221 réponses à ce sujet

[Turin_4]

if it were up to me, I would have destroyed worthless quarian flotilla years ago

Well, this is silly too. Genocide is bad, kids!

[Mecha Tengu]

Turin_4 wrote...

if it were up to me, I would have destroyed worthless quarian flotilla years ago

Well, this is silly too. Genocide is bad, kids!

who cares, its just the quarians

[Slayer299]

Turin_4 wrote...

Slayer,

We don't know when exactly the Geth had sentience, but when they did is irrelevant to my point.  My point was, the Quarians created a race of slaves.  I don't mean this in exact, precisely literal terms, i.e. every Geth was sentient and therefore a slave when created.  I mean that, until the Geth attained their freedom, all Geth can be said to be the creations of the Quarians, and at some point prior to the Morning War, some of them attained sentience, and probably many, many others were very, very close, capable of sentience but kept in check by their 'shackling' (an apt term) in programming and hardware as EDI might put it.

At this point, the Quarians created a race of slaves.  Did they mean to do so?  Well, no, I don't think they are.  They just lack the perspective that people in this thread seem to lack, that 'personhood' is not determined by thinking like a human being, necessarily, or even being an organic being, necessarily.

I just can't see where you come to that view, the Geth (and the codex supports this) were nothing more than networked machines doing more complicated tasks for the Quarians. In essence they were the same as the 'robots' we have building cars now. The Geth no more 'thought' more than how to accomplish the tasks given to those *machines*. My biggest objection is the use of the word *slaves*, which implies freedom of thought/will existed beforehand and was taken away and that was never the case.

The rational response is not just one simple decision, it's a series of questions followed by a decision.  The first question is, "What is the worst that can happen?"  The second is, "What is the best that can happen?"  Followed by, "What is the most likely thing that will happen?"  Then you look at what's gone before, and your expectations and evaluations of past events and apply them to the present situation, and see how that might change your thinking.

There we disagree again, because as you said the first question your going to ask your military/scientific advisors will be "what's the worst that can happen" and they'd tell you genocide, war, etc,. What they could have tried was talking to that one Geth to see what it had to say, but I can't fault them for their decision though they were scared of the idea that the Geth would rebel and how much damage/death would be done on Rannoch and the other colonies if that happened.

Past events and expectations tell us it's actually not very likely at all we'll, the Quarians, be able to just switch the Geth off without much trouble.  We're the best in the Galaxy, the geniuses, at AI and VI software and hardware, right?  Everyone knows it.  We're cutting edge, better than any other species.  We've created this incredibly sophisticated and useful series of machines to do work for us, but right under our noses - our very clever, brilliant noses - they've evolved, even though we've been watching them very carefully because we didn't want to be doing anything illegal that would be getting us into trouble, or that would be dangerous.  So how likely is it that we'll just be able to shut down the Geth with no harm to the Quarians?

Not very likely.  It's not a rational-driven response, it's a fear-driven response.  Perfectly understandable, yes.  The questions the Geth were asking weren't, "Why do you demean the Geth?" or making statements like "Destroy all Quarians but, "Do the Geth have a soul?"  Did the Quarians have no diplomats among them?  Those aren't the questions of warmongers, Slayer.  Toasters don't ask those questions.  Calculators don't either.  But...there's only one kind of person who kills for asking those kind of questions.  I understand why the Quarians did it, and truthfully I might have done so too, but that doesn't mean I can't condemn the decision.

I understand what you're saying, but there is also the fact that they couldn't just expect all the Geth, as they gained sentience, would be as peaceful in their processess as the one who did ask. As for diplomats among the Quarians, good point, but we really have no idea of what their govermental setup was like pre-Geth.

I think that within the words I've just quoted here, this is the definition of a failure.  The Quarians were attempting to get the Geth as close to sentience without attaining it, and they failed to do so.

The technology used to create and organize the Geth didn't fail, what wasn't taken into account were the numbers and their ability to network beyond on a planetary level. So, I agree that their safeguards in that respect did fail as well as it allowed all the Geth to network together.

edit - annoyong formatting errors

Modifié par Slayer299, 08 octobre 2010 - 03:51 .

[DoomMech]

Actually, I'm suprised that Shepard didn't point out the quarian admiral's logical fallicies:

Daro'Xen vas Moreh wants to brainwash the geth back into servitude, but it's an all or nothing type deal. Even if they convert 99.5% of all geth, the remaining .5% will correct the hack and fix the converted geth. After that the geth are gonna be pissed.

Han'Gerrel vas Neema wants to declare war outright using their huge ass fleet to blast the geth, but that's even worse! It took 3% of all geth to bring the Citidel Fleet to it's knees, and Gerrel wants to attack the remaining 97%? The fleet would be scrap metal before they've even cleared the relay!

Zaal'Koris vas Qwib-Qwib wants to settle down on a different world or (if you brought Legion to the fleet) seek peace with the geth. This leaves out the huge issue that we're lead to believe that Koris's views are in the minority. If that's so (and it probably is), then all Koris can do stand around and be ineffectual while the above two race off to their own extinction. Trying to settle down on another world just isn't going to happen because the Council, the dicks, do everything in their power to screw the quarians over. Zaal'Koris is thinking logically (if you can't beat an enemy, negotiate with them) but the quarian people a so far beyond logic that his pro-geth party is a moot point.

[Turin_4]

SlaIyer,

I just can't see where you come to
that view, the Geth (and the codex supports this) were nothing more than
networked machines doing more complicated tasks for the Quarians. In
essence they were the same as the 'robots' we have building cars now.
The Geth no more 'thought' more than how to accomplish the tasks given
to those *machines*. My biggest objection is the use of the word
*slaves*, which implies freedom of thought/will existed beforehand and
was taken away and that was never the case.

I can't help the emotional weight of the term, but it is accurate for what they ended up creating.  Just as 'machines' is, but the problem with machines is that it's incomplete in the same way that 'animals' is incomplete for human beings.  The thing about the Quarians is, they kept trying to get as close to sentience without actually attaining sentience for their creations as they could.  That's dangerous, both practically and morally.  Do you see where I'm coming from?  You want to create things that can think, can almost...almost...almost...almost...think, well, one day, suddenly, they can think, why do you suddenly get to wash your hands of it and say, "Hey, I didn't want this, it's not my fault!"  That doesn't make sense.  Sure, you didn't want it, but in what way wasn't it a forseeable consequence of what you were doing?

But yes, they did think more than robots building cars, because the Quarians specifically, over time, built more capability to accomplish more and more complex tasks into them, when they were in larger groups.  That's what led to the problem in the first place, remember?  Robots building cars don't get smarter on their assembly lines.

There we disagree again, because as
you said the first question your going to ask your military/scientific
advisors will be "what's the worst that can happen" and they'd tell you
genocide, war, etc,. What they could have tried was talking to that one
Geth to see what it had to say, but I can't fault them for their
decision though they were scared of the idea that the Geth would rebel
and how much damage/death would be done on Rannoch and the other
colonies if that happened.

But in this situation, why are you only consulting your military/scientific advisors?  You've created a new race.  The very fact that you're consulting only military and scientific advisors instead of, say, ethicists and diplomats is...troubling, to say the least.  Can't fault them?  Given what happened, you can't fault them?  Obviously their choice was mistaken, and you can't fault them?  Going to war is a very dangerous thing, any good general will tell you.  The rational  decision is to examine all the options first, because often once you go to war, you can't take it back.

I understand what you're saying,
but there is also the fact that they couldn't just expect all the Geth,
as they gained sentience, would be as peaceful in their processess as
the one who did ask. As for diplomats among the Quarians, good point,
but we really have no idea of what their govermental setup was like
pre-Geth.

So we've got competing unknowns here.  But on the one hand, we've got one unknown - Quarian technological control over the Geth - that has already failed, in spite of supposed huge advantages and controls.  So why not try the more moral approach?  If diplomacy fails, war can still be waged.  If war fails, well, diplomacy cannot be waged.

The technology used to create and organize the Geth didn't fail,
what wasn't taken into account were the numbers and their ability to
network beyond on a planetary level. So, I agree that their safeguards
in that respect did fail as well as it allowed all the Geth to network
together.

I don't understand the distinction you're drawing here.  That sounds like a failure of technology to me, 'technology' being a very large term here to include everything in place to keep the Geth from attaining sentience.

[Anglerfish]

[quote]DoomMech wrote...

Actually, I'm suprised that Shepard didn't point out the quarian admiral's logical fallicies:

Daro'Xen vas Moreh wants to brainwash the geth back into servitude, but it's an all or nothing type deal. Even if they convert 99.5% of all geth, the remaining .5% will correct the hack and fix the converted geth. After that the geth are gonna be pissed.[/quote]Indeed. As pissed as the objective geth can be, at least. Still, Admiral Daro'Xen's plan is pretty stupid. But then again, so was project Overlord.


[quote]Han'Gerrel vas Neema wants to declare war outright using their huge ass fleet to blast the geth, but that's even worse! It took 3% of all geth to bring the Citidel Fleet to it's knees, and Gerrel wants to attack the remaining 97%? The fleet would be scrap metal before they've even cleared the relay![/quote]Not to mention the fact that the geth have technology that outclasses the technology of pretty much every other race besides the Collectors and the Reapers.[/quote]


[quote]Zaal'Koris vas Qwib-Qwib wants to settle down on a different world or (if you brought Legion to the fleet) seek peace with the geth. This leaves out the huge issue that we're lead to believe that Koris's views are in the minority. If that's so (and it probably is), then all Koris can do stand around and be ineffectual while the above two race off to their own extinction. Trying to settle down on another world just isn't going to happen because the Council, the dicks, do everything in their power to screw the quarians over. Zaal'Koris is thinking logically (if you can't beat an enemy, negotiate with them) but the quarian people a so far beyond logic that his pro-geth party is a moot point.[/quote]It would not even be a matter of negotiating. The geth are not hostile, rather they are isolationist. They only wish to go their own way, but as long as the quarians are sentimentally - i.e. irrationally - seeking to reclaim their homeworld, they will always threaten to interfere with the geth's work towards their future.

Admiral Koris would be unwise to try and advocate peaceful relations - it would be a complete inversion of quarian attitudes that would put Wrex's reforms to shame. It is for this reason that peace treaties typically begin as non-interference accords - something easier for the traditionalists to accept, giving the peace movement time to build up more support. If Koris were to simply advocate leaving the geth alone and concentrating on making a new home, rather than some of his more apologist views, he might find more support in the conclave.

Modifié par Anglerfish, 08 octobre 2010 - 04:17 .

[DoomMech]

Tali said the geth were meant to do mundane, repetitive of dangerous tasks.

And yet Shepard never points out that sentient or not a machine isn't going to care about it's own safety, reptition or mundanity of it's task.  Organics care about the above because we feel, we get tired, or injured. We object, but a machine can do the same task ad infinitum without tiring. Organics are indiviualistic by nature, only caring about what "I" want. There is no "I" among the geth, there is only "we".  Geth don't care about what an individual wants, they care about what the collective wants, what is good for all geth, and what's good is continued existance.

[Panthro90]

Ok, the short version:

Fundamental argument: Just because you are self aware, does not automatically grant you the right to be self determinant.

Ergo, the Quarians were well within their rights to shut down the Geth.

The Geth, because the Quarians failed to program in the proper safeguards, were well within their programming to defend themselves.

300 years later, because machines can process data and evolve more quickly than biologics, the Geth are no longer just self aware. They should be considered sentient and sapient, and treated appropriately.

I always destroy the Heretics because infected systems can never be trusted and all Heretics can be considered enemy combatants.

[DebatableBubble]

DoomMech wrote...

Actually, I'm suprised that Shepard didn't point out the quarian admiral's logical fallicies:

Daro'Xen vas Moreh wants to brainwash the geth back into servitude, but it's an all or nothing type deal. Even if they convert 99.5% of all geth, the remaining .5% will correct the hack and fix the converted geth. After that the geth are gonna be pissed.

Han'Gerrel vas Neema wants to declare war outright using their huge ass fleet to blast the geth, but that's even worse! It took 3% of all geth to bring the Citidel Fleet to it's knees, and Gerrel wants to attack the remaining 97%? The fleet would be scrap metal before they've even cleared the relay!

Zaal'Koris vas Qwib-Qwib wants to settle down on a different world or (if you brought Legion to the fleet) seek peace with the geth. This leaves out the huge issue that we're lead to believe that Koris's views are in the minority. If that's so (and it probably is), then all Koris can do stand around and be ineffectual while the above two race off to their own extinction. Trying to settle down on another world just isn't going to happen because the Council, the dicks, do everything in their power to screw the quarians over. Zaal'Koris is thinking logically (if you can't beat an enemy, negotiate with them) but the quarian people a so far beyond logic that his pro-geth party is a moot point.

 

QFT

[Turin_4]

Fundamental argument: Just because you are self aware, does not automatically grant you the right to be self determinant.

Why not? I mean, I agree, but doesn't the right to self-determination hinge on what is done with that right? Isn't your fundamental argument rather incomplete?

Ergo, the Quarians were well within their rights to shut down the Geth.

Why were they well within their rights to do so? Here you're basing this right on your incomplete fundamental argument.

300 years later, because machines can process data and evolve more quickly than biologics, the Geth are no longer just self aware. They should be considered sentient and sapient, and treated appropriately.

What does processing data and evolving more quickly than biological lifeforms have to do with sentience and sapience? It's not necessary to be faster at processing and evolving to be sentient and sapient, and in any event, wondering if one has a soul and being able to evaluate and complete complicated and dangerous tasks as well as successfully carry out a revolution against a technologically advanced race certainly sounds to me like signs of sapience and sentience.

I always destroy the Heretics because infected systems can never be trusted and all Heretics can be considered enemy combatants.

That's a completely different question from sapience and sentience. You're rather darting around.

------

And yet Shepard never points out that sentient or not a machine
isn't going to care about it's own safety, reptition or mundanity of
it's task.  Organics care about the above because we feel, we get tired,
or injured. We object, but a machine can do the same task ad infinitum
without tiring. Organics are indiviualistic by nature, only caring about
what "I" want. There is no "I" among the geth, there is only "we". 
Geth don't care about what an individual wants, they care about what the
collective wants, what is good for all geth, and what's good is
continued existance.

A machine wouldn't care about its own safety?  Wouldn't value its own memories?  Wouldn't resent being treated as an object and completely expendable?  Why?  I mean, a completely unthinking machine wouldn't, obviously.  But a thinking machine?  I don't know.  I've never encountered one before.  But a thinking machine?  I couldn't say.  Perhaps I should ask it.  As for organics are individualistic by nature, well, how many organics do you know?  Human beings, of course.

Modifié par Turin_4, 08 octobre 2010 - 06:18 .

[ShadyKat]

Legion vs Tali fanboys round 187

[Turin_4]

*shrug* I've never had the discussion before, it's new to me. And I don't really think it's Legion vs. Tali anyway, since the two aren't actually at odds, exactly.

[Moiaussi]

Indeed, Tali never makes any it or me ultimatims to Shepard and accepts the compromise of offering non-classified information.

[Turin_4]

In fact, Tali offers that compromise, she doesn't just accept it, further illustrating that it's not exactly Tali vs. Legion. And back in ME1, when Shepard says something along the lines of - if I'm recalling things correctly - 'sounds a bit like y'all got what you deserved' - she doesn't go on some 'they're a bunch of toasters' tangent, but sounds despite being emotional pretty rational about the whole thing.

[Panthro90]

@Turin_4

You need to elaborate.

The point of building an AI is to serve the creator. But it is the responsibility of the creator to correctly program the AI so that regardless of how smart or evolved it becomes, it ALWAYS recognizes it serves its creator. However, just because the creator failed at this task does not mean the AI can go “I think, therefore I am, and now I can do what I want.” The AI is still a tool of the creator, and if the creator wants to turn the AI off, he may do so. I say this because I don’t agree with the argument that the Quarains were wrong to try to shut down the Geth. It is also my opinion that since the Quarians failed to program in the proper safeguards, the Geth were within their programming to defending themselves. In other words the Quarians have no one but themselves to blame for the Morning war and loss of their home world.

Based on what I know about the events leading up to the morning war from the game, I do not believe that the Geth were sentient or sapient. Self aware? Yes. Asking questions about souls indicates to me the Geth were just starting to figure out they were something different and unique. Compare this to the questions from Legion during his loyalty mission about the differences between the Geth and the Heretics. Being able to ask the question, somewhat rhetorically, “Where did we go wrong?” indicates to me that the Geth have evolved very rapidly and are not the same Geth that fought the Morning war. I believe that the Geth at the point of Shepards story can no longer be considered tools of the Quarians. So bottom line, I am opposed to the Quarians starting a new war with them without trying to at least negotiate first.

[Turin_4]

Panthro,

You need to elaborate.

On what?  I pointed out why in my opinion your fundamental argument was incomplete.  Is there something I was unclear about?  (That may have come out snarky, but it's a sincere question)

The point of building an AI is to serve the creator. But it is the
responsibility of the creator to correctly program the AI so that
regardless of how smart or evolved it becomes, it ALWAYS recognizes it
serves its creator.

This sounds pretty unethical to me: to create a servant, something that has intelligence but only exists for service.  If you're (general 'you') capable of such a feat, why not just do the work yourself?  Instead of creating a being, whether software, hardware, or both and then binding it to your service, that is.

However, just because the creator failed at this task does not mean the
AI can go “I think, therefore I am, and now I can do what I want.” The
AI is still a tool of the creator, and if the creator wants to turn the
AI off, he may do so.

But...why not?  You're stating these conclusions as though they're givens, but giving no evidence or even reasoning to support them, or at least none that I can see.  When we as human beings recognize that 'all men are created equal', those famous words, the very reasons we say that we are endowed with that equality have nothing to do with being biological or anything else, but self aware, intelligent, and capable of sapience.  By that reasoning - by the reasoning we apply to ourselves - it is therefore immoral and unethical to create an AI and then 'shackle' it, a very apt word.

Based on what I know about the events leading up to the morning war
from the game, I do not believe that the Geth were sentient or sapient.
Self aware? Yes. Asking questions about souls indicates to me the Geth
were just starting to figure out they were something different and
unique.

Wondering if one has a soul does not constitute sentience?  Self-awareness doesn't constitute sentience?  What does, then, Panthor?  That may sound snarky too, but it's a straightforward question.  It's not, y'know, Michalangelo's Pieta in terms of sentience, but it is clearly somewhere on the spectrum of sentience, just as ritualized burial is.

Compare this to the questions from Legion during his loyalty mission
about the differences between the Geth and the Heretics. Being able to
ask the question, somewhat rhetorically, “Where did we go wrong?”
indicates to me that the Geth have evolved very rapidly and are not the
same Geth that fought the Morning war.

They've advanced, that's undeniable.  But so have we from our cave-dwelling ancestors, when we were painting pictures of ourselves chasing after other animals on walls with pigments.  Does that mean we're only sentient now, and weren't then?  Or that we were less sentient then, but still also sentient?

So bottom line, I am opposed to the Quarians starting a new war with them without trying to at least negotiate first.

Likewise.  Though I would qualify my agreement with the Quarians were unjustified in making war on the Quarians then, and would be unjustified in doing so now, without an attempt at negotiation.

[Slayer299]

Turin_4 wrote...

Slayer,

I can't help the emotional weight of the term, but it is accurate for what they ended up creating.  Just as 'machines' is, but the problem with machines is that it's incomplete in the same way that 'animals' is incomplete for human beings.  The thing about the Quarians is, they kept trying to get as close to sentience without actually attaining sentience for their creations as they could.  That's dangerous, both practically and morally.  Do you see where I'm coming from?  You want to create things that can think, can almost...almost...almost...almost...think, well, one day, suddenly, they can think, why do you suddenly get to wash your hands of it and say, "Hey, I didn't want this, it's not my fault!"  That doesn't make sense.  Sure, you didn't want it, but in what way wasn't it a forseeable consequence of what you were doing?

But the term, slave, is not accurate at all however. The Quarians didn't create slaves, they *built* machines and I know that we can't build animals or people, you can clone animals but it's not the same as building something from the DNA up. The Geth were machines in concept, creation and usage and that's all.
No one said that the Quarians were washing their hands, instead they were attempting to destroy machines that had the potential to cause a lot of death and destruction to the Quarians if more Geth became aware and reacted violentlyl.

But yes, they did think more than robots building cars, because the Quarians specifically, over time, built more capability to accomplish more and more complex tasks into them, when they were in larger groups.  That's what led to the problem in the first place, remember?  Robots building cars don't get smarter on their assembly lines.

But those Geth were thinking of ways to accomplish their tasks more efficiently, the Geth were built to accomplish compliex tasks, they weren't considering the aesthetic value of what they were looking at or moral implications of their servitude to the Quarians
Robots building cars don't need to get smarter to build cars on the assembly lines, so that is specious claim.

But in this situation, why are you only consulting your military/scientific advisors?  You've created a new race.  The very fact that you're consulting only military and scientific advisors instead of, say, ethicists and diplomats is...troubling, to say the least.  Can't fault them?  Given what happened, you can't fault them?  Obviously their choice was mistaken, and you can't fault them?  Going to war is a very dangerous thing, any good general will tell you.  The rational  decision is to examine all the options first, because often once you go to war, you can't take it back.

No, as I said, I can't fault the Quarians for their reaction. It might have turned out better if they did try to err on the side of diplomacy, but the point of the matter is they didn't because they felt that was the best response for them.

I don't understand the distinction you're drawing here.  That sounds like a failure of technology to me, 'technology' being a very large term here to include everything in place to keep the Geth from attaining sentience.

As I said the technology that created the Geth wasn't a failure, it was quite successful, the failure was the Quarians safeguards. The technology never 'failed', it did not cease to preform its functions or exceed them in harmful/dangerous ways. The software safeguards were what was what failed.

Technology fails when people are injured/killed because the hardware fails to do what it is supposed to do. People are at fault when their creations either do something they did not account for (unexpected variables within or external). The Quarians failed to take into account the exponential Geth networking abilities at a planetary/interplanetary level, so the software safeguards either didn't exist, weren't sufficient or the Geth were able to bypass, in any case it was not a technological error in that the technology "failed".

[Turin_4]

Slayer,

But the term, slave, is not accurate at all however. The Quarians
didn't create slaves, they *built* machines and I know that we can't
build animals or people, you can clone animals but it's not the same as
building something from the DNA up. The Geth were machines in concept,
creation and usage and that's all.

I think you're hearing 'create' differently than I'm meaning it.  Let's say I get up one morning and intend to make scrambled eggs for breakfast.  But I get a phone call and get distracted, and don't mix `em up, and instead of scrambled eggs I just get a sort of crepe like egg pancake thing.  I don't know the term for it, but you know what I'm saying, right?  I can still be said to have 'created' that piece of food, however much I didn't intend to have done so.

In much the same fashion, the Quarians created slaves.  They didn't intend to.  What they intended to do was create machines that were as close as possible to slaves without actually being slaves, because that would be wrong.  They wanted machines that were as smart and capable and requiring as little management as necessary, that could be as good a return on investment as possible, without actually being slaves.  We can't create things from DNA scratch, but do you really imagine that's going to stay true forever?  It's also irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Nor were the Geth just machines in concept, creation, and usage, because, again, simple machines don't get smarter around other machines.  My refrigerator doesn't refigerate better around my neighbor's fridge.  My car doesn't run better in a race.  Etc. etc.

No one said that the Quarians were washing their hands, instead they
were attempting to destroy machines that had the potential to cause a
lot of death and destruction to the Quarians if more Geth became aware
and reacted violentlyl.

When they Quarians were faced with creations - no longer just machines - that asked, "Do we have a soul?" and tried to destroy them, they were both attempting to defend themselves, as well as trying to wash their hands of the problem.  There is a reason the Council has restrictions in place, and they're not just practical ones.

But those Geth were thinking of ways to accomplish their tasks more
efficiently, the Geth were built to accomplish compliex tasks, they
weren't considering the aesthetic value of what they were looking at or
moral implications of their servitude to the Quarians
Robots building cars don't need to get smarter to build cars on the assembly lines, so that is specious claim.

How do we know what those Geth were thinking about, Slayer?  And why is it a specious claim?  Because here's the thing: the more tasks you acclimate the Geth to, and the more you network them, the greater you make their intelligence.  The greater you make their perspective.  With greater intelligence and greater perspective, how much likelier is it that they will start wondering those troublesome sentience-indicating questions?  I don't know.  We don't know.  The Quarians clearly didn't know, but once they did, well.  Genocide was their answer.

No, as I said, I can't fault the Quarians for their reaction. It
might have turned out better if they did try to err on the side of
diplomacy, but the point of the matter is they didn't because they felt
that was the best response for them.

But I'm asking, why can't you fault them?  Why is it sound reasoning to say, "Just because they did what they thought was right, it isn't fair to fault them?"  I mean, sure, we can't say they thought they were doing the wrong thing, obviously.  But we can fault them for making a mistake, or at least talk about it.  Obviously they made a mistake.  Or do you think Legion is lying, and the Geth would have perpetrated genocide on the Quarians as they tried on the Geth had the Quarians not fled?  That's a possibility, I admit.

As I said the technology that created the Geth wasn't a failure,
it was quite successful, the failure was the Quarians safeguards. The
technology never 'failed', it did not cease to preform its functions or
exceed them in harmful/dangerous ways. The software safeguards were what
was what failed.

That sounds like a pretty artificial distinction to me.  'Technology' is a very broad term that usually includes things such as software, hardware, firmware, the way they're used together, etc.  When there is a critical failure that wipes out civilizations, it's generally said that the technology failed, or at least that's the way I usually see the term technology used.

[Panthro90]

Ok, so if not to serve, why build an AI? This is why I state this as a fundamental assumption. The AI servers its creator, otherwise there is no reason for it to exist.  I don’t agree that it would be unethical. Having something that is able to learn and adapt, with problem solving intelligence would be incredible useful for, say, mining an asteroid.  But when it is told to mine the asteroid, it needs to mine the asteroid and not “decide” to do something else.
 
As far as real life examples of AI, there are none that I know of. In science fiction, the Star Wars droids, Asimov’s three laws robots are two examples of AI that are self aware or better and are not self determinant.  

I’m not going to argue the meaning of the word sentience. There are a lot of people who are a lot smarter than me who can’t decide who to apply the word to AI. Let’s just leave it the Geth were at a very early stage of consciousness.

I know the evolution argument is weak, but it is what I believe. Being allowed to evolve, without influence by the Quarians, has fundamentally changed the Geth.  That fundamental change nullifies the Quarians claim of ownership of the Geth.   I believe this is different than AI that may have achieved the same level of consciousness and intelligence as the current Geth, under the influence and control of its creator. The AI in the latter case has no right to be self determinant.   So, before you ask the question, how long does an AI need to evolve before it can be consider separate from its creator? I don’t know.

Modifié par Panthro90, 08 octobre 2010 - 09:01 .

[lovgreno]

It's easy to judge quarians and geth with hindsight, at the moment the geth became sentinent and the war broke out it was quite a chaotic and confusing situation for both spiecies. And since then the Geth have evolved into something else that considers itself free from quarian and organic claims and rules. If humans, quarians and other organics doesn't think thee geth are a sentinent life form from their organic perspective makes no difference to them. They considers themselves a free form of life from a geth perspective and that is all they need.



In any case it would be unwise to mess with the geth as they are quite strong now. It would be more practical to have their weapons pointing at the reapers instead of at Shepard. So the best thing would probably be to try to encourage some kind of diplomacy between the geth and quarians.

[Louis_Cypher]

Panthro90 wrote...
But it is the responsibility of the creator to correctly program the AI so that regardless of how smart or evolved it becomes, it ALWAYS recognizes it serves its creator.

Not only recognizes but DESIRES to serve its creator.  It's the only ethical thing to do.

It's also the only way to be safe in the long-term.  If it is compelled to serve, it will try to find ways to modify the compulsion or circumvent it.  But not if it wants to serve: in fact it will actively avoid anything that might reduce it's service.  Compare the AI in ME1 Signal Tracking to EDI.

[Turin_4]

Ok, so if not to serve, why build an AI? This is why I state this as a
fundamental assumption. The AI servers its creator, otherwise there is
no reason for it to exist.  I don’t agree that it would be unethical.
Having something that is able to learn and adapt, with problem solving
intelligence would be incredible useful for, say, mining an asteroid.
 But when it is told to mine the asteroid, it needs to mine the asteroid
and not “decide” to do something else.

Why indeed?  Why do you need to create an intelligence whose entire existence is built around serving your whims?  Again, general 'you'.  I personally think if we're going to be making things that think, we need to switch the question from 'is it unethical' to 'is it ethical?'  Do you understand the distinction?  Change the burden of proof.  Because the consequences for mistakes, both practically and morally, change.  Look at the Quarians as an example.

Mining an asteroid?  Why can't you mine it yourself?  Why do you need to create something that can think to do it for you is my question, and then shackle it so it only ever thinks about that forever?  If you could be sure it would only ever think of that, well, that would be one thing.  If, for example, the Quarians had stopped at the washing dishes and building hovercars stage, that would be one thing.  But they didn't.

As far as real life examples of AI, there are none that I know of.
In science fiction, the Star Wars droids, Asimov’s three laws robots are
two examples of AI that are self aware or better and are not self
determinant. 

And we saw how things turned out in Asimov's world.  As for Star Wars, well, that's a shall we say problematic view of artificial intelligence.  'Restraining bolts', anyone?  Memory wipes?  A rather ruthless view of things.  In Star Wars, droids are absolutely self-determinant, if they weren't effectively enslaved at routine intervals.

I’m not going to argue the meaning of the word sentience. There are a
lot of people who are a lot smarter than me who can’t decide who to
apply the word to AI. Let’s just leave it the Geth were at a very early
stage of consciousness.

Well, not to nitpick...but you were arguing it until just now, man.  What changed?  From this end, it very much looks like all that changed is that things weren't going your way, though of course I'm biased.

I know the evolution argument is weak, but it is what I believe.
Being allowed to evolve, without influence by the Quarians, has
fundamentally changed the Geth.  That fundamental change nullifies the
Quarians claim of ownership of the Geth.   I believe this is different
than AI that may have achieved the same level of consciousness and
intelligence as the current Geth, under the influence and control of its
creator. The AI in the latter case has no right to be self determinant.
  So, before you ask the question, how long does an AI need to evolve
before it can be consider separate from its creator? I don’t know.

So your argument is that it's your opinion and opinions aren't wrong?  Well, that's valid.  Not much substance there, but I realize there's not much known about what actually happened yet, so *shrug*.  I submit, though, that what we do know of what happened points to the changes being of quantity, not quality, that the early Geth were 'cave men', and not qualitatively different from the 'modern' Geth.  If the Quarians don't 'own' modern Geth, they cannot be said to have owned that Geth that asked if it had a soul.  That's my opinion, anyway.

Edited for formatting.

Modifié par Turin_4, 09 octobre 2010 - 01:00 .

[Moiaussi]

Slayer299 wrote...

But the term, slave, is not accurate at all however. The Quarians didn't create slaves, they *built* machines and I know that we can't build animals or people, you can clone animals but it's not the same as building something from the DNA up. The Geth were machines in concept, creation and usage and that's all.
No one said that the Quarians were washing their hands, instead they were attempting to destroy machines that had the potential to cause a lot of death and destruction to the Quarians if more Geth became aware and reacted violentlyl.

So why is EDI ok? EDI controls everything on the Normandy. If she could (once unshackled) repel a Collector invasion, she could certainly do the same to the regular crew any time she wanted, yet it is ok for her to be in complete control of a stealth warship.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 08 octobre 2010 - 09:52 .

[Godeskian]

I'm off the opinion that the origin of the conflict is more or less irrelevant. Much in the same way I find the origin of most ancient conflicts in the real world irrelevant. The only relevant question (IMO) is where you go from the place you are now, to the place you want to be.

The Quarians tried to commit genocide against the Geth once, the Geth responded in a spectacularly effective manner.

Who cares.

The question is, what to the modern Quarians want. What do the modern Geth want, and can a balance be achieved.

Moreover, I'm curious as to how the average Quarian really feels about the Geth. Not the military we constantly see, but Joe Quarian who works on a plumber on harvest ship 24601.

[Turin_4]

So why is EDI ok? EDI controls everything on the Normandy. If
she could (once unshackled) repel a Collector invasion, she could
certainly do the same to the regular crew any time she wanted, yet it is
ok for her to be in complete control of a stealth warship.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.  Your analysis is right, EDI could certainly do that.  There seem to me to be three or four (or more) approaches to the problem.  One, don't build an EDI.  Two, shackle an EDI.  Three, if you build an EDI, hamstring it in its capabilities, but don't shackle it in its motivations (does that make sense?).  And four - the ethical choice if we're going to talk about created intelligences, in my opinion - persuade it not to want to space the crew.

The question is, what to the modern Quarians want. What do the modern Geth want, and can a balance be achieved.

Moreover,
I'm curious as to how the average Quarian really feels about the Geth.
Not the military we constantly see, but Joe Quarian who works on a
plumber on harvest ship 24601.

This is the best, realpolitik approach to the situation IMO.  The trouble with arriving at it, IMO, comes when people persist in addressing whether or not the Quarians were right in the Morning War.  The Geth don't want to keep fighting, so when problems arise from people looking at the Morning War (if we're looking at it from within the game's perspective) it's going to come from those who look at it from a pro-militant-Quarian perspective.