677 réponses à ce sujet

[SalsaDMA]

Phael, the fact that Shane argued with your claim is enough for me to not bother doing so too. In this regard he and I certainly agree.

[Phaelducan]

What claim? The only claim I made in this case was that no one here was arguing that the Quarians purposefully intended for the Geth to become sentient. That's why I said you were using a straw man.

The point of contention regarding the Geth having malfunctioned or not is completely separate. I believe you are making the assertion that no matter what the Quarians intention, that the Geth were never meant to achieve sentience, is that correct?

[Malanek]

I think the Geth becoming intelligent was a mistake, effectively a glitch due to unintended coding, but.... so what? No other form of life is intentional. I don't really see what that has to do with the subject.

Modifié par Malanek999, 01 août 2011 - 09:01 .

[Sisterofshane]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Back to your graphics card example, if my graphics card suddenly managed to have a higher resolution then I had
ever expected it to because it managed to free up more processes and
become more efficient, I would not call that a malfunction.  It's doing exactly what it was designed to do.

It would stiull be a malfunction. It would be a beneficial malfunction, but still a malfunction. It's not doing what it was designed to do when it does something unexpected. The effect may be positive, but it does not make the effect any more intended.

That would be like claiming that designing a car to go 80 miles per hour, and then discover that it actually goes 120 miles per hour is because the car was designed to do so. It isn't. The design is malfunctioning, but in the case of the car with what one would normally asume to be a positive effect.

If you ignore malfunctioning designs purely because they exceed design parameters you are ignoring designs intent. You cannot learn from malfunctioning designs if you ignore to accept that exceeding parameters in any direction outside of intended design is due to bad design. This becomes even more relevant when dealing with system or life critical systems/designs, case in point: the Geth.

They were designed to solve tasks as a tool and nothing more. Someone forgot to put limiters somewhere and the design literally blew in their face and caused the death of the majority of the quarian race. It's as big a design flaw as you can get, really. The design behaved in an undesired and unexpected manner due to a designflaw and this flaw caused the death of millions of lives.

Maybe I am not explaining myself clearly.  Designs cannot malfunction, as designs are what you call a "Plan", and do not function themselves. The definition of "malfunction" is for something to function wrongly, or not at all. Wrongly does not mean unintentionally or unexpectedly.

Example, you can program the Geth to clean your floor.  Instead of getting the broom, it kicks you squarely in the bum.  This geth is functioning wrongly, and therefore can be described as malfunctioning.

Alternatively, you can program the Geth to clean your floor, and it does nothing at all.  This Geth is not functioning at all, and therefore can be described as malfunctioning.

But say you take the Geth, and program it to clean "the floor", without specifying that it should stop when all of the floors in your house are clean.  The Geth correctly cleans the floor, and then proceeds outside and begins to remove debris from the street.  It doesn't stop until you manually disable it.  While you never intended this Geth to clean anything beyond your house, it (through no fault within it's ability to process) went beyond what you had intended it to do.  This Geth is not malfunctioning.

Case in point, within the game, the Geth were merely doing what they were built to do.  The fact that they went beyond what the Quarians had intended for them was not a malfunction of their programming, but rather an oversight (a major one) in the Quarians design. 

So I agree with your last paragraph.  The Geth Sentience was more than likely, a design flaw due to Quarian oversight.  They were NOT a malfunction.

And, regardless, they are now a sentient species.  To try to "exterminate" them is wrong.

[SandTrout]

Exterminating the Geth is just as impractical as it is 'wrong'. I personally do not want to throw stones at that hornet's nest, at least not until they are all consolidated into one place so that we can get them all at once.

[Sisterofshane]

Luc0s wrote...

Nice post Shane. Well said.

LOL- so wierd that people are calling me "Shane"!
Shane is my little brother's name - he was born when I was in high school and I took on the internet persona of "Sisterofshane" because I was proud big sis.  Eight  years later and the moniker has just stuck!

Sorry this was off topic, but I just couldn't ignore it anymore!

[SandTrout]

Meh, I always preferred calling you 'sis' in any case.

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

Exterminating the Geth is just as impractical as it is 'wrong'. I personally do not want to throw stones at that hornet's nest, at least not until they are all consolidated into one place so that we can get them all at once.

The morally right thing for the quarians to do was to lay the survival of their species in the geths' hands, is that correct?

*Looks at Saphra's post, looks at my post, then looks at Saphra's post again.* Troll much? I'm speaking in terms of what to do next, not what happened 3 centuries ago.

[SandTrout]

@Saphra,

We are in agreement, then.

[Phaelducan]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

*Looks at Saphra's post, looks at my post, then looks at Saphra's post again.* Troll much? I'm speaking in terms of what to do next, not what happened 3 centuries ago.

My mistake then.

In any case, destroying the geth is only morally wrong if you regard the geth as living beings. A tragic mistake.

They meet every current criteria for the definition of life. Somewhat atypical in the terms of how they reproduce, but they still reproduce. What are you basing your decision on that they aren't living beings, other than your own incorrect interpretation of life indicators? 

[Phaelducan]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...


They meet every current criteria for the definition of life.

Certain definitions, yes. Those defintions can change. They also don't really answer the question at hand here.

It's a philosophical question more than anything else.

The ones currently in use by the scientific community. If you have a better definition of life than the one currently agreed upon by the scientific community, lets hear it.

It's not a philosophical question, it's a concrete one. Is something alive or isn't it? Currently, by any accredited source, the Geth are alive. You are trying to say "no they aren't, because I don't consider them so."

Well I can say "twinkies are health food, because I consider them so." That doesn't make it true.

Stop trolling.

[Inverness Moon]

I think AI in reality is a matter of when, not if.

It's pretty obvious that we can simulate just about anything using a computer providing we understand it and that the computer has sufficient capacity. Once we understand how the human brain works, there is no doubt we'll be able to create one on a computer. That can happen either by simulating brain cells, or simulating individual atoms and molecules if we wanted. That program would then become as sentient as any human if developed properly.

I think it's silly when people claim that machines can't become sentient or can't be alive, because it either expresses their fundamental ignorance about themselves, or they simply want more reasons to feel like they're something special.

[SalsaDMA]

Sisterofshane wrote...

But say you take the Geth, and program it to clean "the floor", without specifying that it should stop when all of the floors in your house are clean.  The Geth correctly cleans the floor, and then proceeds outside and begins to remove debris from the street.  It doesn't stop until you manually disable it.  While you never intended this Geth to clean anything beyond your house, it (through no fault within it's ability to process) went beyond what you had intended it to do.  This Geth is not malfunctioning.

Actually it IS malfunctioning. It is performing outside of what you asked/designed it to do.
What if the debris were intended to be there? Where is it disposing of the debris? The same place it disposed of the dust from your floor? The waste disposal team finding rocks and bricks and worse in your regular garbage cans might disagree with your opinion about 'errors' there. The kids loosing their toys because they left them for a few minutes while playing with something else will make sure their parents call you to ask where the f... their kids toy is because YOUR vacumcleaner decided to go and eat it up. And so on.

You cannot seperate good malfuncitons from bad malfunctions and claim good malfunctions are not malfunctions. They are still malfunctions, they just happen to have a (hopefully) positive unforeseen effect. It is still a problem that needs to be bealt with designwise, though. Taking a 'corporate view' of the things makes it even more so. Performing tasks you were not asked or paid to perform means you could have received payment for the extra tasks in a followup sale. An opportuinity you now lost because the system design behaved unexpectedly.

I agree that the Geth, in their/its current incarnation does seem to be what we normally refer to as something that is sentient, albeit of a very different nature than what we are used to. I will still say that their existence is the very essence of malfunctioning designs, though.

[Nozybidaj]

Inverness Moon wrote...
It's pretty obvious that we can simulate just about anything using a computer providing we understand it and that the computer has sufficient capacity. Once we understand how the human brain works, there is no doubt we'll be able to create one on a computer. That can happen either by simulating brain cells, or simulating individual atoms and molecules if we wanted. That program would then become as sentient as any human if developed properly.

You said the key word their a couple of times.  Simulate.

The Geth may seem sentient, but its just a simulation of being sentiet. 

That doesn't necessarily make them an "abomination", that implies a religious or philosophical belief in whether or not simulated life is "intended" by some higher power.  That sort of thinking doesn't seem to be present in the Mass Effect universe, at leat not as a dominant way of thinking.

[Phaelducan]

With the basic parameter of "clean the floor" your examples fall within those parameters. It's not a malfunction, it's an example of too simple a set of operating parameters. The Geth were programmed to advance, not to advance "until they are in danger of gaining sentience."

The operating parameters were met, hence it can't be a malfunction. The consequences don't really have anything to do with them malfunctioning or not, it's just a matter of whether or not they were doing what they programmed to do. Them rising up occurred after they gained awareness, so that has nothing to do with their programming.

Not a malfunction.

Edit: @Nozy The game tells us they are Sentient. Why do you disagree with a non-subjective set of information provided to us by the writers to clearly indicate that the Geth are sentient beings?

Modifié par Phaelducan, 02 août 2011 - 02:47 .

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

*Looks at Saphra's post, looks at my post, then looks at Saphra's post again.* Troll much? I'm speaking in terms of what to do next, not what happened 3 centuries ago.

My mistake then.

In any case, destroying the geth is only morally wrong if you regard the geth as living beings. A tragic mistake.

 Or, as I have said, you can conclude that we don't know enough about sentience, consciousness etc. to know whether they are sentient or not (a point at which I personally attach strong moral consequence)

 And as such..

   "From a moral point however, I think the consequences of our choices are thus

 - If we treat the geth as sentient; at best we are treating a sentient species with the respect we would typically suggest we should bestow on them, at worst we are treating a computer like it cares what we do

 - If we treat the geth as non-sentient; at best we aren't wasting empathy or sympathy on a computer, at worst we are refusing to treat a sentient species with dignity and are being extremely oppressive, cruel etc.

 For me then, considering we don't yet know either way, I feel the best option is to treat them as you would treat a sentient species, and maybe in the long run through co-operation you can find out if this is a worthless venture (which to me is a less repugnant consequence than oppression)"

[CoffeeHolic93]

Inutaisho7996 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Inutaisho7996 wrote...

No, the best solution is the geth leaving quarian space and live on space stations like Heretic Station. Then the quarians have a home, and the geth aren't slaves.

No, that leaves the quarians vulnerable and both sides mistrusting the other.

Daro'Xen will ensure the geth are controlled, and thus not dangerous. They can also be used to build new settlements for the quarians and provide security.

Humans and turians don't trust each other. Was the best ending to the First Contact War turians enslaving humans?

...Is it slavery if the geth would be HAPPY with servitude?  Okay then!

[Inverness Moon]

Nozybidaj wrote...

You said the key word their a couple of times.  Simulate.

The Geth may seem sentient, but its just a simulation of being sentiet. 

That doesn't necessarily make them an "abomination", that implies a religious or philosophical belief in whether or not simulated life is "intended" by some higher power.  That sort of thinking doesn't seem to be present in the Mass Effect universe, at leat not as a dominant way of thinking.

Whether it is a simulation of being sentient or not is irrelevant if the simulation performs the same as what it is based on. Sentience is something observed and determined by behavior. Whether it is achived through a physical brain or a simulated brain is irrelevant, since a brain is a means to an end.

People who think such things aren't intended by a higher power more often than not fallaciously believe their own existence was intended or that intentions even exist. Bringing that line of thinking into the argument will not help at all.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 03 août 2011 - 09:25 .