1057 réponses à ce sujet

[molecularman]

Awesome, underrated thread. I can't understand how people don't see the logic behind the Catalyst's actions, and your thread explains this better than excellently.

Not that I liked the ending that much

Modifié par molecularman, 08 avril 2012 - 08:11 .

[Cheopz]

*push thread* don't you dare to die on me like that!!!

found another very interesting thing we could also take in account:
Shepard was NOT the first being to meet the starchild.

[JShepppp]

molecularman wrote...

Awesome, underrated thread. I can't understand how people don't see the logic behind the Catalyst's actions, and your thread explains this better than excellently.

Not that I liked the ending that much

Thanks. True, acknowledging the Catalyst's logic doesn't mean we have to respect it. 

[JShepppp]

Cheopz wrote...

*push thread* don't you dare to die on me like that!!!

found another very interesting thing we could also take in account:
Shepard was NOT the first being to meet the starchild.

Lol thanks for the bump. I'll look at the thread you linked and update later at the end of today (I want to take time to really integrate the ideas and think about it). 

[Beleg43]

If StarChild believes his own logic, why use synthetics to protect the organics? Surely they'd eventually improve the efficiency of the process by completely eradicating organic life, instead of having to repeat the cleansing against advanced organics every 50,000 years. The Reapers could just keep some petri dishes, aquariums and zoos around if they still have some programming impulse to preserve biodiversity.

Further, the Reapers haven't made any progress. For the most advanced thinkers in the galaxy, how have they not come up with an answer resembling the genophage? No dreadnoughts required - just a little ship injecting race-specific viruses into the planets inhabited by advanced life. If the Salarians can conceive of and implement this, why wouldn't the Reapers?

I think the Star Child was just full of BS.

[omphaloskepsis]

Sorry, Catalyst (starchild) + logic = oxymoron. The OP's explanation is semi-rational, but leaves gaping plot holes. I don't believe it's possible to have the starchild and logic in the game at the same time. The option is to either remove the starchild (and probably any explanation of the reapers), or space magic.

I could write pages about it, but I'll try to touch a few points briefly.

First: why hasn't there been synthesis between any races in the past? Quarian and Geth look like they're heading towards that in some endings. Until the interruption by the reapers. How many times in the past have the reapers prevented the "ultimate good" solution of synthesis?

Second: there's never the slightest bit of proof that any race has ascended. There's no evidence of consciousness collection. And if they're just harvesting DNA, they've got the most ineffectual method imaginable. The consciousness collection plot hole could be fixed, but it's an ugly hack, considering that's it hasn't been demonstrated in the three games until the end.

Third (related to previous): How does harvesting indoctrinated beings count as preservation? How can the reapers be categorized as a collection of ascended races when they have built-in control and kill switches? How can they be in perfect agreement (and some, if not many, not harbor deep resentment to other reapers and the starchild)? Why hasn't there been mutiny or rebellion?

The only workable "answer" to all of the current ending plot holes, and all of the new plot holes created when trying to rationalize the ending is: space magic.

Also, FWIW, the definition of singularity in the sense used in the OP is sometimes jokingly called the nerd rapture. Why? Because every advocate of the idea believes that humans will be front and center in the ascendance. The belief is that AI will carry humans along for the ride. So it's kind of funny that the singularity is introduced to try to cover plot holes in the ME3 ending, when the actual idea contradicts ME3. (Though some argue that this assumption is a problem with the idea in the first place.)

[CaliGuy033]

The OP is one of the few people in this thread and on these boards who understands what "logic" means. It does not mean, "That doesn't make sense to me," "I don't agree with you," or "Your premise is faulty."

Love the post, OP. Very intelligent and well done.

[omphaloskepsis]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

The OP is one of the few people in this thread and on these boards who understands what "logic" means. It does not mean, "That doesn't make sense to me," "I don't agree with you," or "Your premise is faulty."

Love the post, OP. Very intelligent and well done.

Agreed that the OP is good (and sorry if I didn't acknowledge that), and that logical validity and truth value are separate issues.  The problem is that it's reasonable, and probably necessary, to the story to expect an AI god is capable of generating logic with rigorous truth values. 

Is the ME3 ending: sorry, the reaper's logic was a house of cards, but isn't it a beautiful house of cards?

[Shahadem]

There is still bad logic here. The Catalyst pulls a bunch of random assumptions and premises out of its butt and runs with them without ever bothering to verify them.

But at the end of the day the Citadel is doing nothing more than killing organics while keeping some specimens alive for its amusement. However those specimens only had a culture and existance as independent entities endowed with free will. By removing the independence and free will, along with the community that each specimen had before being preserved the godchild has effectively killed that specimen by fundamentally changing both its being and its existance. The specimen after preservation is not the same being as the specimen before preservation. So by this logic reaping cannot preserve but only destroy. And since the inevitable fate of all species capable of calculus is being reaped either now or in the future than the godchild can be thought of as killing all organics because it lacks the means to preserve them and refuses to save them. 

Modifié par Shahadem, 09 avril 2012 - 08:11 .

[CaliGuy033]

drewelow wrote...

The problem is that it's reasonable, and probably necessary, to the story to expect an AI god is capable of generating logic with rigorous truth values. 

"Truth" is relative, especially on the predominately moral issues we're talking about.  I don't think it's even slightly unreasonable that we might disagree with a sentient ancient being (whose existence we can hardly even grasp) about what premises are true or untrue. 

[Fixers0]

Circular logic is circular.

[Sad Dragon]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Technological Singularity just a point beyond where we can imagine. Superhuman Intelligence in such a way that we can not understand it because we do not have the intelligence to comprehend? A point that actually has isn't specifically tied to AI.

If we find a way to enhance our own intelligence far beyond today we, ourselves, will reach the singularity. If we create an AI with an intelligence far beyond our own then it will achieve singularity.
It is not about synthetics vs organics, it's about a point beyond we can no longer imagine the world due to the greater intelligence.

I would buy that the Reapers have achieved the point of singularity, seen by humans, judging from what Sovereign says -- though it could just as well be Hyperbole.

All in all Technological Singularity is possible for both synthetics and organics to achieve which would makes this line of argument a bit moot.

-TSD

[omphaloskepsis]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

drewelow wrote...

The problem is that it's reasonable, and probably necessary, to the story to expect an AI god is capable of generating logic with rigorous truth values. 

"Truth" is relative, especially on the predominately moral issues we're talking about.  I don't think it's even slightly unreasonable that we might disagree with a sentient ancient being (whose existence we can hardly even grasp) about what premises are true or untrue. 

OK, I was talking formal logic in response to your previous post, but now we're derailed.  We'll probably have to just agree to disagree.

In narrative terms, is the sentient ancient being smart or dumb, and is that being honest, a liar, or insane?  As presented in the game, without a mountain of good will (and tenuous explanation) from players, all I see is either a lunatic or a half-wit (with the power of a god).  This is troubling because it seems like the game is trying to tell me otherwise, but failing miserably.

[httinks2006]

heres a counter to this argument imo

Mass Effect 3: The evitable conflict


By Sparky Clarkson on April 8, 2012 - 9:30am.

Mass Effect 3 Screenshot

The convoluted logic of the Mass Effect trilogy's controversial ending hinges on the idea that sufficiently advanced species will inevitably create artificially intelligent life that will rebel and, if left unchecked, exterminate all organic life in the galaxy. To combat this threat, the Reapers harvest advanced civilizations, giving primitive ones the chance to flourish without being snuffed out in their infancy. This account of the Reapers' solution blindsided many players because it placed one of Mass Effect's weakest themes at the core of its most important conflict. The Mass Effect games never coherently convey the impression that synthetic intelligences pose a unique threat to all life.

Although killer robots have been a staple of science fiction for some time, this is actually a hard case to make, especially in a fictional universe with superluminal travel. Synthetic intelligences do not require a comfortable atmosphere or gravity, and can function at a wider range of temperatures and radiation levels than can humans. As a result, robots that reach consciousness have no particular need of the star systems organic lifeforms inhabit. They can happily occupy any bright (for energy) star with some metal-rich terrestrials and asteroids (for resources). Unlike organic life, they will have no intrinsic imperative to reproduce, limiting their need for expansion. Even if they do grow, the number of star systems that can support synthetic life is likely to be so vastly greater than the number that can support organics that resource exhaustion and subsequent conflict is unlikely to occur for millennia.

Considered seriously, artificial intelligences pose little threat to organic life, significantly less than interspecies conflict (i.e. the Rachni) or unintelligent tech-life such as grey goo. The inherent illogic of this theme means that it must be sustained by knee-jerk fear of the Other, and by direct demonstrations of the threat of synthetic life in the game world. The grand narrative of the Mass Effect trilogy involves so many alliances with alien races that the first factor cannot seriously contribute. Even the games' characters seem ambivalent on the otherness of synthetic life, as this conversation from Mass Effect 3 (recorded by Krystian Majewski) attests:

This means that the universe must lean on its existing artificial intelligences to convey the threat. Commander Shepard encounters three groups of synthetic intelligences: the Geth, rogue programs, and the Reapers themselves. Of these, the Geth receive the most comprehensive exposure. From the game's first moment, these networked intelligences are presented as enemies, slaughtering much of a human colony and serving as the principal enemy force throughout the first game.

Putting the Geth on the business end of the protagonist's gun adequately serves the theme, but the Geth never manage to make a case for themselves as a catastrophic threat. In part this is because their story cannot be separated from that of their creators, the Quarians, who have been forced to flee their home systems and now live in a fleet of starships. Perhaps this would not sound so familiar were the games not contemporaneous with the astonishing re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica. In its presence, however, the Geth and the Quarians came across as a cliche, something not to be taken seriously.

Mass Effect only separated itself from its obvious inspiration in that the Quarians ultimately turned out to be the villains. From the very first conversation with Tali aboard the Normandy, Shepard can point out that the Quarians tried to kill the Geth first. In the final game, data the player can find on the Quarian homeworld shows that the Geth only ever fought their creators in self-defense. They never rebelled; they were attacked.

Mass Effect 3 Screenshot

Even the hostility of the Geth from the first game gets walked back. Mass Effect 2 introduces a sympathetic Geth teammate named Legion, who explains that the inimical Geth from the first game served the Reapers in hopes of learning how to ascend to a higher level of intelligence. The synthetics who fought Shepard throughout the first game did so not out of any intrinsic desire to exterminate organic life, but rather as mercenaries. This puts them, at best, on a level with the Vorcha or Krogan in terms of their danger. In the final game of the trilogy, the Geth ally with the Reapers again, but even this isn't because they want to attack organics. Rather, they turn to the Reapers as a matter of self-preservation after a successful attack by the Quarian fleet.

Shepard comes into conflict with the Geth throughout the Mass Effect series, yet these encounters never make a coherent argument for an inevitable extermination of organic life by synthetic. Each fight with the Geth arises because of an attack on them or the external stimulus of the Reapers. When the Geth-Quarian conflict comes to a head in Mass Effect 3, the player can choose to broker peace between the warring parties, contradicting the supposed theme of conflict completely. Nothing in the Geth storyline coherently communicates the idea that synthetic intelligences are inherently dangerous to organic life.

A somewhat less sympathetic foe comes in the forms of rogue programs. Illegally-constructed AIs or rebellious virtual intelligences (VIs) threaten Shepard's safety fairly regularly, especially in the first game. Yet, with few exceptions, these actions are defensive. The rogue VI on Luna and the illegal AI on the Citadel are just trying to stay alive. The human core of the "rogue VI" in the "Overlord" add-on for Mass Effect 2 has been tortured to the point of insanity. Very few of these rogue programs are acting out of considered aggression.

Mass Effect 3 Screenshot

The series undercuts the threat of rogue programs more spectacularly through the character EDI, an AI that operates many of the systems in the Normandy. Not only does EDI prove extremely helpful throughout the two later games, she can even form a romantic relationship with the ship's pilot, Joker. Late in Mass Effect 3 it is revealed that she was reconstructed from the rogue programs on Luna and the Citadel, completely transforming them from foe to ally.

While the rhetoric of gameplay, especially in the first game, positions these synthetic intelligences as enemies, the narrative components of the games argue that they are innocent, or even helpful. In Mass Effect 3, even the gameplay angle falters, as EDI can enter the field as the player's ally in combat. Again, the game's message is mixed, and fails to effectively argue that synthetic intelligences are a unique danger.

The only synthetic foes that seem to present an unalloyed threat in the Mass Effect series are the Reapers themselves. Even that gets moderated in the finale, when the Catalyst reveals that their purpose, however grimly executed, is to preserve the possibility of organic life. The rationale for this campaign to extinguish advanced civilizations, though, requires that AIs other than the Reapers themselves pose a danger. Otherwise, the game legitimately opens itself up to the charge that the Reapers kill people to keep them from getting killed by Reapers.

In this respect, the Mass Effect series fails. Synthetic intelligences clearly pose a danger, but they are an ordinary hazard, a race like any other, that can be defeated or even made into an ally, or a lover. The player reaches the endgame without any sense that synthetics other than the Reapers themselves pose an insuperable threat, and so the explanation given for the Reapers' behavior comes as an inexplicable and deflating surprise. Having drawn the idea that AI poses a threat to organic life from more compelling science fiction universes, Mass Effect undercuts that conceit by adopting an outlook that, if not exactly Asimovian in its optimism, supposes that AI and humans can at least coexist in peace and fruitful collaboration. The B-movie concept of killer robots can't survive nuanced or mature examination, and its collapse makes this key theme one of Mass Effect's weakest.

[JShepppp]

 @Beleg43: I think the inability of the Reapers to change/self-evolve and the inability of the Catalyst to change also indicates that the latter is either a shackled AI or a VI, and the Reapers are similar. They are pre-singularity because of their inability to evolve. This may also show just how far off the singularity is from another point of view if the Reapers are not even at that level yet. 

@CaliGuy033: Thanks for the praise. And yes indeed some truths are relative, such as the effectiveness of preserving a species' essence and a lot of the normative disagreements between the Catalyst and us. Besides it being natural to expect disagreement with such an "old" being, disagreement also can be seen as expected simply for story reasons since the Catalyst is the overall enemy, so to speak. All the Catalyst's logic does, I think, is make things seem morally grey - but there are stil black/white ends of the spectrum depending on how you look at it, and I believe this makes the ending highly subjective. 

@drewelow: Thanks for the praise about me being logical. As for why synthesis wasn't done before, I talked about this near the end of the OP (the point has risen before in the thread too so I incorporated it into the "arguments against me" part of the OP). As for proof of ascendance and indoctrination's effects on the ascended/harvested, EDI and Legion tell that a Reaper mind/identity is essentially formed by absorbing the minds of a ton of organics of a species (forgot the number but it's like thousands or millions or something). Just enough proof is given, I think, to kind of support the Catalyst's views, but there is enough lacking definitely to support our views that being a Reaper is not that great of an experience. I think these were efforts to make the good/evil debate more grey. I think "space magic" could be applied to some other plot holes made by the ending, but the Catalyst's views have just an ounce of credibility, just enough to not be immediately dismissed, but not enough to really agree. And therefore the choice is up to the player. As for AI "bringing humans along for the ride", such an intelligence beyond the singularity would be difficult for us to comprehend, and there is no real reason to believe it would be friendly, hostile, or indifferent to us simply because it would be level on a thinking we could not comprehend. The Catalyst seems to try to get around this by using probabilities and saying everything would be realized with enough time. So yes, organics may be helped out too. But if there is an option for them to also be wiped out, the Catalyst reasons there is no need to take that risk. As for needing a lot of text to justify it, I do agree that it was rushed writing. I do respect and somewhat like the fact that at least the Reapers' talk about the singularity is something that is truly "big" enough for their existence. 

@Shahadem: Yes, I agree that the Catalyst makes assumptions and some leaps of logic that are not necessarily the best. That doesn't mean we should disregard them immediately though because they do have a kind of philosophical scifi merit even if it's very sudden, random, and rushed. At least I think so. Also the degree of how well a species' essence is preserved is definitely up for debate, and the evidence we're given leans towards the "not very well preserved" side, but we are given a few random one-liners (EDI/Legion, besides Reapers, who understandably you may not want to trust for this argument) that give just enough of a push to stop it from reaching that end of the spectrum entirely. I think they were trying to go for a "morally grey" presentation personally. 

@Fixers0: Yes. This is the most common and probably the most valid criticism of the Catalyst's logic as I noted in my OP. Again, if the Catalyst was completely and utterly infallible, then it wouldn't make sense from a story perspective. I just don't think it's stupid though. 

@Sad Dragon: It's about the creation of an intelligence that greatly exceeds our own capabilities to the point where it can self-evolve faster than us. I believe it's more about there being a huge difference between us and the said created intelligence. If it's just us reaching a singularity against nothing, then it might not make that much sense. The whole argument is from the POV of organics because synthetics naturally come after organics' rise. I would suggest the Reapers are pre-singularity simply because of their inability to self-evolve. At least in the way the Catalyst talks about it, overall, the singularity refers to synthetics outpacing organics in an exponential kind of fashion that makes it impossible for organics to ever catch up. Maybe it's a particular kind of singularity it's talking about if we take your valid point of "organic singularity" to be true in a sense, though I'm hoping you can explain it more beause I'm kind of confused. 

@httinks2006: I read the article you posted and it makes good points. It's basically saying that the ending was out of line with previous emphasized themes. I agree with this. I disagree a bit with its talk though of the Catalyst's ideas being disproven or at odds with observation because the singularity hasn't been reached yet. This is a problem though because it means it is very hard to refute or support its assertions. But it was a good read for sure; the ending is indeed something that feels out of place. 

Thank you all for your input. I will update the OP shortly. 

[JShepppp]

Updated OP

[omphaloskepsis]

@JShepppp, OK, I just reread your OP, and you deserve more kudos than just being acknowledged for logic.  You did a really excellent job on your post.  As a matter of fact, I think you did a much better job than the game, unfortunately. 

I still think that the in-game story needs a major overhaul to make it palatable.   Like IT theorists, you did a lot of work that should never have been necessary in the first place.  And there are still other problems with the ending, but that's not your fault. 

Anyway thanks for a great read.

[Cheopz]

about "using synthetics to kill organics before they were killed by synthetics" and other stuff:

i don't know why so many people always take this scheme as given... the reapers don't just kill - they harvest... means they are collecting the dna of the organic races to "store it in reaper form"* (leaving pre-spaceflight species alone to evolve) and so the dna is not lost even if the organic race is whiped out...
if it comes to the singularity otherwise, organic-creators and created synthetics will at some point get into war (see quarian/geth) and if synthetics win it could be most likely they will precautiosly start to whipe out all organic life, so it can not evolve to eventually start another full-scale-war against them (in this case all the organic dna is lost)...
the reapers sure kill entire civilizations in the process but thats necessary because otherwise the singularity would occurre and no future organic life will ever exist... so you have to see "the big picture"... ^^

*"dna stored in reaper form"
this is a point wich i'd like to take against "reapers do not evolve"...
the reapers use organic dna to build new reapers, so imo every reaper that is build from a "new" dna is an evolvement (<- is this a real word? otherwise you know what i mean, right? ^^)...


please excuse me if at some point my english may not be perfect but i think its well enough to share my point of view... otherwise just ask and i will try to explain... ^^ so long...

[Skvindt]

 JShep, thank you for this thread.  Was a great read.  It's a shame excellent threads like these get buried so quickly and easily.

Though I do not think the ending was executed very well, I now see what the writers were trying to convey.

Judging by that leaked script, it probably would of been best if they had some of that original script in the final version of the game.  A variation at least, maybe an investigate button with the Catalyst.  It would of helped avoid some of the mess both Bioware and it's fans are now in, lol.

I can't say that the technological singularity idea is entirely out of place for Mass Effect.  It was something that was always lingering in the back of my mind, the concept of synthetic life eventually surpassing organic life.  But it was not stressed enough, and it needed to be if it was going to be the focal point of the games finale.  That is why the series' conclusion seemed so out of place.

Modifié par SRX, 10 avril 2012 - 05:31 .

[Ridwan]

Are we trying to excuse Mass Genocide to defend this crappy ending?

[JShepppp]

 @drewelow: Your praise humbles me, really. Yeah, a lot of the ending was really rushed, and it was only through some thinking afterwards (and some time lol), combined with reading the forums, that I came to these conclusions. I do agree that the ending probably should have explained things a lot better. 

@Cheopz: Yeah, a lot of people gloss over harvesting because they believe (understandably) that it's outright murder. We are given slight indications (just enough to cast doubt on murder) that harvesting does somehow "ascend" the minds of people at horrific costs to their physical bodies. Unfortunately, we're simply not given enough information to determine just to what degree it may be a "good" thing to be "harvested" (degree of free will, etc.). As for absorbing new DNA to be evolving, I can see your point. At the very least they're increasing their own "diversity" in a way. I think what I was trying to say about them being stagnant is that like their weapons, strategies, shields, harvesting procedures, etc. overall haven't changed in the last hundreds of millions of years. But I recently realized the Leviathan of Dis apparently did not have current Reaper design, so somewhere along the way they evolved to the current form. It's all hella confusing lol, I will have to think a bit how this all ties in together...any more thoughts on the topic of Reaper "evolution" would be welcome. 

@SRX: Thanks, yeah, I thought either it got buried in the FTL forums, or people read it and just don't want to say anything. I'm hoping nobody "rage quits" just because they hate the Catalyst. And yeah, I like the leaked script loads better because it seems like at the very least they give more answers. It was almost a shame I had to seek it out in order to make some sense of things. As for the singularity being hinted at throughout the series, I would love to hear more on this point and add it to the OP to get more perspectives on things (I don't think it was mentioned at all in the thread before, or if it was, it was minor and just in passing). Are there any things in particular that stand out or was it just a gut feeling of sorts?

@M25105: I do believe genocide is bad and I'm not trying to excuse it but give credit to the Catalyst's logic because I feel a lot of people misunderstand it. Obviously it's wrong - it would be horrible from a story perspective if we end up agreeing with the enemy. But it's not wrong in a black/white kind of way; it's more of a grey situation. In my OP, Point 5 and Point 7 discuss what you're saying. In addition, that was apparently not clear enough, so I addressed it in the "Points Against Me" section as Point 2 and Point 10. I would like to restate further that respecting the Catalyst's logic does not mean we are agreeing with it, and I do agree that things were poorly written or rushed with the ending (hell, the leaked script seems to be better than the current one, IMO). 

I received some messages about this thread too in addition to the wonderful forum posts. At the end of today I will update the OP and bump. 

Modifié par JShepppp, 10 avril 2012 - 02:43 .

[Skvindt]

JShepppp wrote...


@SRX: Thanks, yeah, I thought either it got buried in the FTL forums, or people read it and just don't want to say anything. I'm hoping nobody "rage quits" just because they hate the Catalyst. And yeah, I like the leaked script loads better because it seems like at the very least they give more answers. It was almost a shame I had to seek it out in order to make some sense of things. As for the singularity being hinted at throughout the series, I would love to hear more on this point and add it to the OP to get more perspectives on things (I don't think it was mentioned at all in the thread before, or if it was, it was minor and just in passing). Are there any things in particular that stand out or was it just a gut feeling of sorts?

It was a gut feeling really.  The only specific and outright example I can point to is conversations with Javik, where he confronts the commander about whether you can trust machines or not.  But the problem is, bringing up that issue is way too late in the series.  That should of been introduced more clearly and earlier on in the series.

Other than that, no.  I can't really point to any specific outright references.  It was a nagging side-thought whenever talking with EDI, Tali, and Legion.  Here you have two self-aware beings,  EDI boasting about how she operates the Normandy's electronic warfare systems in Mass Effect 2.  And then the Geth, Tali talking about their formidable ability to coordinate with other units on the battlefield.  What happens if/when a machine becames exponentially more intelligent than an organic?  How can you possibly succeed over something so much more powerful if they were to 'rebel'?

We could see what power the Geth have over the Quarians.  They managed to chase them off their home world, and have been unable to reclaim it since.  The council went so far as to prohibit the development of AI's in council space as a result of the Quarian-Geth conflict.  So the Citadel races could certainly see the threat an AI could pose.

And then of course you have the Reapers, the ultimate menace.  These terrifying sentient machines bent on destroying the civilized galaxy, and have done so successfully every 50,000 years.  We don't know why. But given their destructive and unknown nature, that should of been a red flag as to the dangers of an AI.

The singularity concept is brought up a lot in science fiction and futurist discussions.  It's something I think about every now and then, so it's only natural that my mind would sort of drift to that topic when I was playing.  Machines becoming so unstoppably dangerous if they were to rebel just didn't come across as an idea that they wanted to stress.  The idea of whether a self-aware 'machine' should be considered alive or not seemed to take the forefront more than anything.

Modifié par SRX, 10 avril 2012 - 04:57 .

[filetemo]

This is a great thread.

The problem of a technological singularity is that I think eventually a superintelligence would comprehend the whole universe, realize it's going to come to an end, and ensure it's own survival as long as possible. I don't see why it should wipe out organic life. If any it would manipulate organics to survive, and once that happened, let us be. We would be as unimportant as an asteroid or a gas bag in the vacuum.

[LordJeyl]

The Catalyst took the form of a freaking dead kid. His logic failed at first sight.

[xztr]

I dont think Optimus Prime agrees...