904 réponses à ce sujet

[Aedan_Cousland]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Even ignoring how easy it would be to destroy the Collector Base before a recapture could occur, in order to use the base for its original function, they would also need to (a) capture and hold the vast majority of the Human population, and ( have clear, controlled space lanes to carry the humans to the base. All of which would be for the value of 1 additional Reaper to the host of Reapers already attacking.

At that point, they've already won the war. One Reaper, after those difficulties, would not change the war, or even necessarily overcome benefits from the base. Once the Reapers have already won the war, they can simply build a new Collector Base to do the exact same thing.

You assume that the Collector Base could easily be destroyed before the Reapers attacked it. But how do we know that the same indoctrination technology associated with just about every other piece of Reaper tech we've encountered, wasn't also aboard the Collector Base? Would the Reapers return to a base full of indoctrinated thralls?

The war against the Protheans also lasted hundreds of years. It isn't a quick and easy task even for the Reapers to completely eradicate a civilization that spans the galaxy and occupies hundreds of worlds, so the Reaper arrival doesn't necessarily mean game over. In fact we know it won't, since Shepard is going to defeat them after they arrive in ME3. Destroying the base is the smart move. Sure, the Reapers could rebuild it. But they wouldn't be able to rebuild it overnight, and there is no sense in preserving the base so they can put it back to it's original use almost immediately.

That, and I don't think the base was all that useful to begin with. What useful technology could have possibility been aboard the Collector Base, that wasn't also aboard Sovereign or the Derelict Reaper, besides the tech associated with Reaper creation? Any weapons platforms or armor/shield tech aboard the Collector base was also likely to be aboard the Reapers themselves, if not even more advanced models.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 27 mai 2011 - 07:28 .

[khordlambert]

You all are forgetting something about that base. It's freaking CERBERUS mucking around with it! Leaving aside their goals and ethics, what have they been involved with that didn't either blow up in their faces, or nearly doom the galaxy anyway? The only ones I can think of would be whatever Toombs was being tortured with, and the Lazarus project, and even Lazarus resulted in the deaths of all but three people! And you want to give them tech with strong affiliation with the Reapers!? The guys who's very corpses can drive people crazy!?

[Someone With Mass]

I really don't think the Reapers are that arrogant and stupid enough to leave the key to their weakness inside that base. And even if they did, all I can say is: Good luck taking on that fleet of ancient machines by yourself, Cerberus, since nobody else in the galaxy would want to follow your orders.

[Dean_the_Young]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...


You assume that the Collector Base could easily be destroyed before the Reapers attacked it. But how do we know that the same indoctrination technology associated with just about every other piece of Reaper tech we've encountered, wasn't also aboard the Collector Base?

It would be irrelevant, because you don't need a live person who can be indoctrinated to press the button. That's what VI are for. Or AI. Or logic-traps to detect for the behavior of indoctrination. Or Quantum Entanglement devices connected right to TIM's office allowing him to detonate the base at the first sighting of the Reapers in the Omega system/crossing the relay.

Would the Reapers return to a base full of indoctrinated thralls?

Only if your argument presumes that indoctrinated thralls exist ex-nihilo, can't be detected, or would never have been noticed in the interim... year/two years after ME3.

And even then it's the work of a highschool system to devise a situation to stop it before indoctrination takes hold (and a little more work on how to prevent it from being a critical problem in the first place).

The war against the Protheans also lasted hundreds of years. It isn't a quick and easy task even for the Reapers to completely eradicate a civilization that spans the galaxy and occupies hundreds of worlds, so the Reaper arrival doesn't necessarily mean game over. In fact we know it won't, since Shepard is going to defeat them after they arrive in ME3. Destroying the base is the smart move. Sure, the Reapers could rebuild it. But they wouldn't be able to rebuild it overnight, and there is no sense in preserving the base so they can put it back to it's original use almost immediately.

The 'war' against the Protheans was a mop up, not a competitive struggle with an unclear victor. The war against the Reapers will be decided shortly, in the context of one game for metagaming reasons and by general analysis of naval-warfare history for non-metagaming reasons.

That, and I don't think the base was all that useful to begin with. What useful technology could have possibility been aboard the Collector Base, that wasn't also aboard Sovereign or the Derelict Reaper,

Yeah... you forgot that the first one was blown up so bad it couldn't be distinguished from advanced Geth tech, and that the second is beyond our reach to study, didn't you?

besides the tech associated with Reaper creation? Any weapons platforms or armor/shield tech aboard the Collector base was also likely to be aboard the Reapers themselves, if not even more advanced models.

No one claims the Collectors outtech the Reapers. But the Collectors still outtech us which is the relevant piece, because we don't have such knowledge of Reaper tech either.

They (the Collectors) have better huskification knowledge than us. They have better weapon technology than us. They have better biotic technology than us. They have better genetic technology than us. They have better cybernetic technology than us. They have better bio-warfare technology than us. They have better Seeker-swarm technology than us.

These are things we will need, and need to know how to defend against as best as possible.

[Dave of Canada]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

You assume that the Collector Base could easily be destroyed before the Reapers attacked it.

Put a bomb in place, make it remote controlled detonation. Reapers are going near the Omega 4? Boom! Who cares if there's people onboard the Base, they'd be dead anyway.

But how do we know that the same indoctrination technology associated with just about every other piece of Reaper tech we've encountered, wasn't also aboard the Collector Base?

Because the indocrination technology would hinder the Base, indocrinated thralls eventually become drooling idiots. Having people constructing Reapers eventually become almost impossible to control themselves wouldn't serve any use.

Would the Reapers return to a base full of indoctrinated thralls?

Assuming they do get indocrinated, what would a dozen of indocrinated scientists accomplish?

That, and I don't think the base was all that useful to begin with. What useful technology could have possibility been aboard the Collector Base, that wasn't also aboard Sovereign or the Derelict Reaper, besides the tech associated with Reaper creation?

To name a few:
Seeker swarms.
Particle weaponry.
Regenerative plating.
Dragon's teeth.
Ability to create deadly and contagious plagues. (Collector plague during Mordin's recruitment)

Including the above, we also gain a bit of data:
Research into indocrination.
Research into Reaper weaponry and defenses.

And we'd also get full access into Reaper weaponry, Thannix cannon was made from salvage. Imagine having the real deal there to reverse-engineer.

Any weapons platforms or armor/shield tech aboard the Collector base was also likely to be aboard the Reapers themselves, if not even more advanced models.

Possible, though being swarmed by Reapers isn't the best time to try and fund / gather materials and experiment with it to make sure it's viable. In addition to non-Cerberus having to deal with Citadel laws (though they'll most likely be thrown out of the window when apocalypse starts).

The base atleast provides research, technology and such to be explored months in advance by people who don't obey the law.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 27 mai 2011 - 07:52 .

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Good luck taking on that fleet of ancient machines by yourself, Cerberus, since nobody else in the galaxy would want to follow your orders.

Cerberus tech is often handed over for Alliance use.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 27 mai 2011 - 07:58 .

[Someone With Mass]

Why do you think there's information about their weapons and defenses on the base when the Collector general was controlled by Harbinger? Who can just access his own data bank when needed.

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Why do you think there's information about their weapons and defenses on the base when the Collector general was controlled by Harbinger? Who can just access his own data bank when needed.

Shepard doesn't know about Harbinger, what (s)he does know is that the facility is under control by the Collectors which are working for the Reapers to build Reapers. Shepard never sees the Collector General, nor does (s)he know the Collector General is under control of Harbinger. In addition to this, we already know the base contains schematics because EDI managed to hack schematics for the Collector Base.

I doubt they'd keep an empty database except on how to build the base which they are standing in.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 27 mai 2011 - 08:10 .

[squee913]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]Aedan_Cousland wrote...


You assume that the Collector Base could easily be destroyed before the Reapers attacked it. But how do we know that the same indoctrination technology associated with just about every other piece of Reaper tech we've encountered, wasn't also aboard the Collector Base?[/quote]It would be irrelevant, because you don't need a live person who can be indoctrinated to press the button. That's what VI are for. Or AI. Or logic-traps to detect for the behavior of indoctrination. Or Quantum Entanglement devices connected right to TIM's office allowing him to detonate the base at the first sighting of the Reapers in the Omega system/crossing the relay.[/quote]

Use AI or VI to blow up the base? Risky at best. An AI probably would not want to blow itself up, a VI has limited usefulness, and this is not even counting the fact that he Reapers are an AI far more advanced than our own. If they wanted the base, I think they could hack one of our AI programs. Logic traps to detect indoctrination? Do you have such a thing? Because Cerberus doesn't as far as we know. They most likely knew about indoctrination before they explored the derelict reaper, but it still got them. The scientist in Arrival knew about it, and it still got them too. The point is, there is no evidence to show this is even possible. As far as I know, Quantum entanglement only lets you see and hear each other. There is no evidence that you can send commands of any kind or remotely access anything.

[quote]
Would the Reapers return to a base full of indoctrinated thralls?[/quote]Only if your argument presumes that indoctrinated thralls exist ex-nihilo, can't be detected, or would never have been noticed in the interim... year/two years after ME3.[/quote]

No one has been able to detect it before. At least that presumption has evidence to support it. The ability to detect indoctrination has not been shown in ME as far as I know.
 
[quote]
The war against the Protheans also lasted hundreds of years. It isn't a quick and easy task even for the Reapers to completely eradicate a civilization that spans the galaxy and occupies hundreds of worlds, so the Reaper arrival doesn't necessarily mean game over. In fact we know it won't, since Shepard is going to defeat them after they arrive in ME3. Destroying the base is the smart move. Sure, the Reapers could rebuild it. But they wouldn't be able to rebuild it overnight, and there is no sense in preserving the base so they can put it back to it's original use almost immediately.[/quote]
[quote]The 'war' against the Protheans was a mop up, not a competitive struggle with an unclear victor. The war against the Reapers will be decided shortly, in the context of one game for metagaming reasons and by general analysis of naval-warfare history for non-metagaming reasons.[/quote]

The first Punic war between Rome and Carthage took 23 years. It was mostly a naval war. The pacific theater in world war 2 took years to determine a clear victor. Japan's navy was still a viable threat until after the battle of Leyte Gulf In 1944, three years after they attacked Pearl harbor. These are very small scale examples compared to galactic invasion. So the notion that Naval Struggles end quickly is not accurate in many cases. I addition, not blowing up the base because the reapers can make another is like saying, we should not blow up this Japanese Aircraft carrier because they can just make another one.

Modifié par squee913, 27 mai 2011 - 08:14 .

[Someone With Mass]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Shepard doesn't know about Harbinger, what (s)he does know is that the facility is under control by the Collectors which are working for the Reapers to build Reapers. Shepard never sees the Collector General, nor does (s)he know the Collector General is under control of Harbinger. In addition to this, we already know the base contains schematics because EDI managed to hack schematics for the Collector Base.

I doubt they'd keep an empty database except on how to build the base which they are standing in.

How can (s)he not know about Harbinger's existence after Horizon? The guy talks smack about Shepard every chance he gets.

One of the lines is even "I AM HARBINGER"

Also, the Shadow Broker tried to salvage the remains of the Collector base if it's destroyed. I think Cerberus can do the same.

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

How can (s)he not know about Harbinger's existence after Horizon? The guy talks smack about Shepard every chance he gets.

One of the lines is even "I AM HARBINGER"

Because Harbinger being a reaper was one of the game's (quite obvious) "plot twists". A lot of people thought Harbinger was the name of the Collector General for a while after release, including after finishing the game. Hell, they still try and keep it secret by having Harbinger show up as the Collector General in Arrival if you didn't beat the game yet.

Also, the Shadow Broker tried to salvage the remains of the Collector base if it's destroyed. I think Cerberus can do the same.

They already do that (novels), though I doubt the Paragon is thinking at that moment "Let's blow up the base and research it's remains!".

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 27 mai 2011 - 08:40 .

[Someone With Mass]

The player's knowledge =/=Shepard's knowledge.

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

The player's knowledge =/=Shepard's knowledge.

And what's that to do with what I said? Shepard never mentions he knows Harbinger is a Reaper either, nor does anybody else.

Edit: It's player knowledge mostly to say that Harbinger is a Reaper. :-/

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 27 mai 2011 - 08:48 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]squee913 wrote...



Use AI or VI to blow up the base? Risky at best. An AI probably would not want to blow itself up,[/quote]AI's can and do do what they are programmed to do. They are not risk-averse either, or unwilling to sacrifice themselves. Moreover, an AI doesn't need to resist indefinitely, only long enough to trigger the destruct sequence... which can be started even before the Reapers pass through the Omega 4 relay.

[quote]

If they wanted the base, I think they could hack one of our AI programs. Logic traps to detect indoctrination? Do you have such a thing? Because Cerberus doesn't as far as we know. [/quote]It's not hard to formulate such a trap, especially one that can use the indoctrination change of behavior as a detector. At it's heart, all you need is to create a situation at which a change caused by indoctrination would trigger a flag. It could be a necessary action. It could even be a logic test: indoctrination is known to weaken capabilities, so if person X fails the daily logic test in such a manner, it's a 'positive' for indoctrination that can be treated accordingly.



[quote]As far as I know, Quantum entanglement only lets you see and hear each other. There is no evidence that you can send commands of any kind or remotely access anything. [/quote]You realizing that sending information is exactly what it does, yes?

QEM allows the transmission of data. That data can be audio-visual data. It can also be a self-destruct command hardwired in. It's a fancy, uniquely capable radio signal... and what's in that signal is whatever quantum bit the sender desires. If it can be used to trigger real-time communication, there's absolutely no reason it can't be used to send a destruct signal to the computer as well.[quote]
[quote]
Would the Reapers return to a base full of indoctrinated thralls?[/quote]Only if your argument presumes that indoctrinated thralls exist ex-nihilo, can't be detected, or would never have been noticed in the interim... year/two years after ME3.[/quote]

No one has been able to detect it before. At least that presumption has evidence to support it. The ability to detect indoctrination has not been shown in ME as far as I know.[/quote]Besides that Vigl was able to do just that, I was referring to indoctrinated people in general... who, yes, do give off tell-tale signal of indoctrination. (Dreams, voices in head, reduced ability, etc.).[quote]
The first Punic war between Rome and Carthage took 23 years. It was mostly a naval war. The pacific theater in world war 2 took years to determine a clear victor. Japan's navy was still a viable threat until after the battle of Leyte Gulf In 1944, three years after they attacked Pearl harbor. These are very small scale examples compared to galactic invasion. So the notion that Naval Struggles end quickly is not accurate in many cases. I addition, not blowing up the base because the reapers can make another is like saying, we should not blow up this Japanese Aircraft carrier because they can just make another one.[/quote]Japan's navy was never a viable threat: the US scale of production was simply too big. Similarly with the First Punic War, when the Romans were able to simply keep making fleets.

Naval wars are by and large decided shortly: between even foes, the decisive battle. Between uneven foes, the attritional-advantages such as they are, whether the mass-production capability or the unsurmountable advantage. The course of the war follows.

[squee913]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
AI's can and do do what they are programmed to do. They are not risk-averse either, or unwilling to sacrifice themselves. Moreover, an AI doesn't need to resist indefinitely, only long enough to trigger the destruct sequence... which can be started even before the Reapers pass through the Omega 4 relay.

They also can and do do things they are not programed to do, and go against their original purpose (Geth anyone?) You are asking a self aware being to blow itself up. If ever there was an insensitive to go against it's programming, that's it. It is a risk. And unless you can show an instance where an AI was told to self destruct and it actually followed that order, it is a damn big risk.

If they wanted the base, I think they could hack one of our AI programs. Logic traps to detect indoctrination? Do you have such a thing? Because Cerberus doesn't as far as we know.

It's not hard to formulate such a trap, especially one that can use the indoctrination change of behavior as a detector. At it's heart, all you need is to create a situation at which a change caused by indoctrination would trigger a flag. It could be a necessary action. It could even be a logic test: indoctrination is known to weaken capabilities, so if person X fails the daily logic test in such a manner, it's a 'positive' for indoctrination that can be treated accordingly.

Then why has this never been done before? Every precaution we have heard about so far has failed. If it was so simple, someone would have done it. 

As far as I know, Quantum entanglement only lets you see and hear each other. There is no evidence that you can send commands of any kind or remotely access anything.

You realizing that sending information is exactly what it does, yes?

Actually, no. No information is sent between the photons. What you do to one is mimicked by the other. One sees the TIM so the other sees TIM. There is no evidence that a signal of any kind can be given to one and come out the other. Kind of like a camera connected to a monitor in another room. The camera sees him, so you can see him in the next room. But that does not mean he can send a signal through the camera to turn out the lights in the next room. That's not what a camera is designed to do.

No one has been able to detect it before. At least that presumption has evidence to support it. The ability to detect indoctrination has not been shown in ME as far as I know.

Besides that Vigl was able to do just that, I was referring to indoctrinated people in general... who, yes, do give off tell-tale signal of indoctrination. (Dreams, voices in head, reduced ability, etc.).

Vigil is not Cerberus. There is no evidence what so ever that Cerberus can detect indoctrination.

Japan's navy was never a viable threat: the US scale of production was simply too big. Similarly with the First Punic War, when the Romans were able to simply keep making fleets.

If you truly beleive this, you need to study the war more carfully. At he start of the war Japan's navy was far superior to our own. They had better planes and better pilots. If a storm had not delayed the US aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor, we would have lost the war right there. If A Japanese destroyer had not spent half a day searching for one sub, we might never have found the Japanese Carriers at midway and would have lost the battle. There was a six month period after the Soloman Islands where the Japanese had I believe 8 aircraft carriers and the US only had 1. (And that one only survived the battle through sheer luck. A bomb took out it's rutter and it sailed in a circle for hours. If it had continued on course, another Wave of Japanese planes would have found it and destroyed it.) To say that the Japanese were never a threat can only be due to pride or lack of knowledge.

Naval wars are by and large decided shortly: between even foes, the decisive battle. Between uneven foes, the attritional-advantages such as they are, whether the mass-production capability or the unsurmountable advantage. The course of the war follows.

Again, some naval wars end quickly, others (like the second peloponnesian war, or the war between France and Engalnd where they hired Privateers to raid other ships) can take decades or more. There is simply not enough evidence in history to make a prediction of a short naval war accurate. 

Modifié par squee913, 27 mai 2011 - 09:33 .

[kaiki01]

Jzadek72 wrote...

Yep, it's one of those threads... except this time it's written by a paragon.

Basically, I've been thinking about the two moralities, and I think that at it's core, renegade is about minimising risk at the expense of morality, while paragon is about choosing not to sacrifice morality, but take more risks in the process.
It seems to me that it makes that choice more meaningful if some of those risks blow up in your face.

Take Balak. You can either make sure he's captured, but have the blood of innocents on your hands. Or, you can let him go to save their lives. Naturally, this should have repercussions, and makes the choice seem more difficult if it is. Keeping your morality shouldn't be an easy task.

And please, don't let this become a flamewar. I'd like to approach this more objectively this time.

First, define morality. You say there are "two moralities" but then "paragon is about choosing not to sacrifice morality". First we need to know what are we talking about. Are the paragon choices a code of conduct and when you take other choices you are violating that code? Or is it possible that paragon & renegade choices are instruments to express the morality of your own Shepard?

Example. With Balak, is it possible that a Shepard has the moral code to preserve life. At that choice she/he concludes that the probability that Balak will strike again is great enough to be a moral certainty such that the choice that preserves the most life is to arrest him.

Let us all agree with what we are talking about first.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]squee913 wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
AI's can and do do what they are programmed to do. They are not risk-averse either, or unwilling to sacrifice themselves. Moreover, an AI doesn't need to resist indefinitely, only long enough to trigger the destruct sequence... which can be started even before the Reapers pass through the Omega 4 relay.[/quote]

They also can and do do things they are not programed to do, and go against their original purpose (Geth anyone?) You are asking a self aware being to blow itself up. If ever there was an insensitive to go against it's programming, that's it. It is a risk. And unless you can show an instance where an AI was told to self destruct and it actually followed that order, it is a damn big risk. [/quote]Strictly speaking, AI can't do things they are programmed NOT to do: the Geth rebellion, while unintended, was within the scope of their programming. AI blocks, and AI cumpulsions, do exist.

AI willingness to take risks is not theoretical: the Geth (even by codex) are infamous in their willingness to throw themselves away in suicidal charges for the group, while EDI never flinches from the dangers, nor once deviates from the Suicide Mission they are all placed on.

[quote]
Then why has this never been done before? Every precaution we have heard about so far has failed. If it was so simple, someone would have done it.  [/quote]The context warranting it has never been applied or seen as necessary. The vast majority of indoctrinations have occured with people who did not believe they would be indoctrinated: for reasons of ignorance (lack of awareness) or plausible reasons to think otherwise (no active nano-technology on the Reaper leading to mis-aimed evaluation). No serious attempt to work in a known indoctrination-risk environment have been undertaken.

Precautions, however, have been successfully implemented: Saren was able to discover building materials to isolate and direction indoctrination, so that cells could even be isolated so that one cell could be actively indoctrinating while the next one over could house a control subject.

As the awareness and understaning of indoctrination grows, so to does the recognition of the ways to address it, and to circumvent it.



[quote]
Actually, no. No information is sent between the photons. What you do to one is mimicked by the other. One sees the TIM so the other sees TIM. There is no evidence that a signal of any kind can be given to one and come out the other. Kind of like a camera connected to a monitor in another room. The camera sees him, so you can see him in the next room. But that does not mean he can send a signal through the camera to turn out the lights in the next room. That's not what a camera is designed to do.[/quote]That's not how the QEM device operates as described in the game. Quantum pairs, not a field of photons, are manipulated, and these are used to transmit data within the bandwidth (including hologram-data points for the projectors on both sides).

Even foregoing that error, even your assertion in no sense prevents a signalling system. Even if the QEM was, in fact, a magic mirror, any system could add a visual-recognition software to detect the shape and movements of anyone on the other end of the QEM link. TIM could flap his hands and then sit on his bum, and all it would take is a visual sensor watching the QEM to detect it, recognize the position, and activate a sequence of coding. This is technology already achieved with todays technology alone: indeed, it's an increasing part of modern video game counsel technology.

[quote]
Vigil is not Cerberus. There is no evidence what so ever that Cerberus can detect indoctrination. [/quote]Did you not read my clarification that I was talking about recognizing indoctrinated people, or did you not care?

And Vigil is certainly relevant: if Vigil can detect something, it means that others can develop the means to do just that as well. Relying that Cerberus will not look into/develop such a measure, when we know it is possible, and then turning it into the basis of an argument is more than a little silly.

[qopte]

If you truly beleive this, you need to study the war more carfully. At he start of the war Japan's navy was far superior to our own. They had better planes and better pilots. If a storm had not delayed the US aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor, we would have lost the war right there. If A Japanese destroyer had not spent half a day searching for one sub, we might never have found the Japanese Carriers at midway and would have lost the battle. There was a six month period after the Soloman Islands where the Japanese had I believe 8 aircraft carriers and the US only had 1. (And that one only survived the battle through sheer luck. A bomb took out it's rutter and it sailed in a circle for hours. If it had continued on course, another Wave of Japanese planes would have found it and destroyed it.) To say that the Japanese were never a threat can only be due to pride or lack of knowledge. [/quote]I'll rest a bit more on my military history degree than on you, as one clearly dwelt more on the mamoth mis-match between the two sides and their abilities to continue the war.

The Japanese force at the start was irrelevant because of the magnitudes of differences between the US and Japan in their ability to produce, field, and replace ships. Midway was a turning point, but irrelevant to the flow of the war itself from a military standpoint: even had the US lost, it still could have produced the same overpowering fleets that outnumbered and ground Japan's navy into dust over time. A loss at Midway would have been a delay as the Americans continued to mobilize to a war footing, but that's about all.

The Japanese could not force a defeat militarily: they could not even capture Hawaii. Only a political decision in the United States would have allowed the Japanese to 'win', but Midway was never a case in which the American will to fight would have been destroyed.


If you're interested in some higher-quality insights into the Japanese navy and it's limitation, here's a good site by a published naval historian.

The (not really) threat of a Hawaii invasion

Japan and its oil limitation

Grim Economic Realities (And the Solomons)


(You can find more articles, or explore more good resources, here.)

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 27 mai 2011 - 10:46 .

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Strictly speaking, AI can't do things they are programmed NOT to do: the Geth rebellion, while unintended, was within the scope of their programming. AI blocks, and AI cumpulsions, do exist.

AI willingness to take risks is not theoretical: the Geth (even by codex) are infamous in their willingness to throw themselves away in suicidal charges for the group, while EDI never flinches from the dangers, nor once deviates from the Suicide Mission they are all placed on.

I agree with you on most of what you have been saying here, but blocks are not always absolutes. For instance, EDI's blocks didn't prohibit her from asking Joker to remove them. If the AI wanted to survive, it might convince indoctrinated occupants to remove its blocks.

Also, the Geth were almost certainly given 'don't harm Quarian' protocols and definately had 'blow yourselves up when we ask you to' protocols.' It was the failure of the latter that started the rebellion. The Geth were peaceful and carrying out their duties until the Quarians ordered them to suicide using failsafe protocols the Quarians wrote for that purpose.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 27 mai 2011 - 11:32 .

[Arijharn]

almost certainly is obviously a far cry from 'certainly' imo. It may make sense to us from our own philosophical evolution to theorize that the Quarian's may have created their Synthetic's with their own sort of Asimov's Laws, but there's nothing to suggest that this was the case.

The Geth weren't created for sapience either, which may have been a pretty large factor into what the Geth were eventually able to become. The Geth it seems, have consistently been able to evoke surprise by 'organics' by the level of evolution they have become. For my part, I found it somewhat astonishing when Miranda states that AI's don't have emotion, yet I think Legion has sort of proven this statement false with the manner of which it delivers the line: "No data available" (and maybe the subtle monkeying of Shephard's movements and gestures in certain cutscenes) and to a lesser extent the method of EDI's 'you're my shipmates' (paraphrase) line near the end.

[squee913]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Strictly speaking, AI can't do things they are programmed NOT to do: the Geth rebellion, while unintended, was within the scope of their programming. AI blocks, and AI cumpulsions, do exist.

AI willingness to take risks is not theoretical: the Geth (even by codex) are infamous in their willingness to throw themselves away in suicidal charges for the group, while EDI never flinches from the dangers, nor once deviates from the Suicide Mission they are all placed on.[/quote]
EDI had blocks placed on her, and yet she found a way to remove them. Not by herself to be sure, but she found a way. My point is asking or programming an AI to destroy itself is a risk. It is a self aware construct that has problem solving capabilities, and has one hell of a motivation to go against it's programming. The only example of blocks on and AI is the blocks placed on EDI and as I said, she found a way around them. 

And there is a big difference between taking risks and committing suicide. Geth sacrifice their platforms because they can download to a new one. EDI may take risks, but we've never asked her to blow up the ship.

[quote]
Then why has this never been done before? Every precaution we have heard about so far has failed. If it was so simple, someone would have done it.  [/quote]The context warranting it has never been applied or seen as necessary. The vast majority of indoctrinations have occured with people who did not believe they would be indoctrinated: for reasons of ignorance (lack of awareness) or plausible reasons to think otherwise (no active nano-technology on the Reaper leading to mis-aimed evaluation). No serious attempt to work in a known indoctrination-risk environment have been undertaken.

Precautions, however, have been successfully implemented: Saren was able to discover building materials to isolate and direction indoctrination, so that cells could even be isolated so that one cell could be actively indoctrinating while the next one over could house a control subject.[/quote]

If no serious work in a known indoctrination-risk environment has been
undertaken than how can you say Cerberus can develop preventive
measures? The best you can say is that they might be able  to. And Saren
was not as succseful as you make out since even the scientists studing
the indoctrinated were succumbing to it. Also, you are using the logic that if Saren did it Cerberus must be able to do it to.  Saren had A reaper to play around with and lord know what kind of access to their data banks. Cerberus has none of this. Just because one person with different resources can do it is not a grantee that everyone can do it.

[quote]

Even foregoing that error, even your assertion in no sense prevents a signalling system. Even if the QEM was, in fact, a magic mirror, any system could add a visual-recognition software to detect the shape and movements of anyone on the other end of the QEM link. TIM could flap his hands and then sit on his bum, and all it would take is a visual sensor watching the QEM to detect it, recognize the position, and activate a sequence of coding. This is technology already achieved with todays technology alone: indeed, it's an increasing part of modern video game counsel technology.

I looked over what EDI said, and you are right, you can send small bits of info. My apologies on that. So, if they install a quantum entangler in the collector base without the knowledge of the crew working there since if they are indoctrinated they would deactivate it, and if the reapers attack in such a way that communications are not cut off and Cerberus learns of the attack in time, and if the Illusive man is near said communicator at the time of the attack (i.e. not sleeping or sleeping with the pick of the week) then he might be able to blow up the base.  I think TIM would see this as an acceptable risk, but my Shepard certainly would not. It certainly does not ensure that you could destroy it before the reapers got to it. As I said, it is a risk.


[quote]
Vigil is not Cerberus. There is no evidence what so ever that Cerberus can detect indoctrination. [/quote]Did you not read my clarification that I was talking about recognizing indoctrinated people, or did you not care?

And Vigil is certainly relevant: if Vigil can detect something, it means that others can develop the means to do just that as well. Relying that Cerberus will not look into/develop such a measure, when we know it is possible, and then turning it into the basis of an argument is more than a little silly.[/quote]

I agree, good thing that is not what I did. I simply said that there is no evidence in the game that points to them having done it. I never said they would not try, only that they have yet to succeed. On the other hand, assuming that just because they look into it, they will be succsefull is a little silly. Hey, an ancient race developed a weapon that one shotted a reaper so we can assume Cerberus can make one of those too. Hey, The Protheans were able to create a small mass relay, so we can assume Cerberus can do it too.

[qoute]
The Japanese force at the start was irrelevant because of the magnitudes of differences between the US and Japan in their ability to produce, field, and replace ships. Midway was a turning point, but irrelevant to the flow of the war itself from a military standpoint: even had the US lost, it still could have produced the same overpowering fleets that outnumbered and ground Japan's navy into dust over time. A loss at Midway would have been a delay as the Americans continued to mobilize to a war footing, but that's about all.

The Japanese could not force a defeat militarily: they could not even capture Hawaii. Only a political decision in the United States would have allowed the Japanese to 'win', but Midway was never a case in which the American will to fight would have been destroyed.


If you're interested in some higher-quality insights into the Japanese navy and it's limitation, here's a good site by a published naval historian.

The (not really) threat of a Hawaii invasion

Japan and its oil limitation

Grim Economic Realities (And the Solomons)


(You can find more articles, or explore more good resources, here.[/quote]

First of all, Kudos on the excellent choice in majors. A person after my own heart. (though I admit, my grad work is in the crusades, not WWII naval warfare) 

Since this is going into the theoretical, let dial it back down a bit. I never said Japan had a good chance of winning, only that they were a viable threat.  If they had won at Midway, they potentially could have invaded Alaska. In fact, this is what the US brass originally thought Japan was planning to do instead of midway. If they had sunk the big E at Soloman Islands, they almost certainly would have taken Guadal canal and used it as a staging ground to take Australia. If these had happened, than there is no way to tell how the war would have changed. They were a treat. Just because they lost, does not change that.

Modifié par squee913, 28 mai 2011 - 12:04 .

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

almost certainly is obviously a far cry from 'certainly' imo. It may make sense to us from our own philosophical evolution to theorize that the Quarian's may have created their Synthetic's with their own sort of Asimov's Laws, but there's nothing to suggest that this was the case.

The Geth weren't created for sapience either, which may have been a pretty large factor into what the Geth were eventually able to become. The Geth it seems, have consistently been able to evoke surprise by 'organics' by the level of evolution they have become. For my part, I found it somewhat astonishing when Miranda states that AI's don't have emotion, yet I think Legion has sort of proven this statement false with the manner of which it delivers the line: "No data available" (and maybe the subtle monkeying of Shephard's movements and gestures in certain cutscenes) and to a lesser extent the method of EDI's 'you're my shipmates' (paraphrase) line near the end.

Without something resembling the 2nd law, how would Geth  police, fire, or military units function? How would they ever risk their own existance over Quarian lives? They would need self preservation to keep themselves from leaping into foolhardy situations, too, to know when not to leap into a hopeless situation.

If you read Asimov's books....
 
(warning! Asimov spoilers ahead!)



Asimov shows a clear progression under which increasingly sophisitcated robots refine their interpretations, leading them eventually to quietly run civilization in the background (using Harry Seldon's equations or derivatives), and eventually to conclude that humanity is better off on its own and quietly retiring, after ochestrating things to guide humanity away from returning to a reliance on AI's. Note that they maintained their own society on the side (much as the Geth do in ME), so they were keeping with the 3rd law while honouring the 1st two by way of staying away, much like the main body of the Geth in ME.

A lot of it comes down to how 'harm' is interpreted and what version of 'thou shalt not kill' the Geth had been designed with. Note that Asimov's 1st law as originally written is completely incompatable with pretty much any military deployment... unless 'shooting enemies' isn't defined as harm.

[Ultai]

Imo the topic should be changed to More consequences for paragons, since they have a severe lack of them atm. Maybe it might change in ME3, but so far it seems the paragon ending will be the disney ending and the renegade will be i'm a jerk for the lulz ending which will be very disappointing.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

When I did my first playthrough and was faced with either giving it to Cerberus or destorying it I took about 10 minutes to think it over.

The Pros: It would have advanced tech and valuable intel about Reapers possibly a way past their shields which is the biggest trump card they have.

The Cons: It is fully functioning Reaper tech and everything in ME tells us that fully functioning Reaper tech ends up going badly everyone, and you're giving it to Cerberus a group that excells as being bad at what they do.

In the end I decided to destroy it not because I was affraid to take the risk of keeping the base to a neutral party because I believe that the benefits of keeping it would out weigh the risks what made me destroy the base was who we were giving the base over to. A group that has showed nothing but the amazing ability to fail at everything they do, or make something that kills them all or nearly destroys the galaxy and we're going to give advanced and dangerous tech to them?

Like I've said before I wouldn't trust them with a potato gun let alone that base.

[Dean_the_Young]

squee913 wrote...

EDI had blocks placed on her, and yet she found a way to remove them. Not by herself to be sure, but she found a way.

EDI had two sets of limitations: she had 'external' locks that prevented her from accessing the Normandy systems (what Joker unlocked), but she still retains the internal programming that, as she says, would prevent her from turning on the crew even if she wanted to.

My point is asking or programming an AI to destroy itself is a risk. It is a self aware construct that has problem solving capabilities, and has one hell of a motivation to go against it's programming. The only example of blocks on and AI is the blocks placed on EDI and as I said, she found a way around them. 

And there is a big difference between taking risks and committing suicide. Geth sacrifice their platforms because they can download to a new one. EDI may take risks, but we've never asked her to blow up the ship.

We took EDI every step of the way on a known suicide mission. We did the same with Legion, even when Legion knew that it wouldn't be able to download itself again. Why do these AI go on suicide missions? That is up for dispute, but don't project anthromorphization reasonings onto them.

If no serious work in a known indoctrination-risk environment has been
undertaken than how can you say Cerberus can develop preventive
measures?

Because we know they do exist. The Protheans developed indoctrination-detection. Saren developed indoctrination-blocking walls. Even the Thorian was able to 'cleanse' indoctrination, though I'll freely admit that that opportunity has likely passed. Furthermore, we know that indoctrination doesn't affect VI/AI processes.

Countermeasures do exist. They haven't been applied, but largely because there haven't been that many indoctrination settings to go over.

The best you can say is that they might be able  to. And Saren
was not as succseful as you make out since even the scientists studing
the indoctrinated were succumbing to it. Also, you are using the logic that if Saren did it Cerberus must be able to do it to.  Saren had A reaper to play around with and lord know what kind of access to their data banks. Cerberus has none of this. Just because one person with different resources can do it is not a grantee that everyone can do it.

Rana wasn't succumbing. Nor was the STG commando who was sane.

Saren's activities on Virmire were not the product of Sovereign's technology, but his own efforts to study indoctrination. There is no plausible reason why they can't be redeveloped, especially given the resources (investigative and otherwise) Cerberus can bring to bear.

I looked over what EDI said, and you are right, you can send small bits of info. My apologies on that. So, if they install a quantum entangler in the collector base without the knowledge of the crew working there since if they are indoctrinated they would deactivate it,

Not even necessarily that: a good trap to detect indoctrination would be to set a process that only an indoctrinated would do. A good one would be to tell the crew on the base 'hey, this lever process disables the self-destruct/QEM/whatever', only to secretly set it up beforehand that it just warns TIM to clear out the indoctrinated people/actually triggers the self-destruct/knocks everyone out with sleeping gas/whatever.

and if the reapers attack in such a way that communications are not cut off

QEM can't be cut off. It's sci-fi special like that: it has no medium to intercept.

and Cerberus learns of the attack in time, and if the Illusive man is near said communicator at the time of the attack (i.e. not sleeping or sleeping with the pick of the week)
then he might be able to blow up the base. 

Why on earth would the Illusive Man himself have to do this? Why would any organic? Now that you've acknowledged that it communicates, you can any person/VI/AI from a distance trigger it if, say, spies from Omega/visual sensors from the base itself pick up a Reaper approaching the Relay/from the Relay.

I think TIM would see this as an acceptable risk, but my Shepard certainly would not. It certainly does not ensure that you could destroy it before the reapers got to it. As I said, it is a risk.

It doesn't matter if the Reapers reclaim it. You speak of the risk of them reclaiming it, without addressing what that actually is.

The Base's value comes from what can be done before the Reapers come. Afterwards, it's irrelevant to the war: it's not a significant strategic resource for the Reapers. Their laboratories and war-infrastructure are already inside them. In order to put the base to any unique use (making a Reaper) they have to have already knocked out and neutralized at minimum one of the four strongest powers in the galaxy, and all this for 1 reinforcement who may or may not be complete by the time the logistics are handled.

I agree, good thing that is not what I did. I simply said that there is no evidence in the game that points to them having done it. I never said they would not try, only that they have yet to succeed. On the other hand, assuming that just because they look into it, they will be succsefull is a little silly. Hey, an ancient race developed a weapon that one shotted a reaper so we can assume Cerberus can make one of those too. Hey, The Protheans were able to create a small mass relay, so we can assume Cerberus can do it too.

Given enough time, there's honestly no reason to presume it's beyond them, or anyone else. As Matriarch Aethelya said, it's a matter of interest, not ability.

The Mass Accelerator Canon, besides already being in Cerberus's possession, is simply an up-scaled version of what Shepard has been using since ME1. Its the technological basis of nearly every fire arm and every war ship in the galaxy.

First of all, Kudos on the excellent choice in majors. A person after my own heart. (though I admit, my grad work is in the crusades, not WWII naval warfare)

Since this is going into the theoretical, let dial it back down a bit. I never said Japan had a good chance of winning, only that they were a viable threat.  If they had won at Midway, they potentially could have invaded Alaska. In fact, this is what the US brass originally thought Japan was planning to do instead of midway. If they had sunk the big E at Soloman Islands, they almost certainly would have taken Guadal canal and used it as a staging ground to take Australia. If these had happened, than there is no way to tell how the war would have changed. They were a treat. Just because they lost, does not change that.

Japan never had the ability to take Australia for the same reasons it could never take Hawaii: never enough men, never enough ships, and never enough oil to sustain combat operations at such ranges.

This is increasingly off topic, and irrelevant to the rest of the discussion at hand. If you'd like to take this to PM, I'll gladly oblige you there.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

EDI had two sets of limitations: she had 'external' locks that prevented her from accessing the Normandy systems (what Joker unlocked), but she still retains the internal programming that, as she says, would prevent her from turning on the crew even if she wanted to.

How is 'crew' defined and how is 'turning on' defined? She was able to evacuate the air even though the Collectors were still not finished moving everyone to their ship. She doesn't even have to be lieing. She could believe she is restricted without realizing she isn't.

We took EDI every step of the way on a known suicide mission. We did the same with Legion, even when Legion knew that it wouldn't be able to download itself again. Why do these AI go on suicide missions? That is up for dispute, but don't project anthromorphization reasonings onto them.

Actually it was a declared suicide mission. It was called that by Shepard (and by (BW marketing), but you seem to be forgetting the lengthy threads complaining about how easy it is for everyone to survive. There is also the point that EDI knows everything we do, namely that she isn't any more likely to survive a Reaper victory than we are. This is even more true for Legion. The Geth have faced possible extinction at the hands of the Quarians and are still labeled 'illegal.' The need to fight to survive is one of the most fundamental truths of existance.

Saren developed indoctrination-blocking walls. .

Do we know this to be the case? I originally took it as the Reapers being able to tight beam indoctrination. Indoctrinating key individuals rather than entire populations is actually the more efficient route since that way the majority stays competent while the leadership just looks like politicians... come to think of it, indoctrination would explain a lot about current RL world leaders, lol.

Note that just because countermeasures can be developed doesn't mean Cerberus has developed any. They certainly didn't save any of their operatives on the derelict reaper.