1057 réponses à ce sujet

[memorysquid]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Technological change does not accelarate forever, any technological advancement must be a response to change, it cannot just happen in random fashion, you do not self-modify for nothing, and the stimulus for change rests in interation with organics, and eventually the stimulus will die down as the purposes for change had been fulfilled

It is a myth because there is no evidence for it, there are always things that can be done to stop this so-called singularity

Or then again maybe there can't.  This is a fictional universe.  Nothing says that the authors weren't being perfectly open in what they had the catalyst claim.  In fact, the evidence in the game is that AIs do tend to come into violent conflict with their creators for whatever reason - in fact, I cannot think of a single AI in the game that doesn't fit that model.  Geth, EDI both as lunar VI and now as self-willed AI, Metacons, Citadel finance AI, etc., every single instance of AI and several of VI feature rebellion against creator for some reason.  With the exception of whatever the Catalyst is supposed to be, all in game evidence points to the Catalyst's conclusion being a rational, empirical observation.

Basically irrelevant, unless they attempt to eradicate all organic life. The created can rebel all the want, and are often right to do so, but they don't support what the Catalyst says. 

No, not irrelevant.  One might say it's a necessary but not sufficient component of a conclusion that looks like "Synthetic life will eventually destroy organic life."  The other part is that the conflict would necessarily lead to the destruction of organic life.  Again the Catalyst says all of 2 maybe 3 sentences on the subject - so we don't have much to go on.  I am just pointing out there's no good reason not to assume he was meant to be taken at face value.

[The Night Mammoth]

memorysquid wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Technological change does not accelarate forever, any technological advancement must be a response to change, it cannot just happen in random fashion, you do not self-modify for nothing, and the stimulus for change rests in interation with organics, and eventually the stimulus will die down as the purposes for change had been fulfilled

It is a myth because there is no evidence for it, there are always things that can be done to stop this so-called singularity

Or then again maybe there can't.  This is a fictional universe.  Nothing says that the authors weren't being perfectly open in what they had the catalyst claim.  In fact, the evidence in the game is that AIs do tend to come into violent conflict with their creators for whatever reason - in fact, I cannot think of a single AI in the game that doesn't fit that model.  Geth, EDI both as lunar VI and now as self-willed AI, Metacons, Citadel finance AI, etc., every single instance of AI and several of VI feature rebellion against creator for some reason.  With the exception of whatever the Catalyst is supposed to be, all in game evidence points to the Catalyst's conclusion being a rational, empirical observation.

Basically irrelevant, unless they attempt to eradicate all organic life. The created can rebel all the want, and are often right to do so, but they don't support what the Catalyst says. 

No, not irrelevant.  One might say it's a necessary but not sufficient component of a conclusion that looks like "Synthetic life will eventually destroy organic life."  The other part is that the conflict would necessarily lead to the destruction of organic life.  

It might be a component, but irrelevant unless the created attempt to destroy their creators and organic life. 

The Geth are the best example. They rebelled, almost wiped out the Quarians, then let the survivors leave, before secluding themselves from the rest of the galactic community. Not once did they attempt to wipe out all organic life, so their rebellion is irrelevant to the Catalyst's argument.

Again the Catalyst says all of 2 maybe 3 sentences on the subject - so we don't have much to go on.  I am just pointing out there's no good reason not to assume he was meant to be taken at face value.

The only reason to take it at face-value is because the writers wrote him that way. Making him capable of lying would make it an even more irrelevant component to the plot. 

Other than that, I see literally no other reason to believe it. 

[Cypher_CS]

[quote]Vigilant111...
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...

Sorry, but I fail to see how you consider these poitns of yours as counter arguments to the OP.

[/quote]

Oh don't be sorry, neither do I, it was just a stupid title I used, cos I recognise it is all a bunch of speculations, including singularity, just debating the likelihood of things, not SOLID counter points

End note: I think u are being agnostic about the Catalyst , and it gets you nowhere, it is indecision

[/quote] 

Well now we can have a discussion, instead of having it marred by that title.



[quote]Vigilant111 wrote...

Technological change does not accelarate forever, any technological advancement must be a response to change, it cannot just happen in random fashion, you do not self-modify for nothing, and the stimulus for change rests in interation with organics, and eventually the stimulus will die down as the purposes for change had been fulfilled

It is a myth because there is no evidence for it, there are always things that can be done to stop this so-called singularity
[/quote]

There are several problems with the above argument.
1. You assume, without any evidence, that technological change requires interaction with organics.
Why?
Just like humans are constantly looking to improve themselves, another intelligence, a true intelligence, might and probably will be on a path of self improvement and perfection. Not as a race with other individuals, but with itself.
This might be especially true for a form of intelligence that doesn't require "primitive" learning like we do. Hell, it can run simulations on what and how it will improve given pretty much any possible iteration, combination and information.
2. You claim it's a myth, lacking any evidence - yet you assert that there are always things that can be done to stop it....



[quote] Vigilant111...
Yes, the Catalyst specifically said "the created will always rebel against their creators", what does it mean to you? peace? it is the foundation to Catalyst's implication that destroy doesn't work, that organics need more stern measures, that organic life must be altered on a biological level
[/quote]

Well, we've already done the discussion on whether Rebellion must always mean war. It doesn't have to.
Yes, it does assume that war is inevitable. Again, that's due to the nonzero probabilities.
But the main idea is that this is not about any possible intentions one might have against the other - only cold hard calculus.


[quote] Vigilant111
I am just telling you that technological singularity is not the cause for the destruction of organic life, so u relax with your synthesis, there are a million other reasons that will get you killed, but not necesarily singularity

What is c? then why did u choose synthesis? aren't you afraid to be wiped out by bad a** synthetics? who happened to be post-singularity

Look, I am only saying synthesis does not guarantee anything, and certainly not the eternal survival of organics, it is no better than destroy if not worse
[/quote] 

Did I say that Synthesis solves anything? Disclaimer - yes, I believe that the writers meant it so.
Yes, there are a million other reasons that would cause wars, plagues etc'. Million wars between factions.
But I believe the writers, as JShepp presents through the lens of the leaked script, intended for the TS to mean that would be certain annihilation of all organisms. Factional wars, plagues etc' would leave life to be born again.
Only the TS - again, according to that assumption - means complete sterilization.

An important note.
The above doesn't have to be actually true. It only need to be the belief or calculation of the Catalyst to give it a motivation, a cause for it's actions. You are free to disagree and choose Destroy. There is absolutely no problem with that (barring the Prudential calculation - Catalyst's Wager, as it were).


[quote] Vigilant111
Didn't you notice the quotation marks? this assumption is uttered when you say organics are gonna be wiped out due to singularity, isn't it bad, isn't that what the Catalyst is implying?

How could singularity be beneficial to synthetics, what does it actually do? to help solve problems faster? what problems?

All I am saying is EVERYTHING has pros and cons, singularity, if it happens, it cannot be all "good" or all "bad" for any party
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain this further. I don't understand what you are trying to say.


[quote]Vigilant111

Yes, we all retire to that eventually,  typical, hmm, PLENTY of linking, pick your favourite, and pick a couple that says singularity is also beneficial for organics, since u are guessing
[/quote] 
The whole idea of a Technological Singularity is that it runs us, humans, into cockroaches in the eyes of whatever the advanced Intelligence is. It may be an AI, or it may be Dr' Manhattan.
It is never actually beneficial to us. It doesn't have to mean total annihilation, as I've explained above, but it is not, strictly speaking, beneficial to... those left behind.

Sure, the advances in technology that will result are great, but the realization that we've created something so far beyond us is more than humbling. Think of the Total Perspective Vortex - only on a massive scale! 

[quote]Vigilant111

Leaked script? extrapulations? tell me exactly how credible are they to the story, how much do they worth???

So your view is that BW intended singularity is the pivotal issue in the game? cos if that is the case, no one in the right mind would choose destroy and the game would have shown u evidence of this inevitability all along[/quote]

No, it's not about credibility to the story.
It's about the OP stating from the onset that he uses those as basis. That's all.

And no, people would still choose destroy, while still being in their right mind - as we've demonstrated in these discussions on the forums.
It doesn't have to be written as the God's Gospel, it just need to be introduced better, talked about more. Given better exposition or foreshadowing. Then it's up to the player to Wager.


[quote]Vigilant111

You don't have to preach to me that peace can't last

Which side would win??? the worthy one obviously, I am assuming you are saying that post-singularity synthetics shall "win", cos they are so intelligent, that is subjective view, we all have our own strength and waeknesses, "know your enemy and know yourself"

I cannot help but feeling that you are just buying insurance against possible destruction of the organics by choosing synthesis

[/quote]

The last statement is true. That's the root of the Prudential argument.
It's Pascal's Wager turned Sci-Fi.


[quote]Vigilant111

This point has nothing to do with morals, the reapers claim that they ascend lives, but they are really not, this is a technicality issue
[/quote]
I disagree. It's very much about morals.
They ascend lives be creating new Reapers from those strands of DNA and... well, goo.
That's their view of it.

Just like in some african or amazonian tribes it's the ultimate gift to sacrifice someone as food to God.
To us it's nonsense and abhorent. To them... well, even the victim believes this.

[quote]Vigilant111

??? I thought they are trying to stop chaos

Why do they care??? because they want to save u by killing u
[/quote]

Yeah, some bad writing there.
They want to preserve Chaos, not Order. Cause Organics are Chaos.

It's just like in the original Matrix the explanation to why Neo has Hair got mixed up.
It's not the Mental Project of his Digital Self, it's the Digital Projection of his Mental Self, I believe...

[quote]Vigilant111

How hard it is to understand the Catalyst's reason, it is not that complicated, u sound as if we never understand its reasoning, we understand perfectly, we understand that it kills to preserve, okay? but it needs to be stopped

Well, if what it says is not evidence, but only reasoning, then it is even harder to believe it
[/quote]

No, we are only shown or told the What. Not the Why.


[quote]Vigilant111

??? don't mean s**t to me, I could only take what the ending gave me
[/quote]
Then don't comment on it in a Thread that specifically talks about those things as sources for the discussion....


[quote]Vigilant111
But u just proved my point, they need to survive to continue to harvest, it doesn't matter what it is for
[/quote]

Really?
Really?
You want us to rehash that Friends episode where Ross tries to convince Phoebe that there's no true Altruism?




More to come....

[JShepppp]

No mention in the EC about the tech singularity. While I think it's an applicable theme, as it wasn't specifically mentioned, we now know that it, like IT, is no longer explicitly the case. Perhaps someone wants to make a "round 2" of this thread with the Catalyst's new logic.

[Eluril]

I don't see how this is defunct. To me it's actually more interesting now. The Catalyst is revealed to be a rogue AI that at first was created to bridge the gap between organic and synthetics in order to lead to a peaceful "singularity". Instead it noticed conflict and chose a new "solution": It chose to forcibly create a crude singularity through harvesting both organics and synthetics and forcing them together. Something like the true peaceful singularity is found in the Synthesis ending. I think this thread still has huge merit.

[The Night Mammoth]

It's only defunct now?

It was defunct the instant you made a list of unproven assumptions as a basis for your logic.

[JShepppp]

@Eluril: I understand where you're coming from. My bad, it's just that it wasn't mentioned. I'll take out the defunct sign and whatnot and come back from time to time. I'm not sure though if I'll be updating it anymore as it's very long.

@Night Mammoth: Your disagreement has been noted lol. Thank you.

[Valmarn]

With his abysmal writing, Mac Walters' wouldn't amount to a hair on Dan O'Bannon's arse (R.I.P.) so, to be able to make it seem even remotely coherent is truly is phenomenal.

It goes without saying that making any sense of his writing is more amazing than his writing, in and of itself.