374 réponses à ce sujet

[21constable]

BlackAlpha wrote...

21constable wrote...

BlackAlpha wrote...

21constable wrote...

BlackAlpha wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

21constable wrote...

But is the catalyst an AI or a godlike being?

I'm going with AI because "god-like being" is way too fruity.

Personally, I'd go with godlike. Otherwise I don't know how the endings could be possible. The crucible sure as hell didn't do it, it's basically a simple fuel cell. The citadel was the catalyst that turned that energy into something. So Casper has godlike powers.

But if Casper had godlike powers, couldn't he just eradicate the synthetics everytime they started to be a threat to the organics?

About the powers. Probably not because he never had such a powerful power source before.

About the logic side. Why didn't he go for the synthetics instead of the organics? We can only assume he had his reasons. Maybe he had a good reason or maybe his reasoning was flawed. I've no idea...

My point exactly. Nothing in this character makes any sense.

Well, it's an open ending. The developers said themselves that they intended it as an open ending so that we all would go nuts. Hence we get things like the indoctrination theory...

In some cases open endings are okay but in a trilogy where you have been promised that you would get a lot of different endings depending on your actions, however, it is not.

[Felene]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

We argued a bit before, and other people in the thread are picking your argument apart, but this point I want to address again because nobody is doing a good job of tackling it.

terdferguson123 wrote...

2.) The Catalyst is a computer/AI, it only understands mathematics. The mathematics behind the probobility of organics destroying themselves eventaully is astounding, in turn, the Catalyst must do what is most mathematically efficient to prevent this from happening.

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

We know with certainty that synthetics have never wiped out all organic life, because organic life still exists. There is no way to know what the chance of a singularity wiping out all organic life is, because it has never happened.

If your assumption that the Catalyst only understands mathematics is true, then it is incapable of even conceiving of this situation on its own.

Also, it is believed that the Reapers and the boy are synthetics. Some people disagree about whether they really are or not, but let's assume for a moment that they are, and the Catalyst isn't lying about the purpose of the Reapers. This means that somebody created the Reapers. If the Catalyst created them, then somebody created the Catalyst to prevent the elimination of all organic life. If someone programmed the Catalyst to assume that synthetics will eventually destroy organics completely, then this would explain why it thinks that. But it's still wrong because the destruction of all organic life has never happened.

Ding Ding Ding Ding!

We have a winner.

[terdferguson123]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

We argued a bit before, and other people in the thread are picking your argument apart, but this point I want to address again because nobody is doing a good job of tackling it.

terdferguson123 wrote...

2.) The Catalyst is a computer/AI, it only understands mathematics. The mathematics behind the probobility of organics destroying themselves eventaully is astounding, in turn, the Catalyst must do what is most mathematically efficient to prevent this from happening.

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

We know with certainty that synthetics have never wiped out all organic life, because organic life still exists. There is no way to know what the chance of a singularity wiping out all organic life is, because it has never happened.

If your assumption that the Catalyst only understands mathematics is true, then it is incapable of even conceiving of this situation on its own.

Also, it is believed that the Reapers and the boy are synthetics. Some people disagree about whether they really are or not, but let's assume for a moment that they are, and the Catalyst isn't lying about the purpose of the Reapers. This means that somebody created the Reapers. If the Catalyst created them, then somebody created the Catalyst to prevent the elimination of all organic life. If someone programmed the Catalyst to assume that synthetics will eventually destroy organics completely, then this would explain why it thinks that. But it's still wrong because the destruction of all organic life has never happened.

Life can recreate itself, (see the Miller-Urey experiment) It's VERY possible, that the very organics that created the Catalyst were wiped out by Synthetics (as well as all organics). There is no way to tell if Organics were wiped from the face of the galaxy or not, but if it did, it's not such a leap of faith to think that it could eventually recreate itself. Or better yet, what if the Catalyst itself/synthetics were responsible for rekindling the correct environment for it to happen? Afterall the Geth show their abilities to help their masters after the conflict.

My point is, it's just as much a leap of faith to say that it's never happened as it is to say that it did. So, your post, while very well thought out, is just as much of a speculation as anything else.

Modifié par terdferguson123, 24 mars 2012 - 09:26 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Starchild's logic is flawed. Captain Kirk would have made it short out and self destruct. Hence Kirk > Shepard

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 24 mars 2012 - 09:23 .

[Evil Minion]

dointime85 wrote...

Wildhide wrote...

dointime85 wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

KrabFace wrote...

Why are people trying to justify the logic?
It doesn't make sense. End of story

+1.

I've never needed to agree with "villain logic" before, and I don't now.

C-SEC Officer: "Why can't the Hanar act in an orderly fashion?"
Shep: "Because it's a big, stupid jellyfish."

ME Fans: "Why doesn't Reaper logic make sense."
Evil Minion: "Because they're a bunch of stupid, giant, metal squids."

Nobody justifies the logic, neither me nor the OP, all we're trying to say that it makes sense for an AI with a limited moral understanding and a limited understanding of human/Asari/Prothean/etc. nature to think that way. It's logic is horribly flawed and freaking genocidal bull****, no doubt about that!

And yet Bioware decided to just have Shepard agree with it and do exactly what it tells him to do like a good, little doggie.  Despite knowing this is essentially another Reaper (or their leader).  The lying, manipulating mostrousities wiping out the galaxy, Shepard just smiles and nods are the catalysts "logic" and goes to enact his favorite color of destruction on the galaxy.

The three things that ****** me off most about the ending are the Normandy Nonsense, Shepard suddenly not being Shepard to give up and do what the bad guy says (Since when does he surrender so easily?), and the fact Bioware thought after making a character driven game I'd not care about the fates of those same characters and the universe in favor of pseudo-philosophy that's completely out of place with the story and doesn't fit the theme.  Utterly tacked on and lazy.

Read above: The catalyst is not a "bad guy", it's a horribly flawed, limited AI which has lost control over the reapers (at least according to the November leak script). It has no intentions beyond executing its task, which is to provide a solution to the problem of technological singularity. Arguing with him is useless, because he doesn't understand why the reaper form cannot store the essence of organic life. And its out of function. The reapers will continue the cycle without him (again, too bad that this was cut from the original script) but Shepard can stop it in any of the three ways. The three choices are determined by the crucible and how many resources you managed to put into its built, they are not granted but simply explained by the catalyst. A conventional war cannot be won (as Hackett acknowledged).

Bioware totally managed to **** up this message after the final dialogue was shortened but if you understand this, then it makes as much sense to express your moral outrage with the catalyst as with a crash of your computer.

This.

[bo_7md]

terdferguson123 wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

We argued a bit before, and other people in the thread are picking your argument apart, but this point I want to address again because nobody is doing a good job of tackling it.

terdferguson123 wrote...

2.) The Catalyst is a computer/AI, it only understands mathematics. The mathematics behind the probobility of organics destroying themselves eventaully is astounding, in turn, the Catalyst must do what is most mathematically efficient to prevent this from happening.

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

We know with certainty that synthetics have never wiped out all organic life, because organic life still exists. There is no way to know what the chance of a singularity wiping out all organic life is, because it has never happened.

If your assumption that the Catalyst only understands mathematics is true, then it is incapable of even conceiving of this situation on its own.

Also, it is believed that the Reapers and the boy are synthetics. Some people disagree about whether they really are or not, but let's assume for a moment that they are, and the Catalyst isn't lying about the purpose of the Reapers. This means that somebody created the Reapers. If the Catalyst created them, then somebody created the Catalyst to prevent the elimination of all organic life. If someone programmed the Catalyst to assume that synthetics will eventually destroy organics completely, then this would explain why it thinks that. But it's still wrong because the destruction of all organic life has never happened.

Life can recreate itself, (see the Miller-Urey experiment) It's VERY possible, that the very organics that created the Catalyst were wiped out by Synthetics (as well as all organics). There is no way to tell if Organics were wiped from the face of the galaxy or not, but if it did, it's not such a leap of faith to think that it could eventually recreate itself.

or it could be that he saw a pattern or was programmed by someone who did. Seeing organics destroy themselves over and over just proves he is right. Even in this cycle there is a reason True AI were not allowed by the citadel.

[lillitheris]

dointime85 wrote...
It's the Crucible which opened up the new possibilities. They were non-existent for the catalyst as a program, before.

And somehow the same "AI"* that can extrapolate that synthetics will destroy organics without any proof thereof (obviously it cannot have happened yet) is incapable of taking into account that said organics could develop abilities that would help it come up with a different solution, and maybe change its strategy to something that doesn't involve killing everybody?

Rationalizations.


* Y'all still using the word wrong, an AI isn't bound by program limits any more than humans are. Even the game itself explains AI vs. VI. If you want to postulate it's just a big program, that's fine. Just don't call it an AI.

[BlackAlpha]

Mighty_BOB_cnc wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

We argued a bit before, and other people in the thread are picking your argument apart, but this point I want to address again because nobody is doing a good job of tackling it.

terdferguson123 wrote...

2.) The Catalyst is a computer/AI, it only understands mathematics. The mathematics behind the probobility of organics destroying themselves eventaully is astounding, in turn, the Catalyst must do what is most mathematically efficient to prevent this from happening.

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

We know with certainty that synthetics have never wiped out all organic life, because organic life still exists. There is no way to know what the chance of a singularity wiping out all organic life is, because it has never happened.

If your assumption that the Catalyst only understands mathematics is true, then it is incapable of even conceiving of this situation on its own.

Also, it is believed that the Reapers and the boy are synthetics. Some people disagree about whether they really are or not, but let's assume for a moment that they are, and the Catalyst isn't lying about the purpose of the Reapers. This means that somebody created the Reapers. If the Catalyst created them, then somebody created the Catalyst to prevent the elimination of all organic life. If someone programmed the Catalyst to assume that synthetics will eventually destroy organics completely, then this would explain why it thinks that. But it's still wrong because the destruction of all organic life has never happened.

This post is winning.

It's like saying we shouldn't worry about nuclear bombs. We have never actually seen the Earth go out in a fiery nuclear blaze, so such things probably cannot happen.

You CAN predict what will happen in the future. You can draw conclusions from things other than experience. For example, maybe someone once saw that organic life came very close to extinction at one point, and without intervention all organic life would've been wiped out in the next 10/100/1000 years.

Another example, if you see a plane high in the sky with a wing broken off, then you can be pretty damn sure that the plane will soon crash onto the ground. No doubt about it.

[Kuari999]

When you destroy all that makes organic life what it is in order to save it? Yeah, that's flawed and circular logic. This isn't a matter of opinion.

I hate using wiki for this but:
http://en.wikipedia....cular_reasoning

Its the EXACT definition of it. I'm sorry, but that sort of logic never works, so while I don't mind the catalyst having crappy logic like that, I sure as hell don't want my Shepard agreeing with it.

[dointime85]

terdferguson123 wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

We argued a bit before, and other people in the thread are picking your argument apart, but this point I want to address again because nobody is doing a good job of tackling it.

terdferguson123 wrote...

2.) The Catalyst is a computer/AI, it only understands mathematics. The mathematics behind the probobility of organics destroying themselves eventaully is astounding, in turn, the Catalyst must do what is most mathematically efficient to prevent this from happening.

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

We know with certainty that synthetics have never wiped out all organic life, because organic life still exists. There is no way to know what the chance of a singularity wiping out all organic life is, because it has never happened.

If your assumption that the Catalyst only understands mathematics is true, then it is incapable of even conceiving of this situation on its own.

Also, it is believed that the Reapers and the boy are synthetics. Some people disagree about whether they really are or not, but let's assume for a moment that they are, and the Catalyst isn't lying about the purpose of the Reapers. This means that somebody created the Reapers. If the Catalyst created them, then somebody created the Catalyst to prevent the elimination of all organic life. If someone programmed the Catalyst to assume that synthetics will eventually destroy organics completely, then this would explain why it thinks that. But it's still wrong because the destruction of all organic life has never happened.

Life can recreate itself, (see the Miller-Urey experiment) It's VERY possible, that the very organics that created the Catalyst were wiped out by Synthetics (as well as all organics). There is no way to tell if Organics were wiped from the face of the galaxy or not, but if it did, it's not such a leap of faith to think that it could eventually recreate itself.

They could have been wiped out partially or seen earlier extinction of organics followed by extinction of synthetics, but it doesn't really matter: All that matters are the data that the catalyst has been fed with. And they may well lead to the conclusion that ultimate extinction through conflict is inevitable. Of course, this neglects that this is always the result of choices which depend on free will. But the catalyst likely doesn't understand that: his idea of preservation of organic life shows that he doesn't understand that this preservation is meaningless if freedom is eradicated (as is the case with the reapers).

[Evil Minion]

In some cases open endings are okay but in a trilogy where you have been promised that you would get a lot of different endings depending on your actions, however, it is not.

Agreed.

I don't mind ambiguous endings, but I don't think they "work" in video games.

Most people who pay $60.00 want some definitive closure.

[jengelb1]

It's not really that hard to understand it's "logic". Its the kind of thinking you hear if you talk to the inmates in a facility for the criminally insane. The reapers went from being Lovecraftian horrors to being the pawns of a psychotic, psychopathic AI.

That's why it doesn't make sense. The thought process of a psychopath is alien and incomprehensible to normal people. The fact that you don't understand what the hell this thing is talking about just means you're not a lunatic.

This thing has no empathy, compassion, or conscience. It is a murderous monster without a shred of remorse for its actions or even the slightest inkling that it could be incorrect. It assumes that any AI that exists or could exists is just as sick and twisted as itself, because it can't comprehend why they wouldn't be. It only sees things in terms of itself, and since it has no respect for life, why would any other AI?

That said, the entire thing is mindbogglingly stupid. The big bad of the entire trilogy is a just a run-of-the-the mill psychopath. How original.

[Sunnyhat1]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

So when they had the very first lottery they couldn't determine the odds of winning because nobody hit the jackpot yet?

As much as i'd love to agree with the rest of your post. Errm yeah ..no. Sorry.

You can compute the probability of any event. It's just a question of information.

[Helishorn]

The problem is that when you break a story down and really look at it the whole dammed thing falls apart in the face of logic. Let's just take a look at a few?

So Frodo has to carry the ring the whole way? The mighty wizard can't do anything to speed up the trip...like summon giant eagles to help out or something? And while im at it why is it you dont ever see any real magic effects from gandalf? I mean sure he stops the balrog with a shield spell. But after that he only does a few parlor tricks at best

So why is it that every episode of star trek forgets about the technology that was created in the last episode?

So harry potter gets a hold of a time travel necklace and they are in a hurry to stop something? There's no hurry...you have necklace that lets you time travel...you could to France for a few days and then pop back in time to take care of whatever you need to do with no worries!

So in empire strikes back Luke goes to get trained by Yoda at the same time his friends are being chased by the empire. By the looks of it Han and the crew are on the run for a few days to a week. Meanwhile Luke picks up the force like it's as easy as mowing the lawn. His final test? Defeat Darth Vader! Does it seem like this is a huge jump in skill level? 'Hey..You have gone through a week of basic training. If you want to stay in the marines you're going to have to defeat seal team six. Good luck!.'

Is it any wonder the whole mass effect series falls apart when you look at it like this?

[21constable]

Evil Minion wrote...

In some cases open endings are okay but in a trilogy where you have been promised that you would get a lot of different endings depending on your actions, however, it is not.

Agreed.

I don't mind ambiguous endings, but I don't think they "work" in video games.

Most people who pay $60.00 want some definitive closure.

In Silent Hill games they worked but not in this one. There should have just been a concrete ending. If this game would have been an independent game and not a trilogy it could have worked.

[terdferguson123]

Kuari999 wrote...

When you destroy all that makes organic life what it is in order to save it? Yeah, that's flawed and circular logic. This isn't a matter of opinion.

I hate using wiki for this but:
http://en.wikipedia....cular_reasoning

Its the EXACT definition of it. I'm sorry, but that sort of logic never works, so while I don't mind the catalyst having crappy logic like that, I sure as hell don't want my Shepard agreeing with it.

No, it isn't, because your presuming to know what "All that makes organic life what it is" All that organic life is, is carbon based life (while, in science it's not confirmed if life on other planets would be carbon based it is VERY much believed that it would be). If they are preventing the destruction of carbon based life in any way, then it is not circular logic.

[bo_7md]

Kuari999 wrote...

When you destroy all that makes organic life what it is in order to save it? Yeah, that's flawed and circular logic. This isn't a matter of opinion.

I hate using wiki for this but:
http://en.wikipedia....cular_reasoning

Its the EXACT definition of it. I'm sorry, but that sort of logic never works, so while I don't mind the catalyst having crappy logic like that, I sure as hell don't want my Shepard agreeing with it.

The prothean VI on Ilos mentions that the pattern repeats every cycle, every cycle organics create synthitics. Every cycle they repel against them how is this a fallacy ? It is a fact.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Evil Minion wrote...

In some cases open endings are okay but in a trilogy where you have been promised that you would get a lot of different endings depending on your actions, however, it is not.

Agreed.

I don't mind ambiguous endings, but I don't think they "work" in video games.

Most people who pay $60.00 want some definitive closure.

Paying $9 to sit through a 2 hr movie with an ambiguous ending is one thing. Paying $60-90 to play a 40+ hr game to get a craptastic ending like we got is something entirely different.

[Sunnyhat1]

21constable wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

In some cases open endings are okay but in a trilogy where you have been promised that you would get a lot of different endings depending on your actions, however, it is not.

Agreed.

I don't mind ambiguous endings, but I don't think they "work" in video games.

Most people who pay $60.00 want some definitive closure.

In Silent Hill games they worked but not in this one. There should have just been a concrete ending. If this game would have been an independent game and not a trilogy it could have worked.

The japanese are (more) used to these kind of endings. Anime are full of it. So no surprise with Konami games.

[Evil Minion]

lillitheris wrote...

dointime85 wrote...
It's the Crucible which opened up the new possibilities. They were non-existent for the catalyst as a program, before.

And somehow the same "AI"* that can extrapolate that synthetics will destroy organics without any proof thereof (obviously it cannot have happened yet) is incapable of taking into account that said organics could develop abilities that would help it come up with a different solution, and maybe change its strategy to something that doesn't involve killing everybody?

Rationalizations.


* Y'all still using the word wrong, an AI isn't bound by program limits any more than humans are. Even the game itself explains AI vs. VI. If you want to postulate it's just a big program, that's fine. Just don't call it an AI.

I would say AIs ARE somewhat more bound by program limits than organics.

In any case, if you accept that AIs have the same range of "choice" that we do, then you must accept that AIs are every bit as capable as we are of being misled by faulty logic.

I once again reference Hitler. He may have thought in his deepest heart that he was doing something "good" for humanity, and us disagreeing with his "logic" wouldn't make a bit of difference.

If an organic is capable of being screwed in the head, so should an AI (if you accept that AIs have the same "choices" as organics).

[Wildhide]

jengelb1 wrote...

It's not really that hard to understand it's "logic". Its the kind of thinking you hear if you talk to the inmates in a facility for the criminally insane. The reapers went from being Lovecraftian horrors to being the pawns of a psychotic, psychopathic AI.

That's why it doesn't make sense. The thought process of a psychopath is alien and incomprehensible to normal people. The fact that you don't understand what the hell this thing is talking about just means you're not a lunatic.

This thing has no empathy, compassion, or conscience. It is a murderous monster without a shred of remorse for its actions or even the slightest inkling that it could be incorrect. It assumes that any AI that exists or could exists is just as sick and twisted as itself, because it can't comprehend why they wouldn't be. It only sees things in terms of itself, and since it has no respect for life, why would any other AI?

That said, the entire thing is mindbogglingly stupid. The big bad of the entire trilogy is a just a run-of-the-the mill psychopath. How original.

This.

I understand how people have decided to understand the Catalyst, but it's just such a weak, silly way to end the series.  And I'll never appreciate the tacking on of th Deus Ex decisions to this game.  They don't fit, and the grimdark you have to lose to win thing isn't interesting.

The reapers were far more intriguing when they were this unknown horror .  I expected the Crucible to somehow tip the scale of the battle into your favor, not just blow everything up and kill of Shepard. 

I would have liked to see a means to survive or die depending on how I played it out.  Shepard doesn't have to die, he also doesn't have to live.   The Narrative always screamed never give up and overcome the odds.  Hackett even calls Shepard out on surviving and doing the impossible while bringing everyone else along for the ride after Rannoch.

Then at the end it just says nevermind to that whole theme for the Catalyst informing us that you just lose, the end.  Bioware attached us to allt he characters of the story, then just negates them for the end of the game and theire personas.

Ugh, the Reapers were so much more interesting and scary when they were using organic life to build more of themselves, not the whole "Yo Dawg" thing.

[21constable]

Helishorn wrote...

The problem is that when you break a story down and really look at it the whole dammed thing falls apart in the face of logic. Let's just take a look at a few?

So Frodo has to carry the ring the whole way? The mighty wizard can't do anything to speed up the trip...like summon giant eagles to help out or something? And while im at it why is it you dont ever see any real magic effects from gandalf? I mean sure he stops the balrog with a shield spell. But after that he only does a few parlor tricks at best

So why is it that every episode of star trek forgets about the technology that was created in the last episode?

So harry potter gets a hold of a time travel necklace and they are in a hurry to stop something? There's no hurry...you have necklace that lets you time travel...you could to France for a few days and then pop back in time to take care of whatever you need to do with no worries!

So in empire strikes back Luke goes to get trained by Yoda at the same time his friends are being chased by the empire. By the looks of it Han and the crew are on the run for a few days to a week. Meanwhile Luke picks up the force like it's as easy as mowing the lawn. His final test? Defeat Darth Vader! Does it seem like this is a huge jump in skill level? 'Hey..You have gone through a week of basic training. If you want to stay in the marines you're going to have to defeat seal team six. Good luck!.'

Is it any wonder the whole mass effect series falls apart when you look at it like this?

Your post is a proof that there are always some kind of inconsistencies in every plot, no matter how well done or classic they are. However in this game most of these inconsistencies happen in the final half of an hour, which is unacceptable.

[Zeppex]

My whole problem with the logic behind the reapers motives make no sense at all. Essentially, we make synthetics, then those synthetics kill organics so that synthetics don't kill organics.

Couldn't the reapers send a Vanguard like Soverign and tell the races yeah we made everything plz stop making synthetics. Or they could just be in regular space and help the races comprehend stuff.

But I think deep down inside the reapers don't fear a powerful Synthetic coming along that could destroy them. I think they fear an Organic race eventually surpassing them. One example, they could take the reaper tech and make it better, That would then nullify the reapers etc.

[Kuari999]

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

21constable wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

In some cases open endings are okay but in a trilogy where you have been promised that you would get a lot of different endings depending on your actions, however, it is not.

Agreed.

I don't mind ambiguous endings, but I don't think they "work" in video games.

Most people who pay $60.00 want some definitive closure.

In Silent Hill games they worked but not in this one. There should have just been a concrete ending. If this game would have been an independent game and not a trilogy it could have worked.

The japanese are (more) used to these kind of endings. Anime are full of it. So no surprise with Konami games.

Anime and such don't end nonsensically though when they do this...  well, ok, there are exceptions.  Some just suddenly go off the wall, and while they are terrible in their writing in those cases, they make an effort to make it awesome in other ways.  This is not what happened here..

[JulienJaden]

I understand the idea behind the Catalyst's reasoning.

However, it had to be created at some point. Whoever created it had to be faced with what Catalyst was supposed to prevent.
So, what happened to them? They ordered the Catalyst to find a solution and then it invented the Reapers and wiped them from the face of the galaxy? And we know they couldn't have been close to extinction because otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to muster the manpower necessary to create the Catalyst or the Citadel. And if they didn't need manpower for them, they could have simply gotten rid of the crazy AI and its minions again. Self-preservation is a pretty high priority for every race and none would abandon it lightly, just to "save everybody else". 

So, basically, whoever set all this in motion was supposed to let the Reapers, synthethic beings, willingly destroy them so that synthetic beings wouldn't destroy them and everything else?
And why would synthetics eliminate all life? Why would they do that? Did the geth kill all the plants and animals? Did EDI kill anyone on the Normandy? Did that AI on the Citadel ever mention that it had the urge to see every organic cell in the universe wither and die?

Again: Why should synthetics kill every living being? If they don't feel threatened by it, they'd much rather study it. And if they don't want to study it, they'll ignore it. A VI might argue that a primitive organism could evolve into a threat in a matter of million years and want to eliminate it preemptively. But an AI that is self-aware and doesn't solely rely on math is bit smarter than that, and probably more curious.


So, your argumentation is good, kudos for that, but the underlying idea that the whole argumentation is based on makes no sense which, again, is evidence of poor writing and things not being thought through properly.
If what I've heard is true and we have Casey and Mac to thank for this, and Casey really is the analytic type, I wonder how he could overlook this.

Well, here's hoping they will give us something better soon.

Modifié par JulienJaden, 24 mars 2012 - 09:37 .