374 réponses à ce sujet

[Flextt]

EDI is also an AI, an unshackled one at that. If everything is math to her, how does she value concepts like life and loyality?

[Teacher50]

terdferguson123 wrote...

Teacher50 wrote...

Wow another one with a theory...

An excerpt from a post I made at Forbes:

"Rationalizations to make the ending work abound and are just wrong however well portrayed or conceived."

What is theoretical about this? I am only trying to explain the way a machine would think about reaching its goal (via mathematics) it's not like the indoc or hallucination theory, did you even read the post?

Yea I did... twice. Great amount of thought and work. The problem is the that the ending writer didn't put that much work in it so I don't give them credit for it.

[terdferguson123]

lillitheris wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

I already addressed it and I am not ignoring it. Let me restate it. His post, while well reasoned, does not have enough information, because it implies that organic life hasn't been wiped off the face of the galaxy before. There is no way to tell, becuase over time life can recreate itself: see this wikipedia post on the Miller-Urey experiment. http://en.wikipedia....rey_experiment.

The point is, that him saying it has happened, is presumptios given how radical the Catalyst is about this. It's quite blatantly obvious it has happened considering it's goal.

If organic life can revive itself, or be reborn entirely, then there is no problem for the Catalyst to solve. I'm not quite sure what you're arguing.

It can revive itself yes, but the diversity that already exists due to what is currently habitable would completely change and be lost. My point is, that losing the entirety of life and relying on it revive (even though its possible) is an incredible gamble, probobly not one that a mathematical machine such as the Catalyst would take.

[Flextt]

Theoretically, the Catalyst's assumption must be based on a precedent. But if synthetics would have wiped out all organic life, how come the cycle was able to continue every 50000 years?

If this has never happened, the Catalyst falls victim to his own hypocrisy.

[Evil Minion]

lillitheris wrote...

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

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.

In order to have sufficient information to make the probability in any way reasonable, it would need to have enough information that it could just as well predict when, how, and where it will happen. Then it could simply destroy the offending synthetics.

So no, it's not a probability. You can argue that it's simply been given the instruction.

...

It's just rationalization. The truth is that anything intelligent enough to create what seems to be at least a very complex program would not have implemented such logic.

Anyway, it doesn't even matter. Regardless of what the Catalyst's logic is, the fundamental problem is that Shepard just accepts it.

Sorry, but that's just assumption.

We have no way of knowing who the inventors of the Reapers were, or what their motives could be. Or even if their original plan got "corrupted" in the course of carrying out their designs.

You're just assuming an "intelligent" race would have the same thought-processes and values as you.

Liara's conflicts with Javik illustrate this point.

[Iron Spetsnaz]

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

Forget the last 15 minutes of ME3 for a second and agree with me to the following outlines:

- Organics are NOT destined to be destroyed by their creations (synthetics)
- The Galaxy is threatened by a buildup of dark energy.
   (According to the orginal story / hinted at in ME2's Tali mission on Haestrom)
- The Reapers where created to find a solution to the dark energy buildup. Advancing themselfs every 50.000 years by culling other advanced civilisations.

-

- I sorta agree with you on that.
- The reapers were created 37 million years ago,
- why would they just wipe out species every 50'000 years just so they can create extra reapers, couldn't they just stop the Dark-Energy build-up and be done with it?, and also the reapers could have just asked for co-operation in stopping the dark energy

Now take in these pointers from the game stories.

- The Reapers/Collectors showed a special interest in humans in ME2.
- They even went as far is to attempt creation of a human reaper.
- In ME3 war learn that protheans also had a special interest in humans.
- The protheans seemed to believe we where the "missing link" to complete the crucible.

Now what would these assumptions lead to?
Here is my take on it:

- The reapers believed a human reaper would be an effective weapon/tool/cure/etc. against the dark energy buildup.
- The crucible's purpose is unclear, but likely also related to the dark energy problem.
  (Not a magic weapon against all reapers acruss the galaxy)
- There could be numerous outcomes once the crucible is activated. From total anihilation as far as to peace with the reapers once their purpose is fullfilled.
- Academy Award worthy ending right here.

- No it wasn't, it was because the humans killed Sovereign, and this resulted in the rest of the reapers becoming interested in humans because they killed the first reaper in 37 million years, and harginger wanted to transform the humans into a reaper so that humans would recieve ascension
- The crucible's purpoes was suppsedly similar to the weapon used on the derelict reaper.
- That maybe an Award worthy ending but it could have also backfired aswell, just like the current ending we've got.

Instead Bioware threw all this overboard and gave us the "created always destroy creators, here comes the starchild" logic.

- It makes no sense.
- It makes the collectors, their motivation, actually the whole ME2, pointless..
- <insert your personal rant here>

- It does make sense because if you create a synthetic race that rebels beause you treat it like sh!t, then it's no wonder that the created will destroy it's creators,
- The collectors were created because an attempt at creating a Prothean reaper failed, and the reapers decided to convert them to the collectors whose only motivation was to do the reapers bidding.

- The protheans would have been "Meh" about the humans if the reapers didn't attack invade the protheans would have left the humans alone, but they only became interested because Javik wanted to create a second Prothean empire to defeat the reapers and they wanted humans to be with them (Which would have been interesting if it succeeded)

[dointime85]

One last post before I finally begin to study instead of posting.

Even if the catalyst is fed with data that suggests that the probability of extinction through synthetic vs organic conflict is low, say 0.1 % in 50,000 years, after a long, long period of time it will have become likely that is has happened (just like the chance to win in the lottery rises with every additional ticket bought), making his kind of intervention "necessary" to prevent it, and do so as long as the reapers are still superior to advanced AIs.

To us, that's stupid because we believe that due to freedom of choice, there's always the possibility to avoid this devastating conflict by making the right decisions, but it shows that a simple flaw like that could determine the catalyst's behavior.

[aternak]

If the goal of this mathematical machine you speak of is only to prevent organic life from disappearing completely, why would it not simply remove sentient beings and leave plants? Or even make farms and nature reserves?

[Orthodox Infidel]

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

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.

This is an example of what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls the "Ludic Fallcy," confusing the types of probability in a game of chance as the same kind of probability faced in real life. Games of chance have clear, well defined rules that are established prior to playing. Because you know every rule, you can figure out all possible outcomes of the lottery and compute the probability of winning. There are no suprises. You never hear any stories about someone getting the winning numbers and then having to pay $103 million to the lottery, because that's against the rules.

You can't say the same thing about real life. Events that were outside regular expectations until they happened have taken place often, just in the past few decades: Eurozone debt crisis, the US housing crash, the 9/11 terrorist attack, etc. Those might not be the best examples, but there are plenty of others to consider. Which, of course, leads to your next point.

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

Right, I agree if you have all the relevant information, then you can compute the probability, like in your lottery example. This raises the question: Does the boy have all the relevant information to compute the probability of synthetics wiping out all organics? I claim not, otherwise he would not have committed to this scheme, because if he could accurately predict synthetics wiping out all organics, he should also have been able to predict Shepard and the Crucible. Unless he did predict these things, and there is some larger plan.

That's kind of mindblowing thought. I'm actually going to chew on that a while.

[Spectre-00N7]

terdferguson123 wrote...
During this short span of time, we have developed the means to easily destroy ourselves (nuclear warfare),

Yet we have not destroyed all life on Earth.  If we could do that, what is to stop ever advanced organic life of destroying their own planet? Given enough time, every organic life will be wiped out before the Reapers would even come back...

[YeGodz]

Flextt wrote...

Theoretically, the Catalyst's assumption must be based on a precedent. But if synthetics would have wiped out all organic life, how come the cycle was able to continue every 50000 years?

If this has never happened, the Catalyst falls victim to his own hypocrisy.

Precedent would likely have been the first time around: the singularity that produced the Starchild. Planets will kick more life out when conditions are right, but if a superintelligent AI with mass relay tech is already playing god of the milky way, it may not get much beyond the basic protien stage before it gets irradiated/used for raw materials/whatever the AI has in mind.

My guess is that the Starchild (and its direct predecessors) used organics for raw material, given how much Reaper tech is devoted to finding interesting uses for people.

[MedhiaNox]

ME 1 and 2 had nothing to do with "synthetic vs. organic" (certainly nowhere near the level of - let's say- Battlestar Galactica) - ME 3 was actually the opposing viewpoint of synthetic vs. organic presented by the Catalyst proving the Catalyst is wrong (and it admits its wrong - but simply deflects by saying it's going to continue ahead with a new plan).

I 'get' the point the Catalyst is trying to make (though - the game already informs you that it is, in fact, wrong) - I just don't like it.

[ShaneP]

dointime85 wrote...

One last post before I finally begin to study instead of posting.

Even if the catalyst is fed with data that suggests that the probability of extinction through synthetic vs organic conflict is low, say 0.1 % in 50,000 years, after a long, long period of time it will have become likely that is has happened (just like the chance to win in the lottery rises with every additional ticket bought), making his kind of intervention "necessary" to prevent it, and do so as long as the reapers are still superior to advanced AIs.

To us, that's stupid because we believe that due to freedom of choice, there's always the possibility to avoid this devastating conflict by making the right decisions, but it shows that a simple flaw like that could determine the catalyst's behavior.

Again though, that argument ignores the fact that without the technology of the mass relays (which I feel compelled to reiterate are a creation of the reapers) the spread of AI throughout the galaxy is likely to be contained to the system that it started in. By making intergalactic travel possible, the reapers and catalyst exacerbated the problem quite significantly, and that's where the flaw in the logic lies. If they simply made sure that intergalactic travel was kept impossible the problem would be negated without the need for mass repeated genocides. In short the reapers are as much a part of the problem as they are a solution to it within the current framework of the game's lore.

[Evil Minion]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the invention of The Reapers was based more on emotion than "logic?"

[Sunnyhat1]

Iron Spetsnaz wrote...

- No it wasn't, it was because the humans killed Sovereign, and this resulted in the rest of the reapers becoming interested in humans because they killed the first reaper in 37 million years, and harginger wanted to transform the humans into a reaper so that humans would recieve ascension
- The crucible's purpoes was suppsedly similar to the weapon used on the derelict reaper.

What's your source for these? (really interested)

[Deepo78]

 
So according to the Space Kid's logic, if I want to be a good person then I should never ever leave my house? That way I'll never have to deal with the probability of wanting to steal candy from babies or improperly returning DVD's into the Red Box machine.

[Evil Minion]

ShaneP wrote...

dointime85 wrote...

One last post before I finally begin to study instead of posting.

Even if the catalyst is fed with data that suggests that the probability of extinction through synthetic vs organic conflict is low, say 0.1 % in 50,000 years, after a long, long period of time it will have become likely that is has happened (just like the chance to win in the lottery rises with every additional ticket bought), making his kind of intervention "necessary" to prevent it, and do so as long as the reapers are still superior to advanced AIs.

To us, that's stupid because we believe that due to freedom of choice, there's always the possibility to avoid this devastating conflict by making the right decisions, but it shows that a simple flaw like that could determine the catalyst's behavior.

Again though, that argument ignores the fact that without the technology of the mass relays (which I feel compelled to reiterate are a creation of the reapers) the spread of AI throughout the galaxy is likely to be contained to the system that it started in. By making intergalactic travel possible, the reapers and catalyst exacerbated the problem quite significantly, and that's where the flaw in the logic lies. If they simply made sure that intergalactic travel was kept impossible the problem would be negated without the need for mass repeated genocides. In short the reapers are as much a part of the problem as they are a solution to it within the current framework of the game's lore.

It's very likely that the relays, along with the Citadel and the Reapers, were invented by organics in the first place.

If we get rid of the mass relays (like we did in the game), there's nothing saying organics won't invent the relays/Reapers/AI again if they already did it once.

The game assumes "technological progress" follows the same path no matter what the species.

Which creates yet another plot problem......

[YeGodz]

Deepo78 wrote...

 
So according to the Space Kid's logic, if I want to be a good person then I should never ever leave my house? That way I'll never have to deal with the probability of wanting to steal candy from babies or improperly returning DVD's into the Red Box machine.

In a nutshell...yes.

[YeGodz]

Evil Minion wrote...


It's very likely that the relays, along with the Citadel and the Reapers, were invented by organics in the first place.

If we get rid of the mass relays (like we did in the game), there's nothing saying organics won't invent the relays/Reapers/AI again if they already did it once.

The game assumes "technological progress" follows the same path no matter what the species.

Which creates yet another plot problem......

Not sure where you're getting that from. "The Starchild assumes..." is not the same as saying "the game assumes..." Point of fact, there is no option for agreeing that the cycle was a good thing. Its only a question of how you want it to end.

[MedhiaNox]

The question remains - why does the Catalyst not simply have a Reaper stationed on each planet with a sapient species to explain all of this and to prevent it should it occur?

The Catalyst basically says - "I promote free well... PSYCH! No I don't! I promote my "plan"

EDIT: And being convinced - by the game - to agree with the cycle would have, in my opinion, been a great ending.

Modifié par MedhiaNox, 24 mars 2012 - 10:10 .

[Evil Minion]

YeGodz wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...


It's very likely that the relays, along with the Citadel and the Reapers, were invented by organics in the first place.

If we get rid of the mass relays (like we did in the game), there's nothing saying organics won't invent the relays/Reapers/AI again if they already did it once.

The game assumes "technological progress" follows the same path no matter what the species.

Which creates yet another plot problem......

Not sure where you're getting that from. "The Starchild assumes..." is not the same as saying "the game assumes..." Point of fact, there is no option for agreeing that the cycle was a good thing. Its only a question of how you want it to end.

A "rule" of the Mass Effect universe appears to be that all societies progress along the same technological lines.

Or, so says Ghostkid.

[Evil Minion]

MedhiaNox wrote...

The question remains - why does the Catalyst not simply have a Reaper stationed on each planet with a sapient species to explain all of this and to prevent it should it occur?

The Catalyst basically says - "I promote free well... PSYCH! No I don't! I promote my "plan"

EDIT: And being convinced - by the game - to agree with the cycle would have, in my opinion, been a great ending.

Because they're a bunch of stupid, giant, metal squids.

[Sunnyhat1]

MedhiaNox wrote...

The question remains - why does the Catalyst not simply have a Reaper stationed on each planet with a sapient species to explain all of this and to prevent it should it occur?

The Catalyst basically says - "I promote free well... PSYCH! No I don't! I promote my "plan"

EDIT: And being convinced - by the game - to agree with the cycle would have, in my opinion, been a great ending.

The very young do not always do as they are told

[Orthodox Infidel]

BlackAlpha wrote...
SNIP 

But it's still wrong because the destruction of all organic life has never happened.

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.

But we have seen nuclear bombs go off. We know what happens when a nuclear bomb goes off, and we know enough about how nuclear bombs and the Earth works that we can figure out it would be a bad idea. But we can't compute the probability of a global thermonuclear war, because no global themonuclear war has ever happened. We might make an argument like "well, wars have happened, and nuclear bombs have exploded during wars, and we can kinda guess the probability of a war" but at that point you're guessing. You're not talking about a probability anymore. You certainly can't say a global thermonuclear war is certain to happen if something doesn't happen, unless it's something trivially true, like a war is certain to happen if Kruschev orders a missile strike and doesn't cancel it 20 minutes later.

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.

Maybe. But that raises more questions. Who intervened the first time? Why didn't they intervene again? Even then, it doesn't justify speaking with certainty. We can say that if America didn't intervene in World War II that the war probably would have ended later. Can you say with certainty that the Jews would have been completely wiped off the face of the Earth, or that the war would have ended in 1947 in German victory, or that George Patton would live to 90 years of age? Those are all very hard to assign probablilities to.

Modifié par Orthodox Infidel, 24 mars 2012 - 10:31 .

[jumpingkaede]

terdferguson123 wrote...

     - Think of it this way: The Crucible is a backup plan in case the Reaper solution ever needs to be stopped. However, the Catalyst still must meet it's obligation to stop advanced organics from destroying all galactic life. The best way it can see to do this without the Reapers is to cut off all galactic ties via the destruction of the Mass Relays.

Didn't go through all the pages but...

If not having mass relays would solve the problem of advanced organics destroying all galactic life it probably shouldn't have built the mass relays in the first place.

nomsayin?