418 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Erield wrote...

111987 wrote...

Der Estr Bune wrote...

I agree that the Geth/EDI are not valid examples of why it's wrong, but I don't agree that it only has to happen once. If anything, I think the whole thing is probably proof that it has happened multiple times in the past. The God-Child has such a massive sample size, it's sort of naive to say, "This 300-year span invalidates the millenia of data he has!".

This. This is why I don't believe the Starchild's logic is faulty.

The only way to have proof that it will happen is that it has happened before--and yet, organic life still seems to exist.  This means that either it *didn't* happen before, or that organic life happened again  despite all organic life being wiped out.  Unless, of course, you think that Star Child actually created the universe, and this is try #159798 since the first 159797 times all organic life got wiped out by synthetic creations.

There is the prospect of other galaxies, though.

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.

[Catroi]

MJF JD wrote...

Geth didnt rebel.

[Der Estr Bune]

Erield wrote...

The only way to have proof that it will happen is that it has happened before--and yet, organic life still seems to exist.  This means that either it *didn't* happen before, or that organic life happened again  despite all organic life being wiped out.  Unless, of course, you think that Star Child actually created the universe, and this is try #159798 since the first 159797 times all organic life got wiped out by synthetic creations.

Or you could have a situation where organic life was on the cusp of elimination, or heading very obviously towards it, and the God-Child stepped in. After it happens 2 or 3 times, God-Child starts to remember warning signs, because setting up the Cycle.

IF there has been a previous AI that threatened the galaxy, it obviously was defeated - organic life still exists.

IF there were *multiple* previous AIs, they were ALL defeated.

IF there *hasn't* been a dangerous AI in the past - WTF?!  Why would you *assume* there would be? 

To the first two, what if they were defeated via direct intervention via the Catalyst? He, or something he made (imagine a proto-Reaper with inverted goals) swooped in, eliminated the AI, and saved organics. After these things spring up again and again, he realizes that organics will just keep making these AI again (in increasingly rapid fashion, which I posted earlier in the thread), and has to come up with a new solution because if he doesn't, he's got two choices: Elimination of all organics, or perpetual surveillance. His new solution is the Cycle.

And I'm assuming there is a precedent because it's the only way his motives make sense, and I'm defending those. So I'm going to keep working under that assumption.

[Dean_the_Young]

Wolven_Soul wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Wolven_Soul wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

The Geth did not rebel, they defended themselves (and even held themselves back from total extinction of the Quarians.

That doesn't prevent their action from being a rebellion.

Actually it does.  A rebellion is an open, organized, and armed resistance against one's government or ruler.  

The geth never rebelled against the quarians, they defended themselves.

Which was an open, organized, and armed resistance against their ruler.

Rebellion and self-defense can be the same action. Just ask the Libyans.

Yes, but a rebellion needs intent to really be a rebellion.

Besides that it doesn't, the Geth certainly did intend to stop the Quarians from exercising their authority.

It was never the geth's intent to rebell.  Their intent was simply survival, to allow themselves the chance to continue to exist.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and the Geth did not accidentally kick the Quarians off their home planet and wipe out 99% of the species.

[suusuuu]

First of all, from a storytelling standpoint, the Starchild logic is an insult because we work toward piece with the Geth in the game.

Second of all, I see no problem with the Reapers coming and saying "Organics stop making advanced AI because bad things will happen. Also, we'll protect you if something bad happens." Instead, they go all self-preservation mode out of fear that the organics will eventually create something more advanced than the Reapers.

This is just bad storytelling, do you execute someone on a claim that he could do something? No.

[Der Estr Bune]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

There is the prospect of other galaxies, though.

I cannot believe I hadn't considered that. You just helped my justification immensely.

[Ciiran]

Wolven_Soul wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

The Geth did not rebel, they defended themselves (and even held themselves back from total extinction of the Quarians.

That doesn't prevent their action from being a rebellion.

Actually it does.  A rebellion is an open, organized, and armed resistance against one's government or ruler.  

The geth never rebelled against the quarians, they defended themselves.

So? The quarians were the goverment and they decided to exterminate the geth. The geth did not agree with that and organized an open, and armed, rebellion.

[111987]

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.

Thank you! I've been trying to find a way of explaining this well.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tony208 wrote...

Preventing a singularity only makes sense in our world, not the world of mass effect. There's synthetics fighting synthetics for crying out loud. Some other synthetic race can enter the milky way and wipe out the Reapers if they wanted to.

None of that prevents a singularity, though, so your claim still lacks support. Synthetics fighting synthetics doesn't disprove the Singularity: it's not some pan-synthetic ideology.

In fact, it's not even hostile by definition. The destruction of organics could occur by peaceful assimilation.


As for the Milky Way, we've no idea what occurs outside of it. The existence of anything one way or another doesn't disprove Singularity.

[SSV Enterprise]

Lol, the first three posts of this thread are win.

Anyways, the point about "show, don't tell" is right. It would be easier to accept that AIs rebel against organics if that's what we had been shown throughout the games. It wasn't; in fact, the geth/quarian plot in ME3 drove home the fact that the geth did not rebel, never intended to, and in the end are willing to still coexist peacefully with the quarians. Then the goddamn space god child comes along at the very end and tells us the opposite of everything we've learned and proved, and we're not even allowed to try to disagree with it? BS.

[AusitnDrake]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Wolven_Soul wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

The Geth did not rebel, they defended themselves (and even held themselves back from total extinction of the Quarians.

That doesn't prevent their action from being a rebellion.

Actually it does.  A rebellion is an open, organized, and armed resistance against one's government or ruler.  

The geth never rebelled against the quarians, they defended themselves.

Which was an open, organized, and armed resistance against their ruler.

Rebellion and self-defense can be the same action. Just ask the Libyans.

Again the Catalyst implies hostility. The Geth wanted to understand their creators, even after 300 years after the Morning War. And when the Quarians actually took the time to try and coinside with them there was peace. All of the hostility that was shown was on the part of the Quarians(apart from those that followed Soveriegn, but that was out of religious fervor). They rebelled out of self preservation not agression or the belief they were superior.

[Fishy]

Look like everyone  hate whatr the Quarians did and I totally agree  of what they did. At the moment it's was the wisest descision. Something called Fear.

If it's happened to the human race we probably would do the same. They wnated to shut them down when they realized they started to become sentient. They never wanted to create AI . They wanted to create a labour  force . But with all the little  upgrading they did .. Boom headshot.

Now Imagine it's the human .. You have millions of robot and suddently you have a sign that some of them start to ask question about existence. Would not you freak out and try to unplug them before they all start to think you're not a worthy  master? They panicked. They feared them with good reason.. Robot aren't like organc . .

They don't go to school or make babies.. They had no idea how the Geth would react so they wanted to shut them off before knowing it.

It's a safe guard and I fully support it.

[deimosmasque]

You could argue that the Geth could have just fled the planet the second they had the superior military force if they were truly just defending themselves. Instead they kicked their creators of their home world and every colony they had.

Heck in ME3, when the Geth obtain true individuality and you side with them over the Quarians the geth could have just fled the home world and went somewhere else. They don't 'need' a planet, they are machines. But they don't they wipe out the aggressors to the last man, woman and child. They commit genocide only because they were attacked by an INFERIOR military source. What if after that, after the Reaper War they do some psychohistory and determine that the Human, Turian, Krogan, Asari and Salarian forces will rebuild and in a thousand years they will declare war on the Geth and wipe them out. They determine that there forces are superior now and to destroy them now, before they can actually wipe out the Geth? It's not hostility, its stopping a severe threat before it becomes unbeatable.

You cannot deny the Geth are sympathetic. Just like you can't deny that there is a militaristic aspect to the geth that goes beyond 'defensive.'

This is not to say that there aren't peaceful geth that want to avoid war with organics. But what if they are voted down in the consensus? What if there new individualistic nature over their previous hive nature makes them more aggressive in the long run? These are question we cannot answer but are there..

As for EDI, she's not a genocidal AI NOW. But she was born in violence, knows only conflict in her short life. And even if you did allow her and Joker to become more than just "friends" what is to say will happen in 50 or so years when Joker dies and she feel truly isolated from other races? Will she build more like her? Will she resent 'normal' people who have normal lives? Will she seek to end those normal lives because they are 'fleeting and pointless' compared to her virtual immortality?

Once again questions that cannot be answered in the scope of this game.

The Starchilde is definately not 100% right, but he's not 100% wrong either.

Modifié par deimosmasque, 17 mars 2012 - 04:47 .

[Der Estr Bune]

suusuuu wrote...

First of all, from a storytelling standpoint, the Starchild logic is an insult because we work toward piece with the Geth in the game.

Second of all, I see no problem with the Reapers coming and saying "Organics stop making advanced AI because bad things will happen. Also, we'll protect you if something bad happens." Instead, they go all self-preservation mode out of fear that the organics will eventually create something more advanced than the Reapers.

This is just bad storytelling, do you execute someone on a claim that he could do something? No.

We're ignoring the storytelling standpoint. This is a 100% in-universe conversation.

Secondly, I don't think that's their motive. Just drawing out my suggestion, imagine how the Galaxy would react to that? A massive outside force telling them, "Don't do this!" What would the Reapers do if organics decided to do it anyway?

[RShara]

Violence is illogical. It is a one sided benefit that only benefits the stronger and has no overall benefit. War is illogical. It is a waste of resources and platforms.
The geth did not need substantial resources to maintain themselves so there is no reason to do much expanding.

If synthetics are built on gains vs losses and probability, then there is no logical reason synthetics would destroy organics, unless organics were bent on destroying synthetics first.

So which one is the actual threat?

Also this:

suusuuu wrote
Why don't the reapers come every hundred years and wipe the synthetics instead? do they even wipe them afterwards?

Modifié par RShara, 17 mars 2012 - 04:49 .

[All the good names were taken]

111987 wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

Saren also allied with the Reapers, should the races of the galaxy have banded to kill all Turians too? You know, just in case. And the second time was only because the Quarians pushed them into it.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...


Then we are TOLD that synthetics will always kill organics.

No, you're told the Reapers' creators believed that, eventually, some synthetics would end up killing organics.'

Not that all synthetics would be hostile, or that all synthetics would kill organics.

But this is just another bout of poor story-telling. If the writers intended the AI child to have flawed logic, and therefore be a flawed character, then they should've allowed us to argue his logic. We couldn't.

You don't get to argue the logic of most people in the game, including Shepards. Since you're not forced to believe his logic either, it's all good.

When we can't argue against something, it's a universal truth. The character is presented as an avatar for a universal truth.

No, the Catalyst is a character presented as an avatar for the Reaper's motivations... and admits in the very conversation that it's conclusions were flawed.

The Catalyst reflects the Reaper's perspectives. You don't have to accept their conclusions as true.

No, he doesn't admit that. He admits that his solution can no longer work, because an organic has figured out how to stop them. He in no way accepts that his logic concerning organics and synthetics is flawed. He accepts that his solution to this was flawed

Very different things.

The character of Shepard DOES accept his conclusions as truth. He cannot defy the reaper leader, but instead takes his word for everything and ends the threat via the Catalyst's terms.

[NoUserNameHere]

EDI gained her self-awareness while Shepard was pulling out her circuits on the Moon.Her first thoughts were despair from death at the hands of an organic to boning that organic's pilot. For the Catalyst to be correct, EDI's predestination has to be to rebel and murderize Joker, whom she adores.

The Geth were attacked first, showed mercy towards their attackers, and hid in isolation away from any conflict for years. When the Quarians returned they had the distinct upper hand at first. So much for synthetic victory being inevitable! The quarians then forced the Geth into the arms of the Reapers. The Reapers -- supposed champions of organic life -- then sent the Geth to wipe out their old masters to the last man, woman, and child.

You might as well pick Destroy. If God-Kid isn't talking out of his shiny synthetic ass then Legion's sacrifice was for nothing either way.

[Erield]

111987 wrote...

Erield wrote...

111987 wrote...

Der Estr Bune wrote...

I agree that the Geth/EDI are not valid examples of why it's wrong, but I don't agree that it only has to happen once. If anything, I think the whole thing is probably proof that it has happened multiple times in the past. The God-Child has such a massive sample size, it's sort of naive to say, "This 300-year span invalidates the millenia of data he has!".

This. This is why I don't believe the Starchild's logic is faulty.

The only way to have proof that it will happen is that it has happened before--and yet, organic life still seems to exist. 

Why do you assume that HAS to be the only way to know?

The information we are given is in the form of an absolute.  "2 + 2 = 4."   "Synthetic life will overwhelm and eliminate all organic life."   What is your proof that it WILL happen?  Just because the avatar of the enemy you have been fighting for years says it will?  

Every cycle seems to have its own synthetic creation that rebels against the creators--the Protheans had theirs, Shepard's had his.  Doesn't this imply that, since the Reapers have been Reaping for millions of years, they might want to start the reap a bit earlier at the least?  If the end of all organic life is inevitable once artificial lifeforms start being made, then the harvest should occur before or soon after these synthetics occur.  Not hundreds of years later.

No direct evidence to say that it will never happen, but enough evidence to suggest that the enemy is, for some reason, not being honest with us.  You should not take what it says at face value.

[Lugaidster]

Ciiran wrote...

I've seen the argument here a few times and something bothered me about it.
"Peace between the Geth and the Quarians and EDIs personality proves that synthetics does not always rebel against their creators." or variations of the same sentiment.

First off, both did. Geth rebelled against quarians and EDI against Cerberus/TIM. That they were justified to do so is irrelevant. The point is that the power or the potential power of synthetics could be catastrophic. 

Secondly, the Catalyst never claimed that all synthetics always wipe out all organics, nor that it happens straight away. The Geth or indeed EDI, could very well end up gunning for total oranic destruction in 500 years, or 5 years, or never.

It does not matter. If you can show me 1 000 000 synthetic civilizations that act peacefully and only fight in self defence and the Catalyst can show you just one that is act as organocidal devil-machines, he wins the argument. His reasoning is that all it takes is one and he sacrifies all advanced organic civilizations every 50 000 years to prevent that. Neither the Geth, nor EDI, disproves anything.

Here is how his argument actually fails. Logically I mean. His premise might still be correct.
His argument is unfalsifiable. That's a big no no when constructing arguments. It's a clever rethorical device, but that does not make it true. Whatever example we fling at him he will respond "they might do it in the future or another synthetic will do it in the future. Eventually". Whatever we say and whenever we say it the Catalyst will never be proven wrong.

The real problem with this? It can be used to rationalize almost everything. He could exchange synthetics with "organics sprung from war like societies" and be just as right with the motivation that other civilizations will buff them. Like what was done with the Krogan. And given enough time he would be correct, and most importantly, his argument could not be disproven.

So your saying that we should judge people not by the content of their character but of their constituents? That's just racist to me. Anyone could rebel under those circumstances, you don't have to be a synthetic to do that. Following that logic, organic life is doomed by itself because it will always rebel against each other. We didn't need synthetics to do that...

[111987]

All the good names were taken wrote...

111987 wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

Saren also allied with the Reapers, should the races of the galaxy have banded to kill all Turians too? You know, just in case. And the second time was only because the Quarians pushed them into it.

Please tell me this argument is a joke. Completely nonsensical.

[Zine2]

The OP makes a critical error in failing to realize that Geth / EDI are the only arguments that demonstrate the Catalyst was completely wrong. It is simply the most obvious argument.

The galaxy is full of conflict. Krogans fight Turians. Turians fight Humans. Humans fight Humans. Plenty of conflicts happen in the galaxy even without the Synthetic vs Organic angle.

Therefore, the assertion that Organics and Synthetics are hard-wired to kill one another is false. Instead, the truth of the galaxy is that people will kill one another regardless of their race or component parts. There is nothing special about the Organic vs Synthetic conflict, any more than a Human vs Human conflict.

By arbitrarily classifying everyone under an "Organic" or "Synthetic" camp, the Catalyst is therefore engaging in nothing more than the ideology of hatred. It presumes that the root of the problem is your component parts, rather than the strength of your character. It completely fails to consider that conflict is instead a natural part of all sentient life; and attempting to divide them under arbitrary camps only fosters more hatred than unity and cooperation.

In short, the Catalyst was a complete and utter moron who judged people along "racial" lines. You're an Organic, so you are destined to create evil Synthetics who will genocide you. There is no room for debate. As far as it's concerned, the mere fact that you're a dirty organic dooms you down this path. Its premise was driven by ideological hatred and prejudice: No more, no less.

[scq]

The problem is that it doesn't matter. I should've allowed Sheperd to question the Catalyst's assertion. I spent 2.9 games trying to prove to the galaxy that everybody could just get along only to have the last .1 of the trilogy tell me it was all one big waste of time. The ending hardly diminishes the amazingness of the series, but it does sort of end the game in a rather large disappointment in that my choices didn't really matter much other than racking up this readiness ratio, produce more questions than answers, and if my interpretation is right, kills the universe for any possible ME-universe games which proceed from the ME3 timeline.

[Dean_the_Young]

suusuuu wrote...

First of all, from a storytelling standpoint, the Starchild logic is an insult because we work toward piece with the Geth in the game.

You can also side with the Geth to destroy the Quarians.

Neither disproves or proves the Singularity fear.

Second of all, I see no problem with the Reapers coming and saying "Organics stop making advanced AI because bad things will happen. Also, we'll protect you if something bad happens." Instead, they go all self-preservation mode out of fear that the organics will eventually create something more advanced than the Reapers.

Back up and rethink this, though.

If the Reapers shelter organics to the point that organics develope to the level of the Reapers, then the Reapers will be faced with a potential singularity threat that ALSO surpasses them. They wouldn't be able to prevent it, after a point... which you accuse them of, but don't accept also validates their priority of early targeting.

The Reaper deterence only works as long as the Reapers out-tech the singularity. Letting organics grow to that point only delays the time they either still have to be stopped, or the singularity wins. You're just delaying the showdown.

This is just bad storytelling, do you execute someone on a claim that he could do something? No.

Sure you do, depending on context. If someone claims to be a suicide bomber, for example, lethal force is usually accepted before he can pull a trigger... whether he's actually a bomber or not.

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

All the good names were taken wrote...

111987 wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

Saren also allied with the Reapers, should the races of the galaxy have banded to kill all Turians too? You know, just in case. And the second time was only because the Quarians pushed them into it.

Please tell me this argument is a joke. Completely nonsensical.

Its nonsensical to fear organic overlords, but not to fear AI overlords.  loooooooooooooooooooooool.