1057 réponses à ce sujet

[The Night Mammoth]

JackumsD wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Not quite, unless the singularity that people have fabricated for application into this fiction is completely different to the one qualified scientists in real-life have theorized.

Just to add on to this part; Real life is completely irrelevant. Future AI in reality will not be like AI in Mass Effect. You can't apply real world logic to what's being presented in ME.

I'm only doing so because the entire argument based on the concept of the singularity in Mass Effect is based on the real-life theory. 

We have been presented with the a concept of TS in ME, by the Catalyst.

Excuse me whilst I laugh a little. 

The last five minutes are not the time to introduce anything new, let alone story changing philisophical theories with so little explanation, that the 'reader' is supposed to then change their priorities because of. 

It wasn't explicitly stated to be TS, but it detailed it as TS.

It certainly does not detail it like that. Three lines of dialogue does it have to establish the idea, and all the information we have is organics will always create synthetics, these synthetics will always rebel, they will always try to wipe out all organic life, and they can't be stopped. 

There's not missing information there, that's literally all the information we have.

So regardless of what we want to call it, it exists as a concept within ME and is entirely separate from whatever understanding we may have of it in reality.

That's my point though, the understanding of the idea in the fiction, which doesn't actually exist because the concept of an AI which achieves a level of above-human intelligence is never referred to, is based on the understanding we have of the idea in real-life. 

There's a reason AI are illegal in Citadel space.

I don't actually know why AI's are illegal, I don't remember the reason ever being brought up. Likely just me though, it's an idea from ME1 so there must be more to it, this was back when BioWare liked to think the details were important. 

Synthetics being dangerous is not a new concept in ME.

Under certain circumstances. Synthetics being organic hating genocidal robots is though, until the serpent brings up the issue. 

Synthetics being peaceful and friendly is actually more prevailent by the end though. 

[someone else]

OP - So higher intelligence = higher genocidal psychopathology - aren't you (and BW) simply projecting our own   aggressive, scarcity-based perspectives on the future evolution of galactic sentience?

All you and the other apologists for the catalyst assume this - and there is no logical reason any highly life form, synthetic or organic would find genocide and mono-culture any more desireable (or safe) than we are finding in industrial agriculture - mutual synergy - and I am not referring to green space magic - is a far more viable option - if only because we ultimately face the same implacable enemy - unless you are prepared to repeal the 2nd law of thermodynamics...

Modifié par someone else, 29 mai 2012 - 11:51 .

[ShaneP]

Interesting, but for one point. The idea of an AI singularity may plausible, but that doesn't mean that AI will always be guaranteed to be hostile to, and desire to wipe out organic life, there's simply not enough evidence currently available to us one way or the other. It *could* happen, but the catalyst's logic is that it is a certainty which is not proven. Besides, you're able to bring peace between the Geth and Quarians, and get the Geth to cooperate with organics to help take on the reapers. The game's own storyline contradicts the catalyst's argument that organics and synthetic cannot cooperate.

[George Costanza]

I'll get right down to brass tacks; I absolutely hate the endings. I hate them. I hate the lack of explanation or closure, I hate the way new themes are introduced at the eleventh hour that seem at odds with what has come before, and I hate that it is so abrupt, so lacking in any sort of emotional payoff, and so poorly presented to the player.

But that doesn't mean that I can't enjoy a well thought out argument. I really liked the opening post. It's yet another case of a fan doing a better job than the studio did. Obviously, it doesn't change the problems with the Normandy, with Synthesis being literally incredible, or with the tonal shift the ending takes, but it does address most of the issues that I have with the catalyst.

Most of the arguments do hold up, I think, and it seems a real waste to me that we weren't given much information in the game. We shouldn't have to be mining old leaked scripts for infomation so that we can try and make sense of the story. It should make sense already. And with a little more of this information presented here, the Catalyst wouldn't be the massive thorn in the plots side that it currently is.

I still don't like the ideas, really. And I think it's completely out of place in the ME universe. But at least it would make more sense.

[Cypher_CS]

someone else wrote...

OP - So higher intelligence = higher genocidal psychopathology - aren't you (and BW) simply projecting our own   aggressive, scarcity-based perspectives on the future evolution of galactic sentience?

All you and the other apologists for the catalyst assume this - and there is no logical reason any highly life form, synthetic or organic would find genocide and mono-culture any more desireable (or safe) than we are finding in industrial agriculture - mutual synergy - and I am not referring to green space magic - is a far more viable option - if only because we ultimately face the same implacable enemy - unless you are prepared to repeal the 2nd law of thermodynamics...

Have you actually read beyond the TLDR version?

Yes, it is exactly about Psychopathy.
In the narrowest possible definition of Psychopathy. In the definition that a Psychopath is someone that doesn't know wrong from right (Moral argument). AIs don't have such a moral, culture based destiction. They have calculations. And the invariability of calculations will lead to a logical assumption that the Catalyst achieves.

[Cypher_CS]

ShaneP wrote...

Interesting, but for one point. The idea of an AI singularity may plausible, but that doesn't mean that AI will always be guaranteed to be hostile to, and desire to wipe out organic life, there's simply not enough evidence currently available to us one way or the other. It *could* happen, but the catalyst's logic is that it is a certainty which is not proven. Besides, you're able to bring peace between the Geth and Quarians, and get the Geth to cooperate with organics to help take on the reapers. The game's own storyline contradicts the catalyst's argument that organics and synthetic cannot cooperate.

Another one who didn't read beyond TLDR.
Why bother even saying "interesting" if you haven't actually read anything?

[The Angry One]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Have you actually read beyond the TLDR version?

Yes, it is exactly about Psychopathy.
In the narrowest possible definition of Psychopathy. In the definition that a Psychopath is someone that doesn't know wrong from right (Moral argument). AIs don't have such a moral, culture based destiction. They have calculations. And the invariability of calculations will lead to a logical assumption that the Catalyst achieves.

That any living being actually thinks the Catalyst's assumptions are logical genuinely frightens me.
You you also think conflict between different human races is inevitable? Because that's essentially what the Catalyst is saying. Those who are different will never get along.

[Jackums]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I'm only doing so because the entire argument based on the concept of the singularity in Mass Effect is based on the real-life theory.

It's based on the idea of it. It's not based on the science of it.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Excuse me whilst I laugh a little. 

The last five minutes are not the time to introduce anything new, let alone story changing philisophical theories with so little explanation, that the 'reader' is supposed to then change their priorities because of.

It's not complex enough to require anything more than a few lines. And as I stated above, it's based on the real life idea of TS, but there's a reason it's science fiction. You can't apply real world logic to it.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

It certainly does not detail it like that. Three lines of dialogue does it have to establish the idea, and all the information we have is organics will always create synthetics, these synthetics will always rebel, they will always try to wipe out all organic life, and they can't be stopped. 

There's not missing information there, that's literally all the information we have.

The Catalyst doesn't state every synthetic will always rebel. It states that such an ocurrence will always be inevitable. Its words have been far too twisted by those that disagree with it. And the idea itself was already established via the geth and quarians; synthetics rebelling against their creators. The circumstances of the rebellion are irrelevant because it happened. The only difference is, in the time where synthetics are far more advanced than the geth, and conflict occurs, the consequences will be much more severe than the geth incident.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

That's my point though, the understanding of the idea in the fiction, which doesn't actually exist because the concept of an AI which achieves a level of above-human intelligence is never referred to, is based on the understanding we have of the idea in real-life.

But it's not based on the science of it. That much is self-explanatory considering we haven't even achieved true AI as it is in the Mass Effect universe. Therefore, again, the idea may be used in the game, but that's not inclusive of everything relative to the real world concept of technological singularity.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I don't actually know why AI's are illegal, I don't remember the reason ever being brought up. Likely just me though, it's an idea from ME1 so there must be more to it, this was back when BioWare liked to think the details were important.

From the codex entry on AI: 
"The geth serve as a cautionary tale against the dangers of rogue AI, and in Citadel space they are technically illegal."

They're illegal because they're dangerous/have the potential to be.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Under certain circumstances. Synthetics being organic hating genocidal robots is though, until the serpent brings up the issue. 

Synthetics being peaceful and friendly is actually more prevailent by the end though.

Is that why Legion tries to kill Shepard the moment he sides with the quarians? The same Legion that was considered Shepard's friend? And what about the faction of heretic geth that willingly joined the Reapers and had no problem with assisting in the extermination of all advanced organics?

To me it's just so extremely naive to believe that no AI ever created will be violent or act against organics. Even peaceful synthetics, like the geth, have proven to be a huge threat to organics under certain circumstances. Even if synthetics are peaceful, organics will not always be, and if they act against synthetics, synthetics will retaliate. You cannot guarantee organics will never act against synthetics. I cannot guarantee they will, but I can say it with 99% certainty. Claiming otherwise would be the equivalent of me saying "beginning tomorrow no-one on this planet will engage in conflict with another." Conflict is a constant and never-ending thing. It will always exist between organics and other organics, and in a world where AI are as prevalent as organics, it will also exist. To claim otherwise would be totally ignorant.

There's no guarantee of organics being wiped out entirely, but severe negative consequences? Yes, we can be 99% certain in a scenario where AI are the dominant faction in the galaxy, there will not be peace. If not as a result of their own violent nature, it will be a result of the violent nature of organics in response to the AIs.

Modifié par JackumsD, 29 mai 2012 - 12:20 .

[The Angry One]

Just going to interject on this..

JackumsD wrote...

Is that why Legion tries to kill Shepard the moment he sides with the quarians? The same Legion that was considered Shepard's friend?

If Legion wanted to kill Shepard it could've snapped Shepard's neck in that instant. Legion was clearly trying to stop Shepard from aiding the Quarians to, you know, exterminate all the Geth.

Moreover if we assume Legion was going to kill Shepard, how is that ANY different from Wrex trying to kill Shepard if Shepard betrays him by sabotaging the genophage cure?
Both are brings who consider themselves Shepard's friend. Both are betrayed. Both face the extinction of their own species because of Shepard.
Why is it okay for Wrex to commit an act of revenge after the fact, but not for Legion to make a last ditch effort for survival?

And what about the faction of heretic geth that willingly joined the Reapers and had no problem with assisting in the extermination of all advanced organics?

Yeah, because Sovereign wasn't influencing them at all, right?

To me it's just so extremely naive to believe that no AI ever created will be violent or act against organics. Even peaceful synthetics, like the geth, have proven to be a huge threat to organics under certain circumstances. Even if synthetics are peaceful, organics will not always be, and if they act against synthetics, synthetics will retaliate. You cannot guarantee organics will never act against synthetics. I cannot guarantee they will, but I can say it will 99% certainty. Claiming otherwise would be the equivalent of me saying "beginning tomorrow no-one on this planet will engage in conflict with another." Conflict is a constant and never-ending thing. It will always exist between organics and other organics, and in a world where AI are as prevalent as organics, it will also exist. To claim otherwise would be totally ignorant.

There's no guarantee of organics being wiped out entirely, but sever negative consequences? Yes, we can be 99% certain in a scenario where AI are the dominant faction in the galaxy, there will not be peace. If not as a result of their own violent nature, it will be a result of the violent nature of organics in response to the AIs.

To assume that even if AI dominated everything that they'd go on to exterminate all organic life everywhere for no reason is what's naive.
You seem to miss the point that the Catalyst's argument is not "synthetics and organics will always fight" it's "synthetics and organics will always fight, synthetics will always win and will go on to kill all organic life because I say so."

Modifié par The Angry One, 29 mai 2012 - 12:23 .

[Cypher_CS]

The Angry One wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Have you actually read beyond the TLDR version?

Yes, it is exactly about Psychopathy.
In the narrowest possible definition of Psychopathy. In the definition that a Psychopath is someone that doesn't know wrong from right (Moral argument). AIs don't have such a moral, culture based destiction. They have calculations. And the invariability of calculations will lead to a logical assumption that the Catalyst achieves.

That any living being actually thinks the Catalyst's assumptions are logical genuinely frightens me.
You you also think conflict between different human races is inevitable? Because that's essentially what the Catalyst is saying. Those who are different will never get along.

No, that's not what the Catalyst is saying.
First of all, yeah, conflict between different human races or nations is inevitable. The only solution is... dare I say, hybridization. And we are well on our way there (I'm completely white, Russian/Polish origins, my wife is half Yemanese and half Iraqi-Kurd - our kids may still show signs of differences, but with globalization such differences will erode over the next generations).
Secondly, the Catalyst is saying things more along the lines of Humans wiping out... cockroaches, should the cockroaches decided to take up arms against us.

[The Angry One]

Cypher_CS wrote...

No, that's not what the Catalyst is saying.

Yes, it is.

First of all, yeah, conflict between different human races or nations is inevitable. The only solution is... dare I say, hybridization. And we are well on our way there (I'm completely white, Russian/Polish origins, my wife is half Yemanese and half Iraqi-Kurd - our kids may still show signs of differences, but with globalization such differences will erode over the next generations).

That is your and her choice, and the choices of your parents.
Forcing hybridisation is completely wrong, and not the only solution, sorry.

Secondly, the Catalyst is saying things more along the lines of Humans wiping out... cockroaches, should the cockroaches decided to take up arms against us.

Except:
a)You can't wipe out cockroaches. People have tried.
 cockroaches aren't sapient. If they were, the circumstances would be different.
c) Even if synthetics wiped out organics that were hostile to them, it does not follow that they'd wipe out all organics everywhere. Thus, the Catalyst's logic is broken.

Modifié par The Angry One, 29 mai 2012 - 12:35 .

[Jackums]

The Angry One wrote...

If Legion wanted to kill Shepard it could've snapped Shepard's neck in that instant. Legion was clearly trying to stop Shepard from aiding the Quarians to, you know, exterminate all the Geth.

Exactly my point. You think organics will never act against synthetics? No, they will, and synthetics will retaliate just as the geth did, both when the quarians first attempted to shut them down, and again when Shep sided with the quarians.

As long as organics are a part of the equation, there will be conflict.

The Angry One wrote...

Moreover if we assume Legion was going to kill Shepard, how is that ANY different from Wrex trying to kill Shepard if Shepard betrays him by sabotaging the genophage cure?
Both are brings who consider themselves Shepard's friend. Both are betrayed. Both face the extinction of their own species because of Shepard.
Why is it okay for Wrex to commit an act of revenge after the fact, but not for Legion to make a last ditch effort for survival?

There you go. You completely understand my point; synthetics and organics are exactly the same. It's only the material they're made from that differs (without getting technical here). Both will always try to protect and preserve themselves. And as long as both co-exist, there will always be conflict, the degrees of which will differ.

The Angry One wrote...

Yeah, because Sovereign wasn't influencing them at all, right?

No, it wasn't. Legion explained that they left the main faction of the geth willingly to join the Reapers' cause.

The Angry One wrote...
To assume that even if AI dominated everything that they'd go on to exterminate all organic life everywhere for no reason is what's naive.
You seem to miss the point that the Catalyst's argument is not "synthetics and organics will always fight" it's "synthetics and organics will always fight, synthetics will always win and will go on to kill all organic life because I say so."

I didn't assume that. I stated the possibility of it.

And no, that's not the Catalyst's argument. It's argument is that once a technological singularity is met, organics will always lose. Which is true, going by the definition of TS.

[The Night Mammoth]

[quote]JackumsD wrote...

It's based on the idea of it. It's not based on the science of it. [/quote]

The real-life idea, I know that. The science would completely undermine anything  the serpent says. 

[quote]
It's not complex enough to require anything more than a few lines. [/quote]

It does if you want it to be the defining conflict of your entire work of fiction, if you want the player to suddenly forget why they're standing there trying to finish the game after 90 hours of having a largely singular purpose. 

[quote]
And as I stated above, it's based on the real life idea of TS, but there's a reason it's science fiction. You can't apply real world logic to it. [/quote]

That's not my point. 

The concept is not referred to in-game. The real-life theory is being used as an explanation, real-life logic and reasoning is being used to explain the fiction. 

So, I'll use it to argue against the explanation. 

[quote]
The Catalyst doesn't state every synthetic will always rebel. It states that such an ocurrence will always be inevitable. Its words have been far too twisted by those that disagree with it. And the idea itself was already established via the geth and quarians; synthetics rebelling against their creators. [/quote]

Eh no, the idea is that synthetics will try to eradicate all organic life, motivations or cause unspecified. The Geth and the Quarians are quite obviously not an example of this. 


[quote]The circumstances of the rebellion are irrelevant because it happened.[/quote]

The circumstances are entirely relevant because it doesn't support the serpent. Any conflict involving synthetics would without the details. 

The Zha'til are a good example. They attacked organics. 

Why? Because the Reapers made them do it. Is that detail not important? 

[quote]The only difference is, in the time where synthetics are far more advanced than the geth, and conflict occurs, the consequences will be much more severe than the geth incident. [/quote]

According to the Catalyst, kind of, but it does nothing to prove that. 

[quote]
But it's not based on the science of it. That much is self-explanatory considering we haven't even achieved true AI as it is in the Mass Effect universe. Therefore, again, the idea may be used in the game, but that's not inclusive of everything relative to the real world concept of technological singularity. [/quote]

My point again though, the game doesn't use the idea, the people looking to explain the ending do, so I'll argue against it using the theory they're already using too. 

[quote]
From the codex entry on AI: 
"The geth serve as a cautionary tale against the dangers of rogue AI, and in Citadel space they are technically illegal."

They're illegal because they're dangerous/have the potential to be. [/quote]

So are Krogan. 

I don't see them being banned from Citadel Space. That line also lacks the specifics, again, and the knowledge we gain completely undermines the point. The Geth aren't outwardly hostile. 

[quote]
Is that why Legion tries to kill Shepard the moment he sides with the quarians? The same Legion that was considered Shepard's friend? [/quote]

Siding with the Quarians means the death of his entire species. Siding with the Qurians denies every Geth their sapience. 

What you do in those circumstances, if someone you thought was your friend was about to cause the death of every human?

[quote]And what about the faction of heretic geth that willingly joined the Reapers and had no problem with assisting in the extermination of all advanced organics? [/quote]

5% of the greater whole. I can guarantee more than 5% of all Krogan would enjoy wiping out all Salarians, Turians, and Asari, for what they did during the Rebellions. 

The rest opposed the Heretics. They would not have become hostile without Nazara showing up. 

[quote]To me it's just so extremely naive to believe that no AI ever created will be violent or act against organics.[/quote]

That would be extremely naive, indeed. 

Just as well neither of us actually believe that, isn't it?

Even peaceful synthetics, like the geth, have proven to be a huge threat to organics under certain circumstances.[/quote]

Those circumstances being? 

Being threatened with genocide and under merciless attack, or under Reaper control. 

Were they a threat to all organic life? 

F*ck no, is the answer to that. 

[quote]Even if synthetics are peaceful, organics will not always be, and if they act against synthetics, synthetics will retaliate. [/quote]

Certainly, but I've never denied that. 

[quote]You cannot guarantee organics will never act against synthetics. I cannot guarantee they will, but I can say it with 99% certainty. [/quote]

Will they try to wipe out all organic life, attempt to that is, let alone succeed? 

I'd rather not imagine the needlessly small chance of that ever happening. 

[quote]Claiming otherwise would be the equivalent of me saying "beginning tomorrow no-one on this planet will engage in conflict with another." Conflict is a constant and never-ending thing. It will always exist between organics and other organics, and in a world where AI are as prevalent as organics, it will also exist. To claim otherwise would be totally ignorant. [/quote]

I could claim there won't be a life-ending galactic war in a thousand years between genocidal AI's and woefully unmatched organics with a high degree of certainty. 

[quote]There's no guarantee of organics being wiped out entirely, but severe negative consequences? [/quote]

How severe, and to which side? 


[quote]Yes, we can be 99% certain in a scenario where AI are the dominant faction in the galaxy, there will not be peace. [/quote]

Prove it. 


[quote]If not as a result of their own violent nature, it will be a result of the violent nature of organics in response to the AIs.

[/quote]

I'm still not understanding where the 'wiping out all organic life' thing comes in.

Bacteria living under the ice-shelves of Titan are hardly threatening to vastly advanced AI's living in sprawling processor cities in the depths of space, are they? 

Cows aren't either, or primates. 

So why would they be wiped out? Accident? Prove it. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 29 mai 2012 - 12:52 .

[The Angry One]

JackumsD wrote...

Exactly my point. You think organics will never act against synthetics? No, they will, and synthetics will retaliate just as the geth did, both when the quarians first attempted to shut them down, and again when Shep sided with the quarians.

So what?

As long as organics are a part of the equation, there will be conflict.

Again, so what? There is constant conflict among organics. What difference does it make if synthetics are added into the mix?

There you go. You completely understand my point; synthetics and organics are exactly the same. It's only the material they're made from that differs (without getting technical here). Both will always try to protect and preserve themselves. And as long as both co-exist, there will always be conflict, the degrees of which will differ.

And yet again, so what? Chaos? There will always be chaos. Nature is chaotic by definition.

No, it wasn't. Legion explained that they left the main faction of the geth willingly to join the Reapers' cause.

Yes, due to Sovereign's influence. You know, like Saren.

I didn't assume that. I stated the possibility of it.

Except, it's impossible.

And no, that's not the Catalyst's argument. It's argument is that once a technological singularity is met, organics will always lose. Which is true, going by the definition of TS.

You mean like the Metacon War.... which  the Protheans were winning.
Like the Zha'til... who were exterminated by the Protheans.
Like the Geth.... who without Reaper intervention would've been destroyed by the Quarians.

.... oops.

And again, that's not what the Catalyst is saying. This is why people think the Catalyst's logic is right. Because you are making up your own logic.
The Catalyst states that synthetics will wipe out all organic life. Hence Reapers to preserve organic life in Reaper form. This is fact, within the game, from the horse's mouth. You can't dispute it. This is the Catalyst's logic.

Modifié par The Angry One, 29 mai 2012 - 12:47 .

[Jackums]

The Angry One wrote...

Again, so what? There is constant conflict among organics. What difference does it make if synthetics are added into the mix?

Because when they get to the point that they're beyond our comprehension, it won't be like today where we can fight back. They'll be beyond us. They will have the power to enslave or exterminate us.

I thought that much was obvious considering the entire premise of this is technological singularity.

The Angry One wrote...

Yes, due to Sovereign's influence. You know, like Saren.

No, it was due to the conclusion they came to of their own free will. The logic you're using is the same as punching someone in the face and then saying it was their fault because they made you angry.

No. The geth were not controlled or forced in any way. They joined the Reapers willingly.

The Angry One wrote...

Except, it's impossible.

What an elaborate argument you have here. Thank you, professor. You really cleared this all up for me.

The Angry One wrote...

You mean like the Metacon War.... which  the Protheans were winning.
Like the Zha'til... who were exterminated by the Protheans.
Like the Geth.... who without Reaper intervention would've been destroyed by the Quarians.

.... oops.

They were not technological singularities. Are you familiar with what a TS is?

The Angry One wrote...

And again, that's not what the Catalyst is saying. This is why people think the Catalyst's logic is right. Because you are making up your own logic.
The Catalyst states that synthetics will wipe out all organic life. Hence Reapers to preserve organic life in Reaper form. This is fact, within the game, from the horse's mouth. You can't dispute it. This is the Catalyst's logic.

It states that such is an eventuality, which is an entirely valid claim. It cannot know this because it has never gotten to that point. But more points to it happening than to it not happening. Much more.

And yes, it is what it's saying. From the original script:
"Catalyst: Impossible. Organics will always trend to a point of technological singularity. A moment in time where their creations outgrow them. Conflict is the only result, and extinction the consequence. My solution creates a cycle which never reaches that point. Organic life is preserved."

And if your only argument against that is "that's not how it's worded in the actual game", you needn't bother responding.

Modifié par JackumsD, 29 mai 2012 - 12:59 .

[Cypher_CS]

Angry One, you keep circling back to already answered arguments, constantly trying to represent them as new.

Stop talking about Organics being hostile to Organics.
This is not what we are talking about. We aren't measuring equals. Not equal armament and certainly not equal thought processes and patterns.

I gave the example of cockroaches, and you retort with "their aren't sapient". Which was hardly the point and I did write "should they decided to take arms".
Also, humans never tried to wipe out cockroaches. Not really. Only to repel them from locations.

[The Angry One]

JackumsD wrote...

Because when they get to the point that they're beyond our comprehension, it won't be like today where we can fight back. They'll be beyond us. They will have the power to enslave or exterminate us.

I thought that much was obvious considering the entire premise of this is technological singularity.

The technological singularity is an unknown. Nothing more. Hence, singularity.
Nothing says they will do these things.

No, it was due to the conclusion they came to of their own free will. The logic you're using is the same as punching someone in the face and then saying it was their fault because they made you angry.

Assumption, made all the more unlikely considering Reapers like to hack any synthetics they have access to.

No. The geth were not controlled or forced in any way. They joined the Reapers willingly.

So did Saren.

What an elaborate argument you have here. Thank you, professor. You really cleared this all up for me.

Concession accepted.

They were not technological singularities. Are you familiar with what a TS is?

Obviously you don't.
The Geth were already in the process of uploading their minds to their construct, increasing their computing power beyond measure. Then the Quarians blew them up good.

It states that such is an eventuality, which is an entirely valid claim. It cannot know this because it has never gotten to that point. But more points to it happening than to it not happening. Much more.

It does not point to this at all! And since it has never gotten to this point, it's basis for this claim is ZERO.

And yes, it is what it's saying. From the original script:
"Catalyst: Impossible. Organics will always trend to a point of technological singularity. A moment in time where their creations outgrow them. Conflict is the only result, and extinction the consequence. My solution creates a cycle which never reaches that point. Organic life is preserved."

Why is conflict the inevitable result of a singularity?
Why is extinction the consequence?
Again. You don't know what a singularity is and neither do the writers.

And if your only argument against that is "that's not how it's worded in the actual game", you needn't bother responding.

What the hell? Are you seriously, SERIOUSLY saying that game dialogue must be disregarded in favour of unused scripts? What? WHAT? You've just lost all credibility, not that you had much to begin with.
Stop wasting my time.

[The Angry One]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Angry One, you keep circling back to already answered arguments, constantly trying to represent them as new.

I'm responding to your already answered arguments. Pot, meet kettle.

Stop talking about Organics being hostile to Organics.
This is not what we are talking about. We aren't measuring equals. Not equal armament and certainly not equal thought processes and patterns.

The Krogan were never the equals of the Salarians in terms of technology and strategy.
Therefore, the Salarians would wipe them out. Oh wait, no. They didn't.

I gave the example of cockroaches, and you retort with "their aren't sapient". Which was hardly the point and I did write "should they decided to take arms".

And that was my point, they would be sapient and even if hostile to us would be treated differently.

Also, humans never tried to wipe out cockroaches. Not really. Only to repel them from locations.

Yes. And often we can't do that.

[Jackums]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

It does if you want it to be the defining conflict of your entire work of fiction, if you want the player to suddenly forget why they're standing there trying to finish the game after 90 hours of having a largely singular purpose.

Evidently that was not the case for BioWare. But either way; opinion.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

That's not my point. 

The concept is not referred to in-game. The real-life theory is being used as an explanation, real-life logic and reasoning is being used to explain the fiction. 

So, I'll use it to argue against the explanation.

Nothing more than the idea of it is being used. A Mass Effect variant of TS is being used, not the real life theory. The real life theory is completely irrelevant beyond its basic idea due to the fact that ME is set in a fictional universe.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eh no, the idea is that synthetics will try to eradicate all organic life, motivations or cause unspecified. The Geth and the Quarians are quite obviously not an example of this.

The Catalyst states "the created will always rebel against the creators."

This is what the geth did.

Ergo, yes, the idea had been presented prior to the end.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

My point again though, the game doesn't use the idea, the people looking to explain the ending do, so I'll argue against it using the theory they're already using too.

But it does. The original script even uses the term "technological singularity".

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The Geth aren't outwardly hostile.

Point being? No-one ever said all synthetics had to be hostile. But hostile synthetics are inevitable, whether by nature or in self-defense.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Siding with the Quarians means the death of his entire species. Siding with the Qurians denies every Geth their sapience. 

What you do in those circumstances, if someone you thought was your friend was about to cause the death of every human?

I explained my reasoning for bringing up this example to The Angry One. Respond to those replies if you wish.

----------------------------------------

I got tired after this point. Either way, the general point being made is that;

1. A technological singularity will occur if organics are allowed to progress to a certain point
2. At such a stage, synthetics will be the dominant faction in the galaxy

From here, conflict is inevitable, just as it is in reality. People will always fight. There will always be war, however small or large in scale. It's human nature. It's constant and it's never-ending. The only difference between now and when a TS has occured is, organics will be inferior to synthetics, giving them power over us. And as long as humans remain, well, human, conflict will arise. They will act and synthetics will retaliate. This does not guarantee extinction, no. But it guarantees negative outcomes, and extinction remains a possibility. A potential outcome too great to simply "assume it won't happen".

And finally, I'll clarify again that I don't agree that the Catalyst's solution was the best way to go about it, and that I was simply explaining the logic of it.

[MrRag]

Deus ex machina still equals bad writing.

[George Costanza]

The Angry One wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Have you actually read beyond the TLDR version?

Yes, it is exactly about Psychopathy.
In the narrowest possible definition of Psychopathy. In the definition that a Psychopath is someone that doesn't know wrong from right (Moral argument). AIs don't have such a moral, culture based destiction. They have calculations. And the invariability of calculations will lead to a logical assumption that the Catalyst achieves.

That any living being actually thinks the Catalyst's assumptions are logical genuinely frightens me.
You you also think conflict between different human races is inevitable? Because that's essentially what the Catalyst is saying. Those who are different will never get along.

I would agree with Cypher and the topic starter here. You've got to imagine the thinking of a machine. It will process the facts, and the probabilities, without any ethical sway. It's just dealing with the numbers. And not the feelings of the people it will affect.

If you accept that it is possible that Synthetics will turn on Organics at some point, then as the timeline increases, so does the probability of it happening. On a long enough timeline, anything that is considered possible becomes more likely to occur.

From there it's easy to see how the the Catalyst made its reasoning. On a long enough timeline, singularity would occur, Synthetics would turn, life would be extinguished. Is it iron clad? No. Should it be more clear in the game. Absolutely. But I can certainly see that there is a certain logic to it, even if it is abhorrent.

[Cypher_CS]

Last point first - yes, we can. If we actually coordinate.

Okay, I understand your point of treating them different as sapient. Granted.
But, again, that's NOT the point I was trying to make.
The point of the cockroaches is that in terms of thinking patterns, in terms of thinking capacity, humans or organics would be as cockroaches compared with post TS AI. At least that's the logic.
NOT at the same level, but same ratio, or even much higher.
So, you got supreme intelligence, and "cockroaches" with nukes. What do you do?

The Korgan/Salarian ratio is NOT an example.
Cause there as well we don't have such a drastic difference.
It would be like comparing... US and Afghanistan.

[The Angry One]

Let's assume that a TS means synthetics will dominate the galaxy.
There is as much of a chance that synthetics will simply rule organics, or leave them alone, laughing at their puny attempts to ever challenge them.

There is absolutely ZERO basis for assuming that a TS will lead to extermination. None.

[The Angry One]

George Costanza wrote...

I would agree with Cypher and the topic starter here. You've got to imagine the thinking of a machine. It will process the facts, and the probabilities, without any ethical sway. It's just dealing with the numbers. And not the feelings of the people it will affect.

If you accept that it is possible that Synthetics will turn on Organics at some point, then as the timeline increases, so does the probability of it happening. On a long enough timeline, anything that is considered possible becomes more likely to occur.

From there it's easy to see how the the Catalyst made its reasoning. On a long enough timeline, singularity would occur, Synthetics would turn, life would be extinguished. Is it iron clad? No. Should it be more clear in the game. Absolutely. But I can certainly see that there is a certain logic to it, even if it is abhorrent.

A purely logical machine would not let things like ego, emotion and retribution affect it.
Indeed, despite all the crimes commited on the Geth by the Quarians, the Geth constantly desire peace and co-existence with the Quarians, demonstrating that the Geth do not have interest in concepts of revenge.

Therefore, why would organic life be exterminated? It is illogical.and serves no purpose to do so.

[The Angry One]

Okay, I understand your point of treating them different as sapient. Granted.
But, again, that's NOT the point I was trying to make.
The point of the cockroaches is that in terms of thinking patterns, in terms of thinking capacity, humans or organics would be as cockroaches compared with post TS AI. At least that's the logic.
NOT at the same level, but same ratio, or even much higher.

But they would still be thinking beings.

So, you got supreme intelligence, and "cockroaches" with nukes. What do you do?

I kill the ones attacking me. Then I take away their nukes and control them seeing as they're unruly.
Exterminating them would be an illogical act of retribution.

I am really amused at how you think a TS will be an intelligence beyond our measure, yet you think they will retain the same petty egos that we do.. even though the Geth demonstrably don't.

The Korgan/Salarian ratio is NOT an example.
Cause there as well we don't have such a drastic difference.
It would be like comparing... US and Afghanistan.

It's "not an example" because you don't want it to be. The fact is, the Salarians were far above the Krogan technologically and had the power to alter the Krogan any way they wished with the genophage. They could've made it 100% fatal. They could've just released a plague. The Salarians had all the power in this, to deal with a genuine galactic threat.

Modifié par The Angry One, 29 mai 2012 - 01:23 .