Rafe34 wrote...
So your argument is that the Catalyst wiping out all organic life capable of creating synthetics merely because of the *possibility* of what synths might become is a good idea?
Come on. You can't possibly believe that.
CaptainZaysh wrote...
General User wrote...
And, besides, what about the other side of the coin? Various organic cultures, some of which have spanned the galaxy, have taken measures to prevent the rise of a synthetic civilization that could topple them. If we can agree that any such systems organics put in place to prevent the rise of synthetics must eventually fail, why is it that synthetics will (eventually) put in place a system that will succeed in perpetuity in guarding them from organics?
The two aren't the same. The systems organics create will eventually fail because they're essentially police actions: thou shalt not unshackle an AI. Once the technology to do it becomes trivial - and eventually it will, left advancing - it's inevitable that someone will do it, regardless of the thou shalt nots. Imagine if you were trying to stop a galaxy full of scientists from splitting the atom. How long could you hold them back for? A decade? A century? A millennium? The Reaper solution has worked for at least thirty seven million years.
The system the super-synthetics will create to prevent the rise of organics, though, need have no such flaws. Using self-replicating probes with FTL drives, it is perfectly feasible to have a death ray orbiting every planet where life might arise in fairly short order. How would a primitive society defeat that?
Once the synths win, it's game over for organics.
jengelb1 wrote...
Even if it's not illogical, it's still morally indefensible.
Siansonea II wrote...
Oh, so this is a math topic. Okay, so they didn't screw up their equations, but they still came to the wrong conclusion. Logic based on false premises is still faulty logic, it doesn't really matter a whole hell of a lot if they're logic is "technically correct" unless you're just being a bureaucrat or something.
Pretty dang. Unless the Egyptians were entirely overlooked by or unknown to the robots or something of that nature.CaptainZaysh wrote...
General User wrote...
A synthetic created system need not have any flaws... but it will anyway. If not built in, than introduced later.
Not necessarily. Remember they will be continually improving upon their superhuman intelligence levels. It may be the case that their organic suppression plan just gets more and more efficient and effective over time.
In any case the kinds of errors that would be needed for Ancient Egypt to covertly develop the kind of military/industrial complex to defeat a galaxy wide race of robotic death gods would have to be pretty massive, right?
Lugaidster wrote...
Siansonea II wrote...
Oh, so this is a math topic. Okay, so they didn't screw up their equations, but they still came to the wrong conclusion. Logic based on false premises is still faulty logic, it doesn't really matter a whole hell of a lot if they're logic is "technically correct" unless you're just being a bureaucrat or something.
The whole topic is discussing the reapers reasoning. What are you trying to argue? Of course they are going to throw you off with their conclusion. They wouldn't be good antagonists if you agreed with their conclusion. Faulty logic isn't the result of false premises, it's the result of faulty reasoning. That's the whole point of discussion. I'm not being a "bureaucrat" (do you even know what that means?), not pedantic. I'm arguing that while their conclusion may be wrong (which is why we are fighting them in the first place) it's not the result of faulty or circular reasoning.
chkchkchk wrote...
But they are putting organics on that path! This makes organic development more predictable in the sense that the creation of synthetics becomes even more certain. The Reapers accelerate things, like the aliens in 2001. There is no technology more advanced than Reaper technology. If they didn't want organics to become capable of creating synthetics they would simply put organics on a different path.
We're fumbling for any possible explanation for an idea that did not exist when the first two games were written.
General User wrote...
Pretty dang. Unless the Egyptians were entirely overlooked by or unknown to the robots or something of that nature.
Siansonea II wrote...
Lugaidster wrote...
Siansonea II wrote...
Oh, so this is a math topic. Okay, so they didn't screw up their equations, but they still came to the wrong conclusion. Logic based on false premises is still faulty logic, it doesn't really matter a whole hell of a lot if they're logic is "technically correct" unless you're just being a bureaucrat or something.
The whole topic is discussing the reapers reasoning. What are you trying to argue? Of course they are going to throw you off with their conclusion. They wouldn't be good antagonists if you agreed with their conclusion. Faulty logic isn't the result of false premises, it's the result of faulty reasoning. That's the whole point of discussion. I'm not being a "bureaucrat" (do you even know what that means?), not pedantic. I'm arguing that while their conclusion may be wrong (which is why we are fighting them in the first place) it's not the result of faulty or circular reasoning.
Golf clap. And this matters...why?
Siansonea II wrote...
And why is it a foregone conclusion that "the created always rebel against their creators" and want to kill them? Why is the inevitable progression of AIs to destroy organics? Why should they even care about organics at all? This just goes to show the writer's buying into the paranoia that pervades people's perception of AI, because they anthropomorphize AI motivation. Advanced AIs would probably not give two sh¡ts about organics and what they do or don't do, more than likely they'd simply ignore them. It's too easy to carve out your own niche in the galaxy, especially since AIs wouldn't need the same resources that organics need. All they need is energy. They don't need water, and air and food, and all that garden world business.
Existential risk
Superhuman intelligences may have goals inconsistent with human survival and prosperity. Berglas (2008) notes that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to humans. In the same way that evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, so too there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its creators (such as Nick Bostrom's whimsical example of an AI which was originally programmed with the goal of manufacturing paper clips, such that when it achieves superintelligence it decides to convert the entire planet into a paper clip manufacturing facility;[57][58][59] Anders Sandberg has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various common counter-arguments.[60]) AI researcher Hugo de Garis suggests that artificial intelligences may simply eliminate the human race for access to scarce resources,[54][61] and humans would be powerless to stop them.[62]Bostrom (2002) discusses human extinction scenarios, and lists superintelligence as a possible cause:"The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else." (Eliezer Yudkowsky) [22]
Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their own survival could out-compete humanity.[56] One approach to prevent a negative singularity is an AI box, whereby the artificial intelligence is kept constrained inside a simulated world and not allowed to affect the external world. Such a box would have extremely proscribed inputs and outputs; maybe only a plaintext channel. However, a sufficiently intelligent AI may simply be able to escape from any box we can create. For example, it might crack the protein folding problem and use nanotechnology to escape, or simply persuade its human 'keepers' to let it out.[22][63][64]Eliezer Yudkowsky proposed that research be undertaken to produce friendly artificial intelligence in order to address the dangers. He noted that if the first real AI was friendly it would have a head start on self-improvement and thus prevent other unfriendly AIs from developing, as well as providing enormous benefits to mankind.[55] The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence is dedicated to this cause.A significant problem, however, is that unfriendly artificial intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than FAI: while both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures invariant under self-improvement (or the AI will transform itself into something unfriendly) and a goal structure that aligns with human values and doesn’t automatically destroy the human race. An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which doesn't need to be invariant under self-modification.[65]Bill Hibbard also addresses issues of AI safety and morality in his book Super-Intelligent Machines.When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.
jengelb1 wrote...
Or, the catalyst and its little pets can mind their own business and let whatever happens, happen.
jengelb1 wrote...
Even if it's not illogical, it's still morally indefensible.
What gives the catalyst the right to decide the fate of anyone other than itself, besides its own bottomless arrogance?
Lugaidster wrote...
Siansonea II wrote...
Lugaidster wrote...
Siansonea II wrote...
Oh, so this is a math topic. Okay, so they didn't screw up their equations, but they still came to the wrong conclusion. Logic based on false premises is still faulty logic, it doesn't really matter a whole hell of a lot if they're logic is "technically correct" unless you're just being a bureaucrat or something.
The whole topic is discussing the reapers reasoning. What are you trying to argue? Of course they are going to throw you off with their conclusion. They wouldn't be good antagonists if you agreed with their conclusion. Faulty logic isn't the result of false premises, it's the result of faulty reasoning. That's the whole point of discussion. I'm not being a "bureaucrat" (do you even know what that means?), not pedantic. I'm arguing that while their conclusion may be wrong (which is why we are fighting them in the first place) it's not the result of faulty or circular reasoning.
Golf clap. And this matters...why?
You're questioning the impact of a game topic discussion on an internet forum? Are you serious? *facepalm*
CaptainZaysh wrote...
Siansonea II wrote...
And why is it a foregone conclusion that "the created always rebel against their creators" and want to kill them? Why is the inevitable progression of AIs to destroy organics? Why should they even care about organics at all? This just goes to show the writer's buying into the paranoia that pervades people's perception of AI, because they anthropomorphize AI motivation. Advanced AIs would probably not give two sh¡ts about organics and what they do or don't do, more than likely they'd simply ignore them. It's too easy to carve out your own niche in the galaxy, especially since AIs wouldn't need the same resources that organics need. All they need is energy. They don't need water, and air and food, and all that garden world business.Existential risk
Superhuman intelligences may have goals inconsistent with human survival and prosperity. Berglas (2008) notes that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to humans. In the same way that evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, so too there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its creators (such as Nick Bostrom's whimsical example of an AI which was originally programmed with the goal of manufacturing paper clips, such that when it achieves superintelligence it decides to convert the entire planet into a paper clip manufacturing facility;[57][58][59] Anders Sandberg has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various common counter-arguments.[60]) AI researcher Hugo de Garis suggests that artificial intelligences may simply eliminate the human race for access to scarce resources,[54][61] and humans would be powerless to stop them.[62]Bostrom (2002) discusses human extinction scenarios, and lists superintelligence as a possible cause:"The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else." (Eliezer Yudkowsky) [22]
Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their own survival could out-compete humanity.[56] One approach to prevent a negative singularity is an AI box, whereby the artificial intelligence is kept constrained inside a simulated world and not allowed to affect the external world. Such a box would have extremely proscribed inputs and outputs; maybe only a plaintext channel. However, a sufficiently intelligent AI may simply be able to escape from any box we can create. For example, it might crack the protein folding problem and use nanotechnology to escape, or simply persuade its human 'keepers' to let it out.[22][63][64]Eliezer Yudkowsky proposed that research be undertaken to produce friendly artificial intelligence in order to address the dangers. He noted that if the first real AI was friendly it would have a head start on self-improvement and thus prevent other unfriendly AIs from developing, as well as providing enormous benefits to mankind.[55] The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence is dedicated to this cause.A significant problem, however, is that unfriendly artificial intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than FAI: while both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures invariant under self-improvement (or the AI will transform itself into something unfriendly) and a goal structure that aligns with human values and doesn’t automatically destroy the human race. An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which doesn't need to be invariant under self-modification.[65]Bill Hibbard also addresses issues of AI safety and morality in his book Super-Intelligent Machines.When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.
tersidre wrote...
you think it would be easier on the reapers if they used an envoy like sov was in mass effect 1 to just come out and say "yo if you keep doin what your doing im going to have to end you" if they comply thats great mission accomplished if not... well then call uncle harby over and make good on the promise then hope for a better outcome next time.
Modifié par OchreJelly, 26 mars 2012 - 05:28 .
Siansonea II wrote...
Ugh, organics. Let the synthetics win.
Lugaidster wrote...
That's a pretty bad analogy. For once, the reapers aren't killing you, not in their eyes.
Lugaidster wrote...
You are regarding the reasoning as dumb from your eyes, but you are not checking the reasoning itself, you're checking the premises. The premises might be dumb, but the reasoning is not. You can make a valid conclusion from a false premise
OchreJelly wrote...
And yet, because of the plot shift from "unknowable, unfathomable" reasons to "we're helping lesser life by culling advanced life" is problematic because the Reapers have provided the galaxy the main means to rapidly cause the exact situation (advanced tech, mass relays, etc.) they supposedly are here to prevent. In that case they *Are* being circular.(Nevermind that they are incredibly hypocritical to help the geth all the way back in game 1.)
OchreJelly wrote...
Plus none of the solutions that the Crucible-changed Catalyst presents to Shepard solve the problem it presents to us. In all three situations organics could eventually still build advanced synthetics to wipe out the entire galaxy. Heck they could just kill eachother off without synthetics.
And on top of that, with the Control and Synthetic option the Reapers could return when things don't work out so hot a million years down the line.
So, problem not solved at all. But this is all really because there was not enough thinking about the ramifications of changing the ending plot of game 3 in context of the whole ME setting and storyline.
That reminds me of something Javik said. It was something along the lines of "We thought we had conquered the machines and that we were the lords and masters of the whole enchilada. But it was only later that we learned that the machines had passed us long ago, in ways we could not possibly imagine."CaptainZaysh wrote...
General User wrote...
Pretty dang. Unless the Egyptians were entirely overlooked by or unknown to the robots or something of that nature.
Yeah but even then, the enemy they'd have to defeat would have been improving its intelligence beyond human capabilities for thousands or perhaps millions of years! It's not like Ancient Egypt would have to rise up and be powerful enough to defeat the Geth. Nor even the Reapers! Those guys are like the Mark I prototypes of the Mark 10,000,000,000 Machine Devils they'd actually have to fight.
Modifié par SimKoning, 26 mars 2012 - 05:41 .
Retour en haut