374 réponses à ce sujet

[iamthedave3]

terdferguson123 wrote...

The point is, even if an AI has some semblance of thought, it's still just calculating the best way to obtain it's goal.

Go back to ME 2 and ask Legion why it has a bit of Shepherd's armour.

[Mighty_BOB_cnc]

cavs25 wrote...

Okay so why havent the Reapers rebelled agaisn't god kid? ("The created will always rebel agaisnt their creator")
yea... good try to make sense of logic that doesnt make sense.

OH. MY GOD.

[Tritium315]

terdferguson123 wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Dude, I'll tell you the same thing I tell everyone who seems to think they're the only ones who "get" the catalyst. You're not the only person in the world with an IQ above 20. We all understand what the catalyst was saying and we all get what Bioware was trying to play at. The fact of the matter is understanding what someone is telling you is miles away from agreeing with their logic. The catalyst's plan is retarded, there are a million other things they could to prevent the same thing from happening that do not involve killing everyone every 50k years.

Off the top of my head:

Don't leave relays so the galactic civilizations are isolated allowing you to only have to cull them every million years (or however long it takes people to almost get to FTL tech).

Don't leave the galaxy and just sit around the citadel, telling organics as they find it not to make robots.

Just kill synthetics as they rise up as opposed to empowering them, like they did with the Geth and Zha'ti (or whatever they were called).

Pretty much anything would work better than what they came up with. Like I said, everyone gets the logic, we all understand. The reason people make the "yo dawg" pictures is because the logic really is that stupid, not because people don't understand the reapers are actually "pruning" the galaxy.

Ok, I NEVER said anyone was dumb or made any comments about anyone's IQ. Secondly, I realize, and the thread and tons of other posts all state that the Catalyst is doing the most efficient job it can, regardless of how it goes about it, as long as it reaches the end goal. It's originaly logic does not care for the slaughter it commits, it just does it because it's the most efficient way to reach it's goal. I stated this over and over, it's an AI/computer, it does not think like a human, therefore the organic logic of "but this prevents them from having to destroy so and so" changes absolutely nothing in its mind. 

But it's NOT the most efficient way to go about doing this, that's the point is. If we believe what the catalyst is saying then then every reaper we destroyed during ME is the equivalent of destroying a whole zoo full of endagered species that the reapers are trying to "preserve" in reaper form. As such if they wanted to be efficient in preserving organic life then they'd harvest it before it became advanced. The reaper's plan is assinine, period.

Additionally, as someone else said, reaper code/tech is what made the Geth and Edi true sentient beings meaning that the reapers themselves can be considered true sentient beings and do not think like computers.

Furthermore, by implying that people do not understand the premise of the catalyst's logic when it is so aviliciously obvious you may as well be telling people they're stupid.

[Bantz]

terdferguson123 wrote...

Bantz wrote...

also I agree with what a lot of people have said. The logic is false simply because shep HADN'T won until the spacechild tells him how to win. He's laying there dying and the spacebrat says "oh by the way if you use your magic unlimited ammo gun and shoot that box all reapers die. If it honestly believed it's logic was the best path it would have just let shep die and continue the cycle. By choosing to wake him up it violated any sense of logic. It could have destroyed the fleet and all evidence of the Crucible and moved on.

Let me state it again, even though its in the original post. This thread, explains the Catalyst's original logic (the logic that it used when it created the Reapers as a solution however long ago that was) by the time Shepard reaches the Crucible, it's stance has changed, this is alluded to by EDI, that an AI can eventually change over time. This is why the Catalyst wakes Shepard up and explains what he can do.

fair enough, someone posted the dialog that got cut from the original script how the crucible changed spacebrats programming or w/e and that would have at least made a little bit of sense. His logic is still screwy though. 

[PsydonZero]

terdferguson123 wrote...

Bantz wrote...

also I agree with what a lot of people have said. The logic is false simply because shep HADN'T won until the spacechild tells him how to win. He's laying there dying and the spacebrat says "oh by the way if you use your magic unlimited ammo gun and shoot that box all reapers die. If it honestly believed it's logic was the best path it would have just let shep die and continue the cycle. By choosing to wake him up it violated any sense of logic. It could have destroyed the fleet and all evidence of the Crucible and moved on.

Let me state it again, even though its in the original post. This thread, explains the Catalyst's original logic (the logic that it used when it created the Reapers as a solution however long ago that was) by the time Shepard reaches the Crucible, it's stance has changed, this is alluded to by EDI, that an AI can eventually change over time. This is why the Catalyst wakes Shepard up and explains what he can do.

This would make sense, except that it is absolutely impossible for it to have developed that initial logic to begin with, precisely because it isn't logic, as I demonstrated with my VB program.

[terdferguson123]

omntt wrote...

Op i'm sorry but i have to say that after 5 pages i still find the starchild to be either a liar or a retard...

It's an AI that had created a solution with no regard whatsoever to morals, it cannot be a "retard" (why use that word anyways, sais a lot about you, sorry to be judgemental but well there it is). I said it in the OP, you cannot expect to understand it's purpose when looking at it from a moral perspective.

[AlexMBrennan]

Doesn't matter. The geth had the intelligence to rebel, the capability to kill all the quarians and every reason to rebel right down to the fundamental self-preservation dilemma of "Either they die or we die". They still didn't rebel.

Since you're so mathematically gifted, you should have realised that that's utter nonsense. To prove godchild wrong, you need to demonstrate that every last synthetic organics could possibly create will be friendly (i.e. not wipe out all organic life).

Premise A: Synthetics will always kill organics irrespective of context or motivation.
Action 0: Harvest the galaxy with the Reapers.
Action 1: Do not harvest the galaxy with the Reapers.

IF A = TRUE THEN 0.
ELSE 1.

I seriously don't have the faintest idea what you're trying to say here - maybe that Visual Basic is a really bad programming language?

Re OP: Well, you're obviously right. It's a classic zeroth law rebellion - tell a computer to "preserve life" and will (inevitably in media) decide that the best way to "preserve life" is to kill people. The problem is simply that the morality is very alien to normal people - most people would not agree that it's OK to horrifically goo-ify trillions just so that some species of bacteria gets the chance to evolve sentience in a few million years.

[Tritium315]

terdferguson123 wrote...

omntt wrote...

Op i'm sorry but i have to say that after 5 pages i still find the starchild to be either a liar or a retard...

It's an AI that had created a solution with no regard whatsoever to morals, it cannot be a "retard" (why use that word anyways, sais a lot about you, sorry to be judgemental but well there it is). I said it in the OP, you cannot expect to understand it's purpose when looking at it from a moral perspective.

But the solution is awful, I'm pretty sure my graphing calculator could bang out something that made more sense.

[omntt]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

I'm going with flawed AI. 

Makes the ending feel a little better. Just a little.

That makes up for something, but then we have flawed Shepard.
Why he/she didn't interrupt the starchild? Why he accepted gladly its atrocious resolutions?
I would pay for a dlc including just a renegade interrupt on the little brat, and no space magic.
Only time will tell.

Modifié par omntt, 24 mars 2012 - 08:17 .

[terdferguson123]

PsydonZero wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

Bantz wrote...

also I agree with what a lot of people have said. The logic is false simply because shep HADN'T won until the spacechild tells him how to win. He's laying there dying and the spacebrat says "oh by the way if you use your magic unlimited ammo gun and shoot that box all reapers die. If it honestly believed it's logic was the best path it would have just let shep die and continue the cycle. By choosing to wake him up it violated any sense of logic. It could have destroyed the fleet and all evidence of the Crucible and moved on.

Let me state it again, even though its in the original post. This thread, explains the Catalyst's original logic (the logic that it used when it created the Reapers as a solution however long ago that was) by the time Shepard reaches the Crucible, it's stance has changed, this is alluded to by EDI, that an AI can eventually change over time. This is why the Catalyst wakes Shepard up and explains what he can do.

This would make sense, except that it is absolutely impossible for it to have developed that initial logic to begin with, precisely because it isn't logic, as I demonstrated with my VB program.

Why isn't it logic? It's an AI that wanted to stop galactic extinction via organic technology by destroying said advanced organics. Really, I am not at all understanding why this is so complicated to understand. It's logic, it makes as much logic as 2+2 = 4, Advanced Civs will never create advanced synthetics if they can never become advanced.

[terdferguson123]

omntt wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

I'm going with flawed AI. 

Makes the ending feel a little better. Just a little.

That makes up for something, but then we have flawed Shepard.
Why he/she didn't interrupt the starchild? Why he accept gladly its atrocious resolutions?
I would pay for a dlc including just a renegade interrupt on the little brat, and no space magic.
Only time will tell.

What other choice did Shepard have? Say no and let the Reapers win and cycle continue? 

[Sunnyhat1]

terdferguson123 wrote...

omntt wrote...

Op i'm sorry but i have to say that after 5 pages i still find the starchild to be either a liar or a retard...

It's an AI that had created a solution with no regard whatsoever to morals, it cannot be a "retard" (why use that word anyways, sais a lot about you, sorry to be judgemental but well there it is). I said it in the OP, you cannot expect to understand it's purpose when looking at it from a moral perspective.

See and that's where you are wrong.

The game tells us that reapers are alive, intelligent, free willed. But the only way to justify the end is (as you did) by assuming they're "stupid" AI's again....

[Evil Minion]

chkchkchk wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

chkchkchk wrote...

SOVEREIGN SAYS: The Reapers left behind mass relays (etc) so that organics would develop along the paths the Reapers desire. So if the whole point is to stop organics from creating synthetics, why do the Reapers cause organics to develop into civilizations that create synthetics.

IT IS COMPLETE GIBBERISH.

Because developing synthetic life is inevitable when organic civilization reaches a certain point; therefore, Reapers "guide" technological evolution and when a certain level of technological advancement is reached, they "harvest" said civilization while leaving lesser developed races alone.

Most likely, the Reapers were invented by an organic who thought this was a good idea and The Reapers, being machines, are unable to change their programming; hence, stupid logic.

Unless my mind is totally broken, I recall the Reapers left behind the Citadel and the mass relays, right?  So shouldn't the Reapers have left behind technology that somewhat discouraged creation of synthetics?  Or shouldn't they have just not left anything at all and found a way to keep organics in a pre-spaceflight state?

What makes far more sense is that the Reapers left behind this technology to create a vast galactic genocide farm that would provide material for the fight against dark energy expansion.  Sort of like the ending Drew came up with, which was foreshadowed in previous games and later ditched.

Unless whoever invented The Reapers was utterly convinced that the creation of synthetic life was inevitable and that the best course was to "guide" the creation of synthetic life and then "harvest" the inventors.

But I think we all agree that we don't like that "final solution to the problem of synthetic life," which is why Shepard exists: to kick their giant, metal squid butts.

[Welsh Inferno]

omntt wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

I'm going with flawed AI. 

Makes the ending feel a little better. Just a little.

That makes up for something, but then we have flawed Shepard.

*Puts fingers in ears*

LALALALALA IT DIDNT HAPPEN

[charon45]

The Catalyst was created in a time without the Reapers to enforce the cycle and keep life in check. The purpose of the Catalyst is supposedly to prevent the extinction of organic life. Putting those together, without the Reapers, technology developed and peaked with the creation of a synthetic dedicated to preserving organic life. The Catalyst's argument does not match the history of the ME universe.

[Erield]

terdferguson123 wrote...

Bantz wrote...

also I agree with what a lot of people have said. The logic is false simply because shep HADN'T won until the spacechild tells him how to win. He's laying there dying and the spacebrat says "oh by the way if you use your magic unlimited ammo gun and shoot that box all reapers die. If it honestly believed it's logic was the best path it would have just let shep die and continue the cycle. By choosing to wake him up it violated any sense of logic. It could have destroyed the fleet and all evidence of the Crucible and moved on.

Let me state it again, even though its in the original post. This thread, explains the Catalyst's original logic (the logic that it used when it created the Reapers as a solution however long ago that was) by the time Shepard reaches the Crucible, it's stance has changed, this is alluded to by EDI, that an AI can eventually change over time. This is why the Catalyst wakes Shepard up and explains what he can do.

The original logic does not make sense either, though.

Why does a synthetic (non-organic) intelligence have any sort of priority to preserve organic life?

Why is there such a strict time-limit between cycles?  Would it not make more sense to leave one Reaper (or two, or a dozen, or whatever) behind to watch the pre-sentient life and initiate an attack when before they've become dangerous to the galaxy?  Ie, us on Earth now, instead of 200 years from now after we've found Mass Relays and accelerated our destructive power by thousands and thousands of years?

Why do the Reapers put themselves at risk of destruction, when they are an incredibly rare resource?  A much more efficient means of Reaping would be to have the entire fleet of Reapers descend on a planet at a time.  They could then use FTL to pop up behind the supply lines (Relays) that they have created for the younger races to use.  Each Reaper lost is an entire race's worth of Reaping lost; and a Reaping occurs only every 50,000 years.  Any sort of logic would place preservation of as many Reapers as possible into their planning.

If the Star Child is incapable of changing its orders or programming, then why did it modify the plans for the Crucible (or create the plans) in the first place? 

[dointime85]

Bantz wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

I agree, the Catalyst is wrong, but Shepard does not have the option of telling it off. Defeating the Reapers conventionally is not realistic, he pretty much has to do what the Catalyst sais at this point or else the cycle will just continue to repeat itself.

I understand your frustration that the option isn't their, but look at it from this perspective:

Paragon Shepard and Renegade Shepard have the SAME goal, and will both do what it takes to get their (defeat the Reapers), if the only option is to defeat the Reapers, the only thing that remains is what way to go about doing it that is most in line with morals, but still accomplishes the goal. If firing the crucible is the only way to defeat them, then choosing what function the crucible will use is the only Paragon/Renegade choice available.

and there is the issue most of us, and i'd wager all of us, have with the ending. It nullifies any choices you made throughout the game because you SHOULD have the option of winning with a bigger fleet. Gathering all the armies in the galaxy to fight should be enough to win and give you the option to tell spacebrat to f off. Instead all the choices we've made throughout the 3 games get shoehorned into picka  color any color.

See, that's the point that got lost between script leak and final version: The catalyst isn't some villain that I have to argue with, it's a flawed AI that's now out of function (it says that it lost control over the reapers with the crucible). It's not the ruler of the reapers that you can show how your forces crush his evil forces (that you can't beat conventionally, anyways). In the November script, it literally says that Shepard becomes the new catalyst, i.e. the cycle is really broken by taking control over them (I'm not entirely sure but it seems to me that the relays were not supposed to be destroyed completely. The fact that they don't explode completely picking the Blue option seems to indicate this, too. 

[Brownfinger]

There is logic behind their motivations, and the original post addressed it well. It is cold, and very much in line with how I would expect a machine to think.

I don't posess the means to think that far ahead on the path, but I can see how they would draw that conclusion. They may not be wrong. But, organic life deserves a chance. So, yeah. Taste red, b****es.

Modifié par Brownfinger, 24 mars 2012 - 08:20 .

[Muhvitus]

Well, i think it would be much easier to use reapers to watch over civilizations and when AIs emerge and if they do nasty stuff, then go there, wipe the AI off and explain the situation.

Furthermore, i think the explanation that the cycle has been running since forever is stuipd as well because it would be impossible to wipe out all traces of all advanced races that were around, space is just too big. Advanced civilization would need only few deep space seeder ships to survive as a species and it is stated that it took 100 years to wipe out the prothean empire. More than enough time to build ships that would take enough people (or just seeds) somewhere in deep space, wait for x number of years and then come back or build new civilization.

[bo_7md]

I honestly think half of these posters have moved from Logic to Morality. It doesn't matter if the kid is right or wrong it is all about if it makes sense or not folks keep it clean.

[DrFrankenseuss]

terdferguson123 wrote...

PsydonZero wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

Bantz wrote...

also I agree with what a lot of people have said. The logic is false simply because shep HADN'T won until the spacechild tells him how to win. He's laying there dying and the spacebrat says "oh by the way if you use your magic unlimited ammo gun and shoot that box all reapers die. If it honestly believed it's logic was the best path it would have just let shep die and continue the cycle. By choosing to wake him up it violated any sense of logic. It could have destroyed the fleet and all evidence of the Crucible and moved on.

Let me state it again, even though its in the original post. This thread, explains the Catalyst's original logic (the logic that it used when it created the Reapers as a solution however long ago that was) by the time Shepard reaches the Crucible, it's stance has changed, this is alluded to by EDI, that an AI can eventually change over time. This is why the Catalyst wakes Shepard up and explains what he can do.

This would make sense, except that it is absolutely impossible for it to have developed that initial logic to begin with, precisely because it isn't logic, as I demonstrated with my VB program.

Why isn't it logic? It's an AI that wanted to stop galactic extinction via organic technology by destroying said advanced organics. Really, I am not at all understanding why this is so complicated to understand. It's logic, it makes as much logic as 2+2 = 4, Advanced Civs will never create advanced synthetics if they can never become advanced.

An non-sapient lifeforms will never be able to overthrow the plan. So why not reap them before they can even evolve far enough to create tools?

[Ziggeh]

terdferguson123 wrote...

What other choice did Shepard have? Say no and let the Reapers win and cycle continue?

Do a Kirk, shout "Get the hell out of my galaxy" right in his poxy little face. In that he allowed for the either the ending of current synthetics with potential for future ones as an option, he was clearly open to the idea of self determination.

Given you are able to interact with two examples of AI that would not rebel the case could have been made that his assumptions were flawed and he could have stopped it all without blowing up galactic infrastructure just to kill off EDI and the Geth.

[Welsh Inferno]

terdferguson123 wrote...

omntt wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

I'm going with flawed AI. 

Makes the ending feel a little better. Just a little.

That makes up for something, but then we have flawed Shepard.
Why he/she didn't interrupt the starchild? Why he accept gladly its atrocious resolutions?
I would pay for a dlc including just a renegade interrupt on the little brat, and no space magic.
Only time will tell.

What other choice did Shepard have? Say no and let the Reapers win and cycle continue? 

Give this AI his perspective. We have seen it with EDI. With Legion and the Geth. This AI has had no interaction to understand or comprehend anything from Organics(Or synthetics similar to the Geth either for a matter or fact). Those AI's essentially asked to and openly admit they want to understand Organics and to co-exist with them. Who says you cant change something within the Catylyst without trying?
Even if we accomplish nothing and after a discussion for 10 minutes the Catylyst still gives us the three choices it would all feel better. People would have more understanding.

[omntt]

terdferguson123 wrote...

What other choice did Shepard have? Say no and let the Reapers win and cycle continue? 

Say no, watch someone going down. Probably not the reapers, but at the least Shepard didn't have to choose. I'm sorry that i'm not english and i may use some bad terms like the "retard" one, but in all honestly the thing is this : on the basis we have given i can't feel myself trusting at all the the starchild. That's all, that's why i said i'd like an interrupt ending. I don't like him, and while i like your post it didn't change my mind. Feel free to continue obviously.

Modifié par omntt, 24 mars 2012 - 08:24 .

[Samtheman63]

finally someone with some sense

good work op