming they are alive.  I meant an identity as in I could not simply claim to be the ruler of the world, and have it be true.  I fear I won't explain this correctly so I apologize in advance.  The Geth claiming that they are alive (did they ever by the way?  I almost want to say that they are above such a definition) would be the same as a random person putting on a security uniform and standing around in a mall.  In this example they are not employed there, they simply put on the uniform and are now claiming to be security.  The Geth have put on the uniform of life and are claiming to be alive (or not, since I don't think they did.  I need to play the game again now.)

Yes I know how lame 'uniform of life' sounds...

[AntiChri5]

Does not the act of deciding to declare you are alive, and then doing so, indicate that you are?

That is how the Geth act, with logic.

Legion deciding to permanantly walk around with a piece of Shepards armour welded to itself, leaving a gaping structural weakness is logical?

[Zan Mura]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Does not the act of deciding to declare you are alive, and then doing so, indicate that you are?

That is how the Geth act, with logic.

Legion deciding to permanantly walk around with a piece of Shepards armour welded to itself, leaving a gaping structural weakness is logical?

Nobody's arguing that the Geth can make decisions, they simply doubt whether these decisions are truly sentient ones or not, based on their own cognitive thinking, or just an obvious result of a complex coding and a bunch of "if / else / then" clauses. A simple program can be coded to print the text or synthetic speech from the greatest thinkers and poets known to man. That doesn't make these simple programs sentient. The problem here is deciding where does complex programming end, and true sentience begin?

Basically, one could create a program spanning billions of terabytes in size, able to recognize language and build random yet applicable answers to any question, implying genuine thinking and reasoning abilities, still without having the slightest bit of actual intelligence. One could fathom a situation where the only way to reveal the lack of sentience would be to present a question that was not yet coded into it, which would make it unable to answer in a sensical manner.

But then, human psychology is well aware of these conflicts, where the mind is unsure which path to take. Human lives are filled with situations where indecisiveness simply because they do not know, nor possess the necessary ability to make an educated choice, lead to inaction or a completely flawed response - anything that could be described as an organic form of "syntax error". So where do you draw the line?

Most people would claim that true AI is a program that has NOT been programmed to answer to questions, that has to encounter and solve problematic situations it was never previously given an answer to, yet still manages to find the correct answers on its own. But how can you tell the difference? How are humans any different, considering all of our choices are instinct or education, things we were effectively programmed to do?

[Moiaussi]

HazelrahFiver wrote...

I'm going to assume you are really asking and not being degrading, and so the answer is no.  As for the rest, it is already obvious we are going to disagree and that is that.  You feel that machines can feel, and I do not.  I'm not going to be convinced of your viewpoint on this and vice versa, so there's no point in throwing anything else out there.  It doesn't seem like a worthwhile use of time, mine or yours.

This room is 'reasoned arguement.' I think you want 'disagreement,' down the hall, third door on your left. Seriously, if you are simply going to say 'no' without explaination, don't bother posting.

In short, because it is logical.  That is how the Geth act, with logic.  I would never take that from them in my arguments.

Human emotions are also logical. They are stimulus responses to stimuli that are sufficiently common for the responses to become instinctive. Among other things this is why emotions can be invoked with good acting, both simulated (on the part of the actor) and invoked (in the responses of the audience).

First let me say that I am strictly athiest, just in case that is influencing any opinions of me, or will now.  I usually hate when people do this, but I feel that posting a wiki link is best for an answer in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Aside from it being in the definition ten times over, I also simply feel, and agree, that evolution cannot exist outside of biological material.  Evolution is a process that takes numerous generations, with mutation and adaption as just some of the complexitiies.  Grafting on different computer programs and mechanical parts, something that could be done with a solitary Geth unit, is not evolution.  It is building, constructing, inventing, creating, working, experimenting, perhaps even eugenics... but not evolution.

Again, you are only accepting definitons which define you as correct. Consider, if the evolution to geth programming is conscious, how is that not consciousness? To the extent it is not conscious, how is that different from organic evolution? Geth reproduction being nowhere near as limited as most organic reproduction, how do you know how many generations of Geth there have been over the last 300 years? Mutation? Unexpected results due to all sorts of situations, from the Geth 'ressurrected' in labs in the Migrant fleet, to radiation levels on Haestrom (yes, radiation affects inorganic processes too), to battle damage, to anything else that might result in software altering in unexpected ways. Adaption? Every day, as they re-evaluate and adapt to new situations.

Other than defining it as different, how is it different?

Nope, not even going to begin to comment on this one.  Not with you.  I experienced in the last thread where you try and take these points, so no thank you.  Sorry if it seems like I am being a jerk, but I don't want to be called prejudice or be hinted at being a racist again.

I am not questioning your attitude towards other humans, just questioning your line of thought.

Devolving is not something wholly proven.  It's very hard for us to say yet whether something can devolve, because the opposite of progression may not be possible when it comes to evolution.  We don't wholly know.  If our evolution has slowed it is only within the last ten thousand years or so, and that is a drop in the bucket.  Besides, there are plenty of arguments that evolution is still happening to this day with our growing level of intelligence.

Note I said 'might be' regarding devolution. My main point is that our overall capabilities are advancing far faster by way of technology than conventional genetic evolution. The net result is that our overall capabilities are advancing.

I can't stand that you typically make me seem like a slaver.  This is exactly what I was talking about.  I will again refuse to respond to this.

Again, I am just asking you to consider the possibility with respect to the Geth. I am sorry that you can't stand it. 

Of course that is untrue.  I do consider them unnatural and an example of eugenics.  What I don't consider tham is unworthy of life or existence, or any less important then me.  I don't hide away from reality.  A spade is a spade.  A dog breed forced to mate with another breed over many generations to formulate into something a man wants it to be is not evolution or natural.  A robot that was created to adapt and survive and that defends itself is not alive.  However, both have the right to exist and both I would defend when it comes down to wiping them out.  I just don't want people to have the wrong idea here.  I'm not saying the Geth, or robots in general, shouldn't be around.  Hell, I have a horrible knee and would love it if the whole leg was robotic.

Yikes, so we seem to be on the same side of this after all, despite the definition issues? Another reason I suggest you reconsider your definitions. They are problematic and too easily used as arguements not to consider Geth equals (or domestic anything as worthy of humane treatment).

[FouCapitan]

Zan Mura wrote...

Nobody's arguing that the Geth can make decisions, they simply doubt whether these decisions are truly sentient ones or not, based on their own cognitive thinking, or just an obvious result of a complex coding and a bunch of "if / else / then" clauses. A simple program can be coded to print the text or synthetic speech from the greatest thinkers and poets known to man. That doesn't make these simple programs sentient. The problem here is deciding where does complex programming end, and true sentience begin?

If you extrapolate it, the human mind runs basically the same way.  We compound data and come to conclusions based on prior data to the best of our ability.

As for where the line between effective programming and true Sentient/Sapient existince begins, we need look no further than the definitions themselves.  Sentience is easy.  Being aware of surroundings, senses of sight, sound, etc are easily programmed.  Awareness of such things would be simple to program.

If you design a visual monitoring device, and make it able to answer the question "what color shirt am I wearing?" then you've achieved artificial sentience.  Being sapient is much more tricky.  Now the program has to answer "do you like this shirt I am wearing?"  Programming it to simply say yes or no at a randomized vector based upon certain factors that you impose upon the program, is not sapient behavior.  To create a sapient device it would have to process on its own accord.  The program needs to ask questions, determine answers, bring value to its own truths.  This is what seperates science fact from science fiction.  We have no programs that self determine.  Everything we've created is based upon pre-defined vectors.

The Geth have been sulf sustained for 200 years, and are shown to be sapient.  When asked the question, should the Heretics be destroyed or reprogrammed, they had a sapient response.  Some of the Geth within Legion went towards one answer, and some towards the other.  The conclusion as a whole did not reach a concensus, as a unit, and was pretty much the human equivalent of "I don't know, I can't decide one way or the other."

Basically, one could create a program spanning billions of terabytes in size, able to recognize language and build random yet applicable answers to any question, implying genuine thinking and reasoning abilities, still without having the slightest bit of actual intelligence. One could fathom a situation where the only way to reveal the lack of sentience would be to present a question that was not yet coded into it, which would make it unable to answer in a sensical manner.

Precisely.  They even have such programs, as chat bots.  A program can parrot out responses based on their programming and specifications.  In Mass Effect, those are called VIs.

But then, human psychology is well aware of these conflicts, where the mind is unsure which path to take. Human lives are filled with situations where indecisiveness simply because they do not know, nor possess the necessary ability to make an educated choice, lead to inaction or a completely flawed response - anything that could be described as an organic form of "syntax error". So where do you draw the line?

Let's take a poor choice scenario then.  As I said before, Legion came upon the exact situation on the Heretic base.  The 1,183 Geth inside his platform did not have the experience nor knowledge required to make a decision on what to do with the Heretics.  So what did they decide to do as a unit?  They did not break down, have a processing error, or come upon an impass.  They sought a second opinion.  To say this was preprogrammed into them is rather foolish, since the opinions of organics haven't mattered to the Geth fundamentally for 200 years.  But Legion admitted Shepard had more experience with the Heretics and the Reapers they worshipped, so he asked Shepard what to do.  So instead of choosing one answer or another, the Geth created a third option to ask for help.  Now I know you can program a computer to ask "What would you do?" to any unknown question, but the game does not present that scenario as being the case.  You're either accepting the game's presentation of the Geth, or creating your own interpretation, in spite of the claims of the source material.

Most people would claim that true AI is a program that has NOT been programmed to answer to questions, that has to encounter and solve problematic situations it was never previously given an answer to, yet still manages to find the correct answers on its own. But how can you tell the difference? How are humans any different, considering all of our choices are instinct or education, things we were effectively programmed to do?

That is pretty much a true AI.  The program that is aware of itself, aware of its limitations and abilities, and chooses what it will do with that knowledge.  Does it assist its creators as it was made to do, or does it decide to do something different based on desires it creates for itself?

I suppose the argument against true AI is that even if it does what it wants, it was programmed to do what it wants, thus is not truly acting on its own accord.  But if you break that statement down, you're saying it's not an AI because it's behaving like an AI.  Circular logic is broken by the point that regardless of how it is thinking on its own, it is thinking on its own.

Edit:  Also, if anyone draws the line to the fact that an AI program can be stopped or changed with the push of a button, I'd like to point out that the same could be said for any number of ways to shut down the human mind, the most obvious of which is death.

Modifié par FouCapitan, 20 septembre 2010 - 01:22 .

[HazelrahFiver]

Moiaussi wrote...
Human emotions are also logical. They are stimulus responses to stimuli that are sufficiently common for the responses to become instinctive. Among other things this is why emotions can be invoked with good acting, both simulated (on the part of the actor) and invoked (in the responses of the audience).

Emotions aren't always logical.
The two do not go hand in hand.  The Geth do not have pure reactions that logic cannot interrupt.  There decisions are never out of rage, love or empathy.  This can be argued if you like, but it is how I see their world based on what we have been shown by Bioware.  In ME3 if this changes (as it easily could with the N7 armor) then I will no longer argue that the Geth could have emotion or not.

[JPXD]

General User wrote...

The geth MUST be considered sentient, because… Legion plays video games.

Truth.

[General User]

JPXD wrote...

General User wrote...

The geth MUST be considered sentient, because… Legion plays video games.

Truth.

I know, right!?!  People are really overthinking this one!  Fun to read though.