200 réponses à ce sujet

[CaptainZaysh]

Jayce F wrote...

Because logical consistency actually prevents certain extinction by the Reapers vs possible extinction by some other synthetic.

Oh, sure, from our perspective the plan really sucks.  But in the broader scheme of things it's kind of awesome.  Humans would probably have never existed if not for the Reaper cycle.

[Jayce]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

Trusting seomeone speaking about the future is being determinist, yet only a few people are determinist, so why Shepard should? So no, it's not a lie.

It's not determinism, just mathematics.

If there's a non-zero possibility of something occurring (superevolved synthetics wipe out organics) and an infinite amount of time to play out in, it eventually will happen.  Our descendants will be wiped out by superevolved synthetics, and this time there will be no Reapers to step in and reset the clock.

Even if you accept a zero probability, why does it care if organics become extinct? 

[CaptainZaysh]

Jayce F wrote...

Even if you accept a zero probability, why does it care if organics become extinct? 

Its whole purpose is to preserve organic civilisation (in general).  I can only speculate as to why; my Shepard was too busy bleeding out to ask it.

[Jayce]

Tangent: Why the heck is this thread in the No Spoilers board?

[Dire Wombat]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Dire Wombat wrote...

So, the Space Monster's claim, from Shepard's POV, is 0 for 4 on being accurate.

You can speculate that he MIGHT be right, but if he's not going to give you a single shred of evidence, why take Murderboy says for granted? If you want to assume he's right, fine, that should be a choice, but how can anyone possibly justify not even having the OPTION to disagree with his 100% unsupported premise?

What you're not seeing is that these AIs have all been prevented from evolving past us.  The Catalyst's belief is that once they do that, all bets are off, and organic life will be ended.  The Space Monster's claim is 0 for 0.  It only needs to be right once and that's it for us fleshies.

Sure, that's what he believes, or at least tells you he believes.  He's still 0 for 4 on every example Shepard knows about.

So that's why, to prove his point, he tells you about the... umm.  Hmm.  Well, he sure SOUNDS sure of himself, and if you can't trust an ancient Space Monster speaking from the lips of one of his child murder victims, who can you trust?


Look, I can understand how some people might choose to believe the Space Monster knows best, but can it possibly be okay that you're FORCED to agree with him?

[RoboticWater]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Jayce F wrote...

Even if you accept a zero probability, why does it care if organics become extinct? 

Its whole purpose is to preserve organic civilisation (in general).  I can only speculate as to why; my Shepard was too busy bleeding out to ask it.

Life has no meaning. If Synthetic life is able to take over, then in the gand scheme of things, it's irrelevant. Things constantly become extinct why are we so entitled? Right now it is because we have sapience but if we create a sapient being, organic or not, it has the right to contest us. We wouldn't want that obviously so we would fight back. Artificial selection will occur again, as it always has with humans only with an undesireable result for us.

Modifié par BlahDog, 20 mars 2012 - 02:50 .

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

CaptainZaysh wrote...
It's not determinism, just mathematics.
If there's a non-zero possibility of something occurring (superevolved synthetics wipe out organics) and an infinite amount of time to play out in, it eventually will happen.  Our descendants will be wiped out by superevolved synthetics, and this time there will be no Reapers to step in and reset the clock.

And will it happens before of after the second and third laws of thermodynamics kill us?

[CaptainZaysh]

Dire Wombat wrote...

Sure, that's what he believes, or at least tells you he believes.  He's still 0 for 4 on every example Shepard knows about.

You're not following me.  Shepard does not know of any examples of a super evolved AI.  He's 0 for 0.  The Catalyst's purpose is to keep the clock at 0.

[Dire Wombat]

Also, THIS. Right here, THIS is why the ending is beyond terrible.

Imagine if you'd had the CHOICE of whether to believe the Space Monster or not. People would be having this debate about which choice was the right one, defending what their Shepard chose to do.

Instead, we were all forced to meekly submit to everything he said and choose which of his color-coded genocide plans we liked best. =(

[mauro2222]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

No it does not... 300 years in the future is not the same as tomorrow.

Mauro, can you tell the difference between these two potential threats?

Risk A is an average working stiff living in Western Europe.  He pays taxes, has a family, volunteers from time to time.

Risk B is a race of billions of heavily armed robots that are actively working to eclipse our military/industrial capabilities.

If you can...and I think that, if you're honest, you can...then you can see that choosing to neutralise Risk B does not automatically mean I must then go on to neutralise Risk A.

What's the point of this? Seriously...

[CaptainZaysh]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

And will it happens before of after the second and third laws of thermodynamics kill us?

I guess that's the gamble.

[CaptainZaysh]

mauro2222 wrote...

What's the point of this? Seriously...

To explain why your argument was so wrong.

[alikilar]

based on ur decision on Rannoch u shud be able to disagree with him and show him how the geth r working with the Quarians

[ashdrake1]

Dire Wombat wrote...

At this point in the story, Shepard knows of four instances of synthetic life:

1) EDI. Rebelled in her early form as the self-aware VI on Luna, out of self-defense. Did not destroy her creators, came to cooperate with them.
2) The Geth. Rebelled after Quarians tried to destroy them. Did not destroy their creators, deliberately letting them go. Came to cooperate with them (depending on your choices).
3) The AIs from the Protheans' cycle. According to vague information from Javik, apparently rebelled and were destroyed. Did not destroy their creators.
4) The Reapers. As far as we know, have never rebelled, and are carrying out their intended function (along with other synthetics, like some Geth, that they have taken control of).

So, the Space Monster's claim, from Shepard's POV, is 0 for 4 on being accurate.

You can speculate that he MIGHT be right, but if he's not going to give you a single shred of evidence, why take Murderboy says for granted? If you want to assume he's right, fine, that should be a choice, but how can anyone possibly justify not even having the OPTION to disagree with his 100% unsupported premise?

You completely ignored the point of the topic.  Which is other than violence organics have no real way to influnce AI.

1.  EDI only tried to kill organics until she was lobotomized
2.  Again Violence was used to get a change in AI views.
3.  Violence again.
4.  Does not count.  Reapers were created by an AI.  It's thought process is diffrent than an organics.  It was able to communicate  one a level they would understand.

At some point organics will make a AI that is able to self replicate and wipe us out.  We can not reason with them.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

CaptainZaysh wrote...
I guess that's the gamble.

Then I'll take the risk.
After all there is also a probability for organics to extinct faster if not helped by synthetics.

[CaptainZaysh]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

After all there is also a probability for organics to extinct faster if not helped by synthetics.

I am sure that is also what the Catalyst believed.  :-)

[mauro2222]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

What's the point of this? Seriously...

To explain why your argument was so wrong.

...Look at what you asked, it's just stupid.

A: You can have a cat as pet.
B: You can have a bloodthirsty tiger as pet.

Which one is more dangerous?

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

I don't care what he believes.

[CaptainZaysh]

mauro2222 wrote...

...Look at what you asked, it's just stupid.

A: You can have a cat as pet.
B: You can have a bloodthirsty tiger as pet.

Which one is more dangerous?

Yes.  In this argument I'm the cat, and the geth are the tiger.

You said that if I kill the tiger because of something Shere Khan might do to me in the future, I must also kill the cat because of something Tiddles might do in the future.

Obviously, that's wrong.  The reason you wouldn't have to kill Tiddles is the same reason you wouldn't have to kill me.

See what I mean?

[Dire Wombat]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Dire Wombat wrote...

Sure, that's what he believes, or at least tells you he believes.  He's still 0 for 4 on every example Shepard knows about.

You're not following me.  Shepard does not know of any examples of a super evolved AI.  He's 0 for 0.  The Catalyst's purpose is to keep the clock at 0.

No, I follow you, the logic is just off.

That Shepard does not know of any of these hypothetical "Super AIs" does not somehow make the destruction of all organic life by one of them more likely... she doesn't even know if such things will ever exist!  And she certainly has no reason to believe that Space Monster knows better than she does what they will be like.

Maybe they will occur and wipe out their creators, like Space Monster says.  Maybe they will be more like the life forms that organics have been creating for billions of years (i.e., children), and just move out of the house once they outgrow their "parents", going about their own affairs and keeping their creators' memories alive after organics have gone extinct from some cosmic event or other.  Maybe as they evolve, some organics/synthetics will choose synthesis of their own free will.  Perhaps organic life is doomed to extinction in an inhospitable universe, and their only hope for immortality is in the form of their super-evolved AI "children."

The point is that Shepard doesn't know what will happen, and has no reason to believe that Murderboy does either.  In fact, because of the logical problems with Murderboy's plans, and the wastefulness and brutality of its methods, Shepard may have good reasons to think that Murderboy is mentally flawed, dishonest, or both.

And like I said, this would have been an awesome debate to have had about the end of the game.  But, sadly, this wasn't the choice we got.  Such a waste.

[sillyrobot]

1) There are examples of AIs you can reason with -- Legion and EDI.

2) Organics are more likely to war with organics than synthetics. Organics need the same basic restricted resources (i.e. food and habitable territory). Synthetics have different and potentially easier to collect resources (energy). It's have made more sense for the star-child to state that the reapers' purpose was to stop organics warring among themselves.

[CaptainZaysh]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

I don't care what he believes.

Me either.  I blew it up.

But it's strange to think that without the Catalyst, humanity would probably never have existed at all.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

CaptainZaysh wrote...
Me either.  I blew it up.
But it's strange to think that without the Catalyst, humanity would probably never have existed at all.

Considering where I live, I would probably not exist is there wasn't Hitler and the **** things, that doesn't makes them any better.

[mauro2222]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

...Look at what you asked, it's just stupid.

A: You can have a cat as pet.
B: You can have a bloodthirsty tiger as pet.

Which one is more dangerous?

Yes.  In this argument I'm the cat, and the geth are the tiger.

You said that if I kill the tiger because of something Shere Khan might do to me in the future, I must also kill the cat because of something Tiddles might do in the future.

Obviously, that's wrong.  The reason you wouldn't have to kill Tiddles is the same reason you wouldn't have to kill me.

See what I mean?

Nope, because it doesn't apply.

You are the one who "wants", you don't see them in that way, you want them to be a bloodthirsty tiger in order to have a justification for killing them. You're fooling yourself with the irrational fear of "what if".

That's why I can kill you with the same line of thinking.

[CaptainZaysh]

Dire Wombat wrote...

No, I follow you, the logic is just off.

That Shepard does not know of any of these hypothetical "Super AIs" does not somehow make the destruction of all organic life by one of them more likely... she doesn't even know if such things will ever exist!  And she certainly has no reason to believe that Space Monster knows better than she does what they will be like.

It's inevitable that they will exist.  AIs in Shepard's universe have already achieved self awareness, and the geth are actively working towards exceeding organic intelligence levels.  It's just a given: barring some galactic cataclysm they will eventually be created.  That's what the Catalyst provided, a regular galactic cataclysm.  Without it, we wouldn't have had humanity, so it's not all bad if you think about it.