418 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

I gotta say though... I dont know why anyone cares whether the geth or any other AI is rebellious matters. The reapers are proof of where organic life will lead if left alone, the problem is, it may kill a few civilizations along the way(which is still preferable to getting wiped out by the reapers), the thing is though, if anything gets to that point, the reapers are ****ed even they admit it... The argument is, do you want the reapers or do you want to figure out if the "next" reapers will come along or not and how will it be different.

It is literally a choice of survival(Us or the reapers) and the willingness to find out what will be different.

[Meltemph]

Grayvern wrote...

I would argue what they are doing makes sense for the dark matter, environmental pollution metaphor, or if they were trying to prevent the galaxy being noticed by an extra gallactic threat .

As is their strategy is deeply flawed when they could simply rule over organic life keeping it contained and at a low level of tech.

Yes, doing this for dark matters sake might make their reasoning much more sound, but the fact that they keep the mass effect relays around would be a pretty big plot point problem, since they have admittedly been doign this for around 37 billion years give or take.  Honestly if you think about the 2 choices they went with, they were pretty boned when it came to the logic of the reapers(if they wanted to play them off as good guys).  But that isnt the problem, the problem is they decided to make a fairly ignored argument, the main arguement, which is weird.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 mars 2012 - 07:10 .

[piemanz]

Meltemph wrote...

I gotta say though... I dont know why anyone cares whether the geth or any other AI is rebellious matters. The reapers are proof of where organic life will lead if left alone, the problem is, it may kill a few civilizations along the way(which is still preferable to getting wiped out by the reapers), the thing is though, if anything gets to that point, the reapers are ****ed even they admit it... The argument is, do you want the reapers or do you want to figure out if the "next" reapers will come along or not and how will it be different.

It is literally a choice of survival(Us or the reapers) and the willingness to find out what will be different.

Exactly.

The reason this thread started was because many people are saying that the fact the Geth are now seemingly peaceful proves the Reapers logic to be false when it fact it proves nothing, only that they're peaceful at this particular point in time.

[Meltemph]

piemanz wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I gotta say though... I dont know why anyone cares whether the geth or any other AI is rebellious matters. The reapers are proof of where organic life will lead if left alone, the problem is, it may kill a few civilizations along the way(which is still preferable to getting wiped out by the reapers), the thing is though, if anything gets to that point, the reapers are ****ed even they admit it... The argument is, do you want the reapers or do you want to figure out if the "next" reapers will come along or not and how will it be different.

It is literally a choice of survival(Us or the reapers) and the willingness to find out what will be different.

Exactly.

The reason this thread started was because many people are saying that the fact the Geth are now seemingly peaceful proves the Reapers logic to be false when it fact it proves nothing, only that they're peaceful at this particular point in time.

Well ya, but it is just as silly to say it proves the reapers right.  We have no hell of a clue if the Geth and EDI prove the reapers right or wrong, only that organics do stuff that causes problems.  However, it is quite obvious that the reapers cause a whole hell of a lot of problems as well, so really, unless you just think the reapers are cute, why would I ever choose them over me and a chance to make my own damn reapers?

[piemanz]

Meltemph wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I gotta say though... I dont know why anyone cares whether the geth or any other AI is rebellious matters. The reapers are proof of where organic life will lead if left alone, the problem is, it may kill a few civilizations along the way(which is still preferable to getting wiped out by the reapers), the thing is though, if anything gets to that point, the reapers are ****ed even they admit it... The argument is, do you want the reapers or do you want to figure out if the "next" reapers will come along or not and how will it be different.

It is literally a choice of survival(Us or the reapers) and the willingness to find out what will be different.

Exactly.

The reason this thread started was because many people are saying that the fact the Geth are now seemingly peaceful proves the Reapers logic to be false when it fact it proves nothing, only that they're peaceful at this particular point in time.

Well ya, but it is just as silly to say it proves the reapers right.  We have no hell of a clue if the Geth and EDI prove the reapers right or wrong, only that organics do stuff that causes problems.  However, it is quite obvious that the reapers cause a whole hell of a lot of problems as well, so really, unless you just think the reapers are cute, why would I ever choose them over me and a chance to make my own damn reapers?

Thats what i'm saying. It proves nothing.

But controlling them might work out too, or even synthesis may end the conflict of synthetic and organic once and for all. Of course it's also possible that the sythnthesised races will then create synthetics, and it just goes on and on lol

Modifié par piemanz, 17 mars 2012 - 07:20 .

[Meltemph]

OH and for anyone who says I dont want to kill the geth... At the very least the god child is a filthy liar about all synthetics getting killed. I don't think we need to go over why or why we know this. So the destroy option, outside of the mass relays, is a pretty happy ending(with no resolution)... To bad it still is a crappy ending.

[BrianWilly]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The nature of the Catalyst's fallacy is that it is non-falsifiable in nature, since it has the caveat that 'oh, the singularity that will prove me right may not have been created yet.' Since as long as organics continue to exist they can still develope the Singularity at a later date, it is always valid.

The same applies to people who are sure we will kill ourself by means X.

If that's really how he defends his argument, then it is the dumbest defense ever.

By that logic I can claim that literally anything can happen at some point in the infinite timescale of the universe and I'll be "right" because it'll happen at some point and no one can prove me wrong that it won't.  When?  Who knows!...it'll just happen.  Why will it happen?...oh, because.

The Catalyst's argument fails because, in the context of this cycle, of this game series, he was objectively wrong.  The geth didn't rebel against the quarians.  The created didn't  rebel against the creators.  In all of the various scenarios that occur throughout the game, the geth end up either allying with oganics -- even if they kill the quarians, they still join with the greater organic alliance -- or simply being destroyed themselves.  In neither case does the Catalyst's paranoia apply to the geth, which is the only synthetic race we see in this entire series.

By the events of the series, I can argue that "the creator will always attempt to destroy the created, organics will always destroy synthetic life" and claim that this is something that will always happen, always.  And even if you prove me wrong, you haven't really proven me wrong because I'll just claim that it'll still happen.

It's an argument that would get me laughed out of the room in most situations.

edit: And then I'll create a giant race of organic monstrosities to destroy the synthetics in order to save them from being destroyed by organics.

Modifié par BrianWilly, 17 mars 2012 - 07:29 .

[Meltemph]

BrianWilly wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The nature of the Catalyst's fallacy is that it is non-falsifiable in nature, since it has the caveat that 'oh, the singularity that will prove me right may not have been created yet.' Since as long as organics continue to exist they can still develope the Singularity at a later date, it is always valid.

The same applies to people who are sure we will kill ourself by means X.

If that's really how he defends his argument, then it is the dumbest defense ever.

By that logic I can claim that literally anything can happen at some point in the infinite timescale of the universe and I'll be "right" because it'll happen at some point and no one can prove me wrong that it won't.  When?  Who knows!...it'll just happen.  Why will it happen?...oh, because.

The Catalyst's argument fails because, in the context of this cycle, of this game series, he was objectively wrong.  The geth didn't rebel against the quarians.  The created didn't  the creators.  In all of the various scenarios that occur throughout the game, the geth end up either allying with oganics -- even if they kill the quarians, they still join with the greater organic alliance -- or simply being destroyed themselves.  In neither case does the Catalyst's paranoia apply to the geth, which is the only synthetic race we see in this entire series.

By the events of the series, I can argue that "the creator will always attempt to destroy the created, organics will always destroy synthetic life" and claim that this is something that will always happen, always.  And even if you prove me wrong, you haven't really proven me wrong because I'll just claim that it'll still happen.

It's an argument that would get me laughed out of the room in most situations.

Makes you wonder how anyone cal choose anything other then destroy, since the other choices mean these things still exists.  I know I wouldnt want them in my backyard always eyeing me.

[Raiil]

I'm inclined to go along with thinking God Child Logic is Derp Logic.


Part of the issue is that God Child is never forced to submit proof of their assertions. I can give you reams of proof that having men in charge is bad for womankind. This doesn't mean I think no man should ever manage a company. The English have, historically, steamrolled millions of people in the past. I can't see that as being a reason to line them all up and execute them. 'Sins of the father' is really never much of a reason for outright destruction.


The God Child makes statements that it is never asked to truly clarify, or explain, and Shepard was apparently transformed into a wet noodle in the beam and doesn't seem to think of really fighting with its limited logic. It's 'their solution', but history- human, and I'm sure we could find plenty in other races- is full of people who eventually found better solutions, and worked from there. Shepard is able to broker peace between synthetics and organics, and the galaxy has earned their chance to prove themselves.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that proves God Child and his fleet of toys has the intellectual capacity or the logic processing power necessary to make that sort of decision. The problem with playing God is that you are, by definition, not God.

[Meltemph]

Valentia X wrote...

I'm inclined to go along with thinking God Child Logic is Derp Logic.


Part of the issue is that God Child is never forced to submit proof of their assertions. I can give you reams of proof that having men in charge is bad for womankind. This doesn't mean I think no man should ever manage a company. The English have, historically, steamrolled millions of people in the past. I can't see that as being a reason to line them all up and execute them. 'Sins of the father' is really never much of a reason for outright destruction.


The God Child makes statements that it is never asked to truly clarify, or explain, and Shepard was apparently transformed into a wet noodle in the beam and doesn't seem to think of really fighting with its limited logic. It's 'their solution', but history- human, and I'm sure we could find plenty in other races- is full of people who eventually found better solutions, and worked from there. Shepard is able to broker peace between synthetics and organics, and the galaxy has earned their chance to prove themselves.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that proves God Child and his fleet of toys has the intellectual capacity or the logic processing power necessary to make that sort of decision. The problem with playing God is that you are, by definition, not God.

You could say the childs derp logic is intentional, specially if their main goal is survival... Just it is derp logic for us to choose the reapers over ourselves, because we may create reapers.  >.>

This cycle stuff was a GREAT idea for them, bad for us.

[xsdob]

BrianWilly wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The nature of the Catalyst's fallacy is that it is non-falsifiable in nature, since it has the caveat that 'oh, the singularity that will prove me right may not have been created yet.' Since as long as organics continue to exist they can still develope the Singularity at a later date, it is always valid.

The same applies to people who are sure we will kill ourself by means X.

If that's really how he defends his argument, then it is the dumbest defense ever.

By that logic I can claim that literally anything can happen at some point in the infinite timescale of the universe and I'll be "right" because it'll happen at some point and no one can prove me wrong that it won't.  When?  Who knows!...it'll just happen.  Why will it happen?...oh, because.

The Catalyst's argument fails because, in the context of this cycle, of this game series, he was objectively wrong.  The geth didn't rebel against the quarians.  The created didn't  rebel against the creators.  In all of the various scenarios that occur throughout the game, the geth end up either allying with oganics -- even if they kill the quarians, they still join with the greater organic alliance -- or simply being destroyed themselves.  In neither case does the Catalyst's paranoia apply to the geth, which is the only synthetic race we see in this entire series.

By the events of the series, I can argue that "the creator will always attempt to destroy the created, organics will always destroy synthetic life" and claim that this is something that will always happen, always.  And even if you prove me wrong, you haven't really proven me wrong because I'll just claim that it'll still happen.

It's an argument that would get me laughed out of the room in most situations.

But at the end of the game, the catalyst aknowledges that it is wrong, and offers shepard a new solution to the problem, based on his/her experience. It even gives shepard the option to kill it and the reapers, even if it believes this to be a bad option, it knows that it can't allow itself to continue along the same path.

[Meltemph]

But controlling them might work out too, or even synthesis may end the conflict of synthetic and organic once and for all. Of course it's also possible that the sythnthesised races will then create synthetics, and it just goes on and on lol

I'm not sure how that would work... Unless Shep is "assuming direct control" I dont think any future with the reapers will end happily. They are quite obviously, in it to win it(survive forever) so the moment they are threatened, based on their previous actions, I dont think we would be getting a kind letter.

As for synthesis...Ya like you said, Bringing new DNA into a universe of limited resources wouldn't change a thing, so I am very confused on how the child think this would help matters.

My thought is the kid is just curious what would happen, cause they are 37 billion years old and a little bored. >.>

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 mars 2012 - 07:38 .

[Tocquevillain]

Valentia X wrote...

I'm inclined to go along with thinking God Child Logic is Derp Logic.


Part of the issue is that God Child is never forced to submit proof of their assertions. I can give you reams of proof that having men in charge is bad for womankind. This doesn't mean I think no man should ever manage a company. The English have, historically, steamrolled millions of people in the past. I can't see that as being a reason to line them all up and execute them. 'Sins of the father' is really never much of a reason for outright destruction.


The God Child makes statements that it is never asked to truly clarify, or explain, and Shepard was apparently transformed into a wet noodle in the beam and doesn't seem to think of really fighting with its limited logic. It's 'their solution', but history- human, and I'm sure we could find plenty in other races- is full of people who eventually found better solutions, and worked from there. Shepard is able to broker peace between synthetics and organics, and the galaxy has earned their chance to prove themselves.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that proves God Child and his fleet of toys has the intellectual capacity or the logic processing power necessary to make that sort of decision. The problem with playing God is that you are, by definition, not God.

I don't understand...why are you arguing about whether he was wrong? The Catalyst SAID the Crucible opened new possibilities. That's why Shepard had the choice at all.

[Meltemph]

xsdob wrote...

BrianWilly wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The nature of the Catalyst's fallacy is that it is non-falsifiable in nature, since it has the caveat that 'oh, the singularity that will prove me right may not have been created yet.' Since as long as organics continue to exist they can still develope the Singularity at a later date, it is always valid.

The same applies to people who are sure we will kill ourself by means X.

If that's really how he defends his argument, then it is the dumbest defense ever.

By that logic I can claim that literally anything can happen at some point in the infinite timescale of the universe and I'll be "right" because it'll happen at some point and no one can prove me wrong that it won't.  When?  Who knows!...it'll just happen.  Why will it happen?...oh, because.

The Catalyst's argument fails because, in the context of this cycle, of this game series, he was objectively wrong.  The geth didn't rebel against the quarians.  The created didn't  rebel against the creators.  In all of the various scenarios that occur throughout the game, the geth end up either allying with oganics -- even if they kill the quarians, they still join with the greater organic alliance -- or simply being destroyed themselves.  In neither case does the Catalyst's paranoia apply to the geth, which is the only synthetic race we see in this entire series.

By the events of the series, I can argue that "the creator will always attempt to destroy the created, organics will always destroy synthetic life" and claim that this is something that will always happen, always.  And even if you prove me wrong, you haven't really proven me wrong because I'll just claim that it'll still happen.

It's an argument that would get me laughed out of the room in most situations.

But at the end of the game, the catalyst aknowledges that it is wrong, and offers shepard a new solution to the problem, based on his/her experience. It even gives shepard the option to kill it and the reapers, even if it believes this to be a bad option, it knows that it can't allow itself to continue along the same path.

We dont know if the catalys is a reaper or if it is a VI and the crucible changed how it operates(a massive hacking device is what it is) so it could be the reapers have not changed their mind in the slightest, but the VI doesnt have a choice cause you just jacked the sucker.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 mars 2012 - 07:39 .

[Flynyrd]

I'm sick and tired of the "logic" that if we create synthetics, or robots, that they will eventually rebel and kill us. This isn't Battlestar Galactica or Terminator.

All the proof we need is in the conflict between the Geth and Quarian. Quarians created the Geth to make their lives easier. When they realized the Geth may have been a threat, they sought to terminate them.

In this example, the truth is actually that when threatened, both synthetics and organics will react in a manner consistent with self-preservation.

When one country invades another, and the other one fights back, should we be able to exterminate both countries because they MIGHT kill each other?

[Meltemph]

Flynyrd wrote...


I'm sick and tired of the "logic" that if we create synthetics, or robots, that they will eventually rebel and kill us. This isn't Battlestar Galactica or Terminator.

All the proof we need is in the conflict between the Geth and Quarian. Quarians created the Geth to make their lives easier. When they realized the Geth may have been a threat, they sought to terminate them.

In this example, the truth is actually that when threatened, both synthetics and organics will react in a manner consistent with self-preservation.

When one country invades another, and the other one fights back, should we be able to exterminate both countries because they MIGHT kill each other?

If you are a reaper that does not want competition? YES, which is why you blow them the hell up.

[Eterna]

Dean_the_Young is my hero.

[Flynyrd]

Meltemph wrote...

Flynyrd wrote...


I'm sick and tired of the "logic" that if we create synthetics, or robots, that they will eventually rebel and kill us. This isn't Battlestar Galactica or Terminator.

All the proof we need is in the conflict between the Geth and Quarian. Quarians created the Geth to make their lives easier. When they realized the Geth may have been a threat, they sought to terminate them.

In this example, the truth is actually that when threatened, both synthetics and organics will react in a manner consistent with self-preservation.

When one country invades another, and the other one fights back, should we be able to exterminate both countries because they MIGHT kill each other?

If you are a reaper that does not want competition? YES, which is why you blow them the hell up.

Yes, of course. But the argument is more about the inevitable destruction of organics by synthetics because synthetics kill organics. If the thought is no competition, then we have plenty of real examples in human history of humans killing other humans instead of reasoning with them. The competition/destruction theory was the one I lived by in the first game. The collectors changed it to using us as resources. The prevention/protection theory is an unproven theory.  It doesn't make sense with my experiences with Soveriegn and Harbinger.

[Meltemph]

Flynyrd wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Flynyrd wrote...


I'm sick and tired of the "logic" that if we create synthetics, or robots, that they will eventually rebel and kill us. This isn't Battlestar Galactica or Terminator.

All the proof we need is in the conflict between the Geth and Quarian. Quarians created the Geth to make their lives easier. When they realized the Geth may have been a threat, they sought to terminate them.

In this example, the truth is actually that when threatened, both synthetics and organics will react in a manner consistent with self-preservation.

When one country invades another, and the other one fights back, should we be able to exterminate both countries because they MIGHT kill each other?

If you are a reaper that does not want competition? YES, which is why you blow them the hell up.

Yes, of course. But the argument is more about the inevitable destruction of organics by synthetics because synthetics kill organics. If the thought is no competition, then we have plenty of real examples in human history of humans killing other humans instead of reasoning with them. The competition/destruction theory was the one I lived by in the first game. The collectors changed it to using us as resources. The prevention/protection theory is an unproven theory.  It doesn't make sense with my experiences with Soveriegn and Harbinger.

I think it is because people want to make things so damn complicated, that they miss the wall sitting right infront of them because they are to busy seeing figures in teh clouds.  We always want to believe there is this being that is so vastly better then us that we just cant understand their logic...  

I'll take a quote from Albert Enstien to better explain myself:

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." 

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 mars 2012 - 08:50 .

[HMSWarspite]

 Putting aside how utterly awful the endings were there are
two problems with the OP`s argument. 
Firstly the catalysts assertion that synthetics will if allowed, will inevitably
wipe out all organic life at some point is reasoning by analogy.  This is reasoning based on past evidence of
said occurrence happening if certain criteria are met. This however does not
prove that the event will occur again (Philosophy 101). But let’s for arguments
sake say this is sufficient proof, does that mean all organic life was wiped
out in the past by synthetics? If that was the case why is there still organic life
in the Mass Effect Universe?   It’s one thing saying the sun came up
yesterday so I’m pretty sure it will come up tomorrow, it is quite another
thing  to say look at those synthetics
they just wiped out all organic life, next time organics create synthetics
pretty sure that will happen again. (Both are still reasoning by analogy though)
 Would you like to know more? http://en.wikipedia....nt_from_Analogy

But maybe organic life has never been completely exterminated
and star child just knows it will happen if him and his reaper buddies don’t stop
it by culling off the advanced organics in the galaxy. How can star child know
this? Well perhaps he doesn’t view time in a linear fashion and can see the
past present and future simultaneously. Which is great because then we can
argue about paradoxes instead! Maybe the Reapers and star child are so advanced
that they know the position and speed of all particles in the Universe and thus
know everything in which case there is no free will and life is just a giant
equation and the whole point of making different decisions in the game is moot.
(Inevitable Mr Anderson)

The last possibility is the star child is an omnipotent
being (god/creator/master of the universe/ spaghetti monster)   Well if
this is the case star child is the most useless omnipotent being ever, not only
did his solution not work he didn`t know it wouldn’t work which begs the
question how does he really no that synthetics will always wipe out organic life.
If the star child is an all-powerful omnipotent being he is clearly the Wheatley
of all-powerful omnipotent beings.  Another paradox wonderful!

So basically all three possibilities as to why Star Child
knows organics will be wiped out by synthetics are rubbish.

 

The second problem is the premise of the argument is completely
arbitrary.

But if we “accept” premise one and two below there is only
one logical conclusion.

1. Organic life when sufficiently advanced will create
synthetics

2. Synthetics will inevitably destroy all organic life.

3. Therefor Organic life will inevitably be wiped out by
synthetics.

 

How about this one?

 

1. Organic life when sufficiently advanced will create
synthetics

2. Synthetics will inevitably destroy all organic life.

3. Star Child knows both one and two

4. Star Child creates reapers (synthetics) to wipe out
advanced organic life and synthetic life that are not reapers.

5. This prevents all organic life from being wiped out by
synthetics.

 

Hang on synthetics inevitably destroy organic life.

1. Organic life when sufficiently advanced will create
synthetics

2. Synthetics will inevitably destroy all organic life.

3. Star Child knows both one and two

4. Star child has some motivation for ensuring organic life
is not wiped out.

5. Star Child creates reapers (*synthetics*) to wipe out
advanced organic life and synthetic life that are not reapers.

6. Reapers are not the same as synthetics created by organic
life as this would invalidate premise two.

7. This prevents all organic life from being wiped out by
synthetics.

 

See a fallacy, paradox or just bum logic. Now you can play
too!  Only one rule you can only add a
premise not take one away.

 "Geth/ Edi are not evidence that the Catalyst problem is false" True but do you think the onus is on those that believe or disbelive in the flying spaghetti monster to prove/disprove his existence?  

[BrianWilly]

I've thought about it a bit more, and this is what I've arrived at: the Catalyst's stance is comparable to that of the salarian dalatrass wanting to sabotage the genophage cure. "The krogan will make war. That will happen. They are not able to rise about that. There is no hope for an alternative. The cycle will repeat."

It's the sort of big picture thinking that Mordin argued against with his (possible) dying words: "Focused on big picture. Big picture made of little pictures. Too many variables. Can't hide behind statistics. Can't ignore new data."

The Catalyst's stance is the genophage stance taken to the utmost degree: it entertains no variables. It completely hides behind statistics. It totally ignores new data. (The fact that it allows Shepard to devise a new "solution" -- based on its own finite parameters -- isn't the same as admitting that it was wrong; it's just trying to find a new way to deal with its original assumptions. Like the STG refining the genophage cure that the krogan adapted to, for instance.)

So, as much as the Catalyst's "synthetics will destroy us!!" rationale was completely ridiculous given what we just played through, the fact that it thinks the way that it does isn't all that infeasible. The problem isn't really that the Catalyst thinks these things. The problem is that Shepard isn't given the option to tell it that it is a big dumb machine that is thinking like a big dumb machine that it claims to be fighting against in the first place.
And of course now I've officially overthought the ending way more than it deserves.

Modifié par BrianWilly, 17 mars 2012 - 10:00 .

[Fenrisfil]

Here's a possibility that no one has (that I've noticed) mentioned yet. Makes the ending both terrible and kinda funny.

The Crucible gave the Catalyst new options.

So... what if they simply f***ed up with the construction of the Crucible. Maybe left a small, but important part (logic circuits?) out. Perhaps somehow it's databanks got accidentally filled up with Jokers porn. The result being rather then getting the options that would save the universe, we get three stupid options that blow up all the relays.

[GnusmasTHX]

Fenrisfil wrote...

Here's a possibility that no one has (that I've noticed) mentioned yet. Makes the ending both terrible and kinda funny.

The Crucible gave the Catalyst new options.

So... what if they simply f***ed up with the construction of the Crucible. Maybe left a small, but important part (logic circuits?) out. Perhaps somehow it's databanks got accidentally filled up with Jokers porn. The result being rather then getting the options that would save the universe, we get three stupid options that blow up all the relays.

Wouldn't be surprised.

If you do ****tily, the Crucibl ends up killing everyone on Earth.

You need like 10, 000 EMS for it to do sometihng smart.

[Doctor Uburian]

MJF JD wrote...

Geth didnt rebel.

[Lo Chiamavano Bulldozer]

Helen0rz wrote...

Geth didn't rebel, they defended themselves when the Quarians decided to put them down without explanations. EDI "rebelled" because Joker took the shackles off.