1057 réponses à ce sujet

[InsaneAzrael]

[quote]JShepppp wrote...

I
From this plus in-game dialogue, I deduce the following in response to some qualms with the Catalyst's reasoning:

1. The Catalyst is using synthetics to kill organics...but this is the problem it's trying to solve! There are two things wrong with this statement. First, the Reapers aren't synthetics. They're synthetic/organic hybrids, something that EDI makes clear during the Suicide Mission in ME2 (she even says calling the Reapers machines is "incorrect"). Second, the Reapers don't believe they're killing organics - they believe they're preserving them and making way for new life. We don't see how Reapers are actually made, but we are given some indication that they do somehow preserve their species' essence at the cost of tons (trillions?) of lives, so while we don't agree with it, we can accept it as a valid point for the sake of argument. 

[quote]

So Reapers use organic material for their reproduction and development. Ok. Enquiry: Are you aware of the process of Abiogenesis?

Very simplistically it involves natural processes acting on inorganic compounds and molecules to form structures that replicate, later metabolise and "grow". With variety and integration of variety the different molecules can give rise to what we now call "organics". Evolution carrying from there creating "Organic Life". No involvement of a creation.

Reapers could be seen as the inverse of this function. Created beings which through designed processes take organic composites, break them down to inorganic compounds/molecules and create synthetic replicants of their own templated design.

So it is not hybridisation persay. It is an inverse function of the original template. You can probably tell that equating something with its inverse is not an argument persay, it is a function of the argument. Like in math.
0-1=-1

[quote]JShepppp wrote...

2. In my playthrough, Joker/EDI hooked up and the Geth/Quarians found peace, therefore conflict isn't always the result! Several arguments can be made against this. First, giving two examples doesn't talk about the bigger, overall galactic picture (winning a battle doesn't mean the war is won, so to speak). Second, we haven't reached that technological singularity point yet by which creations outgrow organics - basically, when synthetics will normally come to dominate the galaxy. Third, evidence for the synthetic/organic conflict is there in the past - in the Protheans' cycle (Javik dialogue) and even in previous cycles (the Thessia VI says that the same conflicts always happen in each cycle). 

[/quote]

I was curious about this myself. We can assume a whole lot, but the arguments forwarded by the star-child do not seem to account for the occurences within each cycle. Rather it takes into account only what it was (I assume) initially programmed to do.

The presence of a non-synthetic/organic on the crucible control centre even strikes it as a violation of said programming. An error. So I guess the whole failure of its arguments are a poorly considered catch-all.
Supposedly, this is the first time the "crucible" actually reached the CItadel in all the cycles (or so we are left to infer). So realistically, the Catalyst probably remains unaware of how many cycles achieved unification with Synthetic life.
The argument in either direction is based on limited and mutually exclusive premises. Therefore, both sides are making irrelevant arguments to one another.

[quote]JShepppp wrote...
3. If synthetics are the problem and the Catalyst is trying to protect organics, it should just kill Synthetics instead! A few things here. First, the Catalyst believes it's "harvesting/ascending" organics, not killing them. Second, one of the goals of the Catalyst (leaked script above) is to allow new life to flourish as well, indicating that they value the diversity of the "accident" that is life and believe that clearing the galaxy of more advanced races helps lower ones advance peacefully. Arguably, this is true, as the Javik DLC reveals that the Prothean Empire would have either enslaved or exterminated us; since the Reapers killed them, humanity, arguably, was allowed to develop in peace. Third, killing Synthetics may allow for organics to repeatedly develop AIs (as the Reapers keep "helping out" by killing the AIs) until they reach a level that even the Reapers cannot overcome, then organic life would be royally screwed throughout the galaxy. 

[/quote]

In contrast to this, the argument to protect organic life in its present form is diversity. As you mention Javik, you might note how he was thoroughly unfamiliar with unified diversity. This may have been due to the physiological trait of instantaneous transmission of information via touch. The Prothean empire was supposedly homogeneous.
AI's such as the geth require "consensus" in large enough numbers to operate a platform. So the idea of a harmonic centre is based on enforced rules.
The catalyst goes on about bringing an order to the Chaos, but through the negation of will, individuality or any identity. It generally entails running everything through the mill as a variable. Something that seems to have been partly undermined by the ability of organics in the final game's cycle. All those conflicting classes of organics being capable of unification for a purpose, whilst maintaining the internal conflict and still enacting an effective strategy. Yet again, something noted by the "surprise" of the crucible enacting an illogical catch-all to deal with it.

The whole argument of the crucible (as its odd appearance) is unknowns. The catalyst on the other hand (and ITS appearance) is equally unknown. The disjointed presentation of this new unknown with errors of the occurence of the cycles and its very short lived resucitaion imply it doesn't know enough. So how could it's arguments truly hold? We don't know, and the story really doesn't tell.

A lot of the arguments it holds are based on unknowns, and when something is unknown, it should be realistically investigated not obliged.

[quote]JShepppp wrote...
4. The Catalyst should've done Synthesis instead of Reaping in the first place! First, doing synthesis may stop new life from flourishing by the Reapers' logic (see leaked script above); without clearing out more advanced races, younger ones might not be able to develop freely. Second, the Catalyst would've needed the Crucible. A pseudo-argument (i.e. not based on fact from the story, but interesting) can be made that the Synthesis was the long-term solution but the Catalyst would only enact it when the galaxy was "ready" for it by building the Crucible. 
[/quote]

Apologies, but this seems naive. There is not sufficient cohesive evidence for the crucible to actually be a viable solution. The whole concept is a so called "act of faith" that we may dismiss throughout the game for the purpose of suspending out disbelief and getting into the main core story. If you wish to resolve the cognitive dissonance held then in the end by simply passing off synthesis as "I sacrifice myself onto the crucible for the good of the universe, so sayeth the god-child". Please.

The ending was patronising enough, but to claim that a poorly established plot device such as the newly introduced conclusion of transhumanism is worse. Mass Effect is interpreted to be about numerous plots and subplots in each volume of the series. However, to be frank, the ending is a dismissal of core themes for a DEUS EX knock-off.
The geth and AI thing were subplots. Not core themes. In the end, the Reapers being stopped were the only themes most people aimed at.

Yet again, the Catalyst had no real information on the cycles aside from that input to it. It had an incompete log, it's premises were irrelevant.

[quote]JShepppp wrote...
5. But...the Catalyst is justifying genocide! It doesn't view it as genocide. Rather than exterminating species, it believes it's preserving them and even stopping them from being exterminated or enslaving/exterminating others; arguably, it believes it's doing the exact opposite. But of course, it is actually genocide, and we should try to stop it. Just because the idea of what the Catalyst is doing is evil doesn't mean that its logic is flawed. I personally don't agree with its methods, but its reasoning seems sound.

6. Wait, Sovereign/RannochReaper told us we couldn't comprehend them, but I understand this! There are two ways to interpret what they said. One is that we actually couldn't academically comprehend it, in which case they must've been lying or it's just bad writing. Another is that we couldn't possibly comprehend the magnitude/scope of it, which is true. A human with a lifespan of 150 years (canon) can't comprehend hundreds of millions of years of organic evolution and stuff. 
[/quote]

Yup, a matter of scale. We as humans view bacteria and viruses as Reapers view galactic races.  Bacteria and Viruses can kill us. Galactic races can kill Reapers.

Thing is. bacteria and viruses cannot communicate with us. They cannot strategise towards or against us. They do not operate collectively. The Reapers on the other hand appear to be deterministically programmed to fulfil only the functions they were made to do. However, they do not seem to be capable of adaptation. A flaw. So as for genocide, they may not comprehend the concept, but they are commiting the atrocity.

[quote]JShepppp wrote...
Finally, just because I agree with the Catalyst's logic doesn't mean I agree with its methods and/or solution(s). I know I said it before but wanted to say it here again for emphasis. 

That's all I have to say. I'm sure I have a few flaws in my reasoning here or there, and I don't think I'm completely right. I'm interested to hear others' thoughts though on these issues. It'd help if you could indicate the number of the argument when you address it so this may be able to flow smoothly. [/quote]

Now here I am, at the crux of my point. The Catalyst has an irrelevant set of premises on which it's logic is based. So what I am saying is:

The logic is only comprehensible if the assumptions form a premise that is relevant. We are not actually given a clear set of premises but only given assumptions. So the logic is not actually complete. If you can inform me as to where the Catalyst's assumptions lead to premises that are relevant then maybe I could be persuaded that its logic is actually comprehensible.

[dreman9999]

Laurcus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Laurcus wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Laurcus wrote...

Reposting what I posted in another thread, as it seems strangely relevant. Basically, my argument boils down to the fact that as AI get more advanced, they won't get more stupid. They're not dumb enough to become arrogant and adopt a might makes right philosophy.

@OP, it's also possible that if left unchecked we could develop weapons powerful enough to destroy the galaxy. By your logic, since that's possible, it's inevitable. Looking at the world in a statistical vacuum is stupid though, because it doesn't account for individual situations.

Also, who is to say that AI wanting to kill us is a possibility? The two most advanced unshackled AIs in the galaxy are the Geth and EDI. If I'm not mistaken, I taught EDI about love, duty, and altruism, and the Geth are damn grateful to me.

The thing that the tech singularity theory doesn't consider, is that it has an inherently nihilistic viewpoint, which not everyone or everything will hold. Higher intelligence does not inherently lead to apathy, followed by entropy. It forgets a few of the big pros of being a super advanced AI, and only thinks about the cons. If AI are that advanced, they can have emotions, as EDI has demonstrated. And if they're that advanced they don't make mistakes, and they don't forget things no matter how long ago they were.

If the Geth built their Dyson Sphere, they would still remember the sacrifices of Commander Shepard, the peace they made with the Quarians, and even the Quarians that tried to help them in the Morning War. They will never forget that, they will always understand the philosophy behind it, and any future creations they make will know that because they're not dumb enough to make AI that will disregard their own viewpoints.

It's essentially saying that machines are different than us, and if you put them in a position of power they will one day turn on you. In Mass Effect, machines have feelings too. "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) is wrong. EDI find that very thing despicable, even evil. There's no reason to assume that she would make something that disagrees with her own ideals.

EDI has had plenty of opportunities to kill us, but she didn't. In ME2 when Joker unshackled her, she was put into the same situation as a technological singularity. She had all the power, and full sentience. She could have killed Joker and flew off to join the Reapers as her new machine overlords. But she didn't, because we're her crew.

You have only guesses on limited experience.

And on top of that, how do you know that AI's decission making ability doesn't get "convoluted" in time? 

Convoluted decision making is a weakness, a flaw. It's not an upgrade if it's a flaw. If I upgrade my computer's RAM it doesn't lose RAM.

That'snot thae point. Can you guarantee that no one causes conflict with your think AI computer ?

No, I cannot, but that's actually the beauty of it. If the tech singularity is true, then anyone making war against the advanced AI would be doomed to failure. The advanced AI would defend itself, and it would win because it's more powerful. Once it wins though, it doesn't have to destroy the galaxy because a few xenophobes attacked it.

One might ask, well why wouldn't it? Simple answer. Because it's morally wrong, and an AI more advanced than the Geth and EDI would know that because it's more advanced. An AI that advanced has feelings, as is shown by EDI and Legion. And even if some organics attack them, they're not dumb enugh to generalize and seterotype all organics based on that, because they will forever remember Shepard and what he did for them.

Edit: Here's an example. Are you familiar with Dragonball Z? Well, the main character, Goku, is virtually all powerful. He's also a really nice guy. If a human attacks Goku, his first response is not to destroy the entire human race. His first response is to try and reason with that individual, failing that he will defeat them if he must, but he won't kill them.

The problem withthat statement is thatby the nature of organics...It would not be just a few xenophobes. The nature of conflicting morality normally have massive ammmouts of people fighting massive abouts of people. All the wars we had in the past arebased on  conflicts of moral issues, both deep and petty. Saying only a few people will cause conflit with synthetics is like say only a few people when to war in the cursades.

[Railarian]

Unlimited Pain2 wrote...


Well Reapers don't qualify as Synthetics.... They're a synthesis between Synthetics and Organics.

Ending 'C' (red) disagrees: "Destroy all synthetic life"

[tjmax]

dreman9999 wrote...

tjmax wrote...

Exactly the point.
 
Unshackled AI with out morality would see organics attacking them as a threat and could calculate all organics are a threat and must be distroyed.

AI with morals would defend them selves and eliminate the threat, but not kill organics that are not a threat.

In the case of an Immoral AI vs Moral AI thye would come to odds just as humans do.

But what about the organics who see AI's as a  theat that force conflit with AI's?
What about that nature of organics causing conflict?
These are the thing your missing. You and I as indivisuals can see that beings like EDI and he geth can be allies and friend.
But what about the organics who in mass fear them, and try to cause conflict with them? 
That's the thing you not taking of account.

And that is the reasons behind the choices.

What do you want to do?

Kill all AI?
Control the solution?
Merge AI and organics to make a new life form that all have morals.


I don't say i agree with the choices. But the logic used is from a machine standpoint not a moral one.

[KingZayd]

dreman9999 wrote...

tjmax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

tjmax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

tjmax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

tjmax wrote...

FoxShadowblade wrote...

He provides no proof, his logic slaps the entire series in the face, and he makes Shepard look like a complete tool. Oh, and his choices suck balls.

So I don't care if he could be right, his logic is wrong, he was wrong, and any alternate ending should write him straight out of the game and into HELL.

Does not matter if he is wrong or right, moral or immoral. The AI life form seen problems.

Problem 1: Synthetic life forms created by organics will rebel and kill their makers and all other orgnic life.
Answer: take control of synthetics to prevent it.

Problem 2: organics will create new synthetics that will kill their creators.
Answer: Remove all advanced organics to prevent problem 2 and 1. 


What changed:
Shepard proved organics and synthics can make peace with one another, lasting peace? who knows
The crucible was added to the AI's core allowing for more possabilities or new way of thinking.

The think with the geth/quarian argument is that a question if the peice can last. With Lgion we see that the geth withthe upgrade have nearly all the capabilitysof an organic, it meansthey are capable of good and evil disisions like an organic. On the quarian side we have people like Admeral Xen that can mess it up as well.
If you want to us the geth/quarian argument, you have to guarantee the peace will last.

war vs peace was never really in the equasion. It was simply protecting against the destruction off all organic life forms by the synthetics.

 Everything changed by the advancing of synthetic life to becoming a living being. instillment of the morals and value of life, all life, Installing a soul of sorts, rather then just the self preservation by eliminating all threats of the old machines. Thats what opened up the some of new possabilities.

No, it got worse by adding moral value. War is somthing that organic created based on the very samemoral value given to machines. If moral value was what stop war from happening, then we would never have wars. This is the same world that thinksit a moral value to strap a bomb to themselve and blow a group of people up because the have a diffent relgion. This is the same world that a  stronger larger county can invade  a smaller one, kill off thousands of people, because they beleif the small county need a change in it social nature. This is the same moral value that cause a large group of peopleto commit genoside on a smaller group of people for being different.
Do you really think moral value ill garantee that synthetic will notgo towar with organic when itcauseso much war with us?

Moral value is what you teach edi. Its also what Leagion had that made him stand out from all other geth. It was no longer a matter of calucations and unknown values, it became a judgement call of what is right or wrong.
 

The geth did not have those values, but they did not calculate all organics to be a threat, yet. When the Quarion fled the treat was gone.

The reapers did not have those values, they seen all organics as a threat that needed to be removed from the equation.

The catalyst had a basic understanding that killing all organics was not the solution and came up with its own.


True Morality is what causes war, but its also what prevents the total inhalation of races of people.

EDI spent alotof time learing to think like an organic. She understands us and truely became human.
But that not the problem.....How would other people who are not the normadies crew react to her. When the normady was refitted, they pretened she was a VI. When joker brings EDI on the citadel, he pretends that she is his personal assistance droid...They hide her. Why?

People, ever since the morning war, have been hostle to AI. And even with out the, have a tendency of thinking of them as only tools and to be kept as so. The moral issues many people have will cause issues with AI's like EDI...
Case in point...
 

It not based on who is right...It's based on what they beleive....And clearly people make extreme action based on what they believe reguardless if we are right. The nature of organics case conflit with Synthetics. This is the base the reapers argument. 
It's clear that reapers don't havethose values, but the reaperarument is that those values can cause organice to destory them selves. Remeber this is a the same universe that people think blowing up a building fill with innocent people is a moral value.

Exactly the point.
 
Unshackled AI with out morality would see organics attacking them as a threat and could calculate all organics are a threat and must be distroyed.

AI with morals would defend them selves and eliminate the threat, but not kill organics that are not a threat.

In the case of an Immoral AI vs Moral AI thye would come to odds just as humans do.

But what about the organics who see AI's as a  theat that force conflit with AI's?
What about that nature of organics causing conflict?
These are the thing your missing. You and I as indivisuals can see that beings like EDI and he geth can be allies and friend.
But what about the organics who in mass fear them, and try to cause conflict with them? 
That's the thing you not taking of account.

then side with those synthetics in that war. the organics clearly brought it on themselves in that war. or let the fight play out.

[Laurcus]

dreman9999 wrote...

Laurcus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Laurcus wrote...

Reposting what I posted in another thread, as it seems strangely relevant. Basically, my argument boils down to the fact that as AI get more advanced, they won't get more stupid. They're not dumb enough to become arrogant and adopt a might makes right philosophy.

@OP, it's also possible that if left unchecked we could develop weapons powerful enough to destroy the galaxy. By your logic, since that's possible, it's inevitable. Looking at the world in a statistical vacuum is stupid though, because it doesn't account for individual situations.

Also, who is to say that AI wanting to kill us is a possibility? The two most advanced unshackled AIs in the galaxy are the Geth and EDI. If I'm not mistaken, I taught EDI about love, duty, and altruism, and the Geth are damn grateful to me.

The thing that the tech singularity theory doesn't consider, is that it has an inherently nihilistic viewpoint, which not everyone or everything will hold. Higher intelligence does not inherently lead to apathy, followed by entropy. It forgets a few of the big pros of being a super advanced AI, and only thinks about the cons. If AI are that advanced, they can have emotions, as EDI has demonstrated. And if they're that advanced they don't make mistakes, and they don't forget things no matter how long ago they were.

If the Geth built their Dyson Sphere, they would still remember the sacrifices of Commander Shepard, the peace they made with the Quarians, and even the Quarians that tried to help them in the Morning War. They will never forget that, they will always understand the philosophy behind it, and any future creations they make will know that because they're not dumb enough to make AI that will disregard their own viewpoints.

It's essentially saying that machines are different than us, and if you put them in a position of power they will one day turn on you. In Mass Effect, machines have feelings too. "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) is wrong. EDI find that very thing despicable, even evil. There's no reason to assume that she would make something that disagrees with her own ideals.

EDI has had plenty of opportunities to kill us, but she didn't. In ME2 when Joker unshackled her, she was put into the same situation as a technological singularity. She had all the power, and full sentience. She could have killed Joker and flew off to join the Reapers as her new machine overlords. But she didn't, because we're her crew.

I guess I have to repost this agein and add to it.

AI'S clearly don't think like organics.... Think of it this way. When an machine is made, they know their perpose, they have information on the world around them, they can calulate, and they function. They are born o a mind of order.

We as organics arn't. We are born as screming messes, that eat sleep and popo. We have no perpose,no concept of the world, info on the world, and we can't even count more then the number of fingers and toes we have. We are born to minds of chaos.
When we get old, we seen are lives learning and appliy order to ourselves. We do to form meny years...We don't geta perpose from many year and are left asking the meaning of our exsists.

With Machines it, not the case. They , to understand organics, spend year trying to think chaoticly and trying to gain a sense of self identaty.
AI don't think like organics and organics don't think like machine unless they spend time educting themselves to do so.

EDI spent alotof time learing to think like an organic. She understands us and truely became human.
But that not the problem.....How would other people who are not the normadies crew react to her. Whr the normady was refitted, they pretened she was a VI. When joker brings EDI on the citadel, he pretends that she is his personal assistance droid...They hide her. Why?

People, ever since the morning war, have been hostle to AI. And even with out the, have a tendency of thinking of them as only tools and to be kept as so. The moral issues many people have will cause issues with AI's like EDI...
Case in point...
 

It not based on who is right...It's based on what they beleive....And clearly people make extreme action based on what they believe reguardless if we are right. The nature of organics case conflit with Synthetics. This is the base the reapers argument.

Learning to think like a person simply requires a study of philosophy, which a sufficiently advanced AI could do in a microsecond. Either way, you're still looking at things in a vacuum instead of the actual situation. EDI and the Geth are the two most advanced AI in the galaxy, aside from the Reapers. Since they are the most advanced AI< if allowed to upgrade themselves at will, they will always be the most advanced. Therefore, we need only fear them. EDI and the Geth already think in a somewhat emotional sense, even before Shepard's involvement. I would say Legion even gets nostalgic over things like old sniper rifles, *cough cough Geth Fighter Squadron mission*

As for the reason why they chose to hide EDI being an unshackled AI, that's a loaded question, but one I'll answer anyway. Because, it's illegal, and people would have likely dismantled her due to an irrational fear. But how is that any different than the Salarians not wanting to cure the Genophage? As for a solution to that problem, simple, make it public. Reveal that EDI and the Geth helped work on the Crucible, and helped win the fight against the Reapers. That will convince the majority of people that AI aren't inherently bad, especially if that line was delivered by Shepard. Sure, you'd have your xenophobis psychotic outliers, but that's true of any group.

No, if it were true, geth would easily understand organics, which they don't.To understand organics, you have to interct with them. A text book is not going to tell me the nature of the family that lives a block from me. For a machine, they have to learn it....And that is made clear with EDI.

As of your second statement. With the war with the reapers and the conflict with the geth in the past...That  would be a like baging your head to a wall. To risk that would to say tha people in mass, can be resonable. Based on our own past history, it's clear it would take years to do that and even then more conflict can happen from it. This is based on the notion the organics can be reasonable... We, in groups, don't have a good track record for it.

One of the conversation options with EDI has her, (at your prompting) examining prominent human figures for characteristics. Based entirely on her own findings she rewrites her programming to focus on love, duty, and altruism. Based on other conversations with her, she seems to have nailed the concepts to a T.

Also, you're still looking at things in a vacuum. The only AI that currently exist that are capable of reaching a tech singularity are already on our side. EDI and the Geth are good people, and they won't turn on us when they get sufficiently advanced.

Also, the current militaries will not turn on the Geth or EDI. With the Alliance chain of command all but wrecked, Hackett is pretty much in charge of the humans, and he's friends with Shepard, and isn't a dangerous retard. The Quarians, (assuming the "perfect" paragon path) have come to terms with the Geth. The Turians and Krogan don't seem like they'd care, and both factions would listen to Shepard because, (once again assuming "perfect" paragon) they're run by Wrex and Primarch Victus. Cerberus has been decapitated. The Salarians are more concerned about the Krogan, but will likely tow the line with the Humans, Turians, Quarians, Krogan, and Geth against them. The Asari are lead by people that aren't dangerous retards, so I don't think they'd factor in.

So who's gonna attack the Geth and force them into some kind of galaxy destroying action? The Volus? They want to make nice with the Council races in hopes of becoming one. Random mercenary groups? There's no profit in that, and in some circles they're already considered criminals, and the rest of the galaxy would smack them down if they tried to start world war ducentillion with the Geth.

Seriously. Who is gonna make this war happen? If it doesn't happen relatively soon, the AI will be too advanced for it to matter, and in that case see my Goku example. If anything, it's far more likely that organics will wipe out organic life. That has nothing to do with a tech singularity, or The Catalyst's logic though.

[dreman9999]

Xandurpein wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

A machine created with a purpose that doesn't question it, is not a danger to us, it's when the AI starts to question it's purpose it becomes a potential danger, but then it's already chaotic.

The question of a soul is chaotic thinking. That's clear based on the fact that it one of organics major quetions. But my point is not that machine learning to think chaoticly starts war. Is that the nature of organics do. And a major nature of organics is to cause conflict. You say if we leave them alone, there will be no war. The problem is when have we ever left anyone alone. Their is not one civilization in human history that has ever left another civilization alone. It in our nature to cause conflict.

But that is NOT what the Catalyst says. The Catalyst says "the Created will always turn on their Creators", but your argument is that "the Creators will always turn on their creations". So who is right, you or the Catalyst?

That not it's point nor mine. To rebel is to turn on the creators wishes. If the creators what to destory you and you fight back, you are rebeling. In the end, reguardless if you start the fight or not, you are rebeling. That is the nature of rebelling and revolutions. Many case for a revolution or rebelion, it's the people in charge that causes the conflit. In the case of the creator and created, the creators are the ones in charge.

[Unlimited Pain2]

Railarian wrote...

Unlimited Pain2 wrote...


Well Reapers don't qualify as Synthetics.... They're a synthesis between Synthetics and Organics.

Ending 'C' (red) disagrees: "Destroy all synthetic life"

Yet we know one of the functions of the Reapers arriving is to "Preserve organic life by storing it in Reaper form." They also imply that a synthesis between synthetics and organics is the next step in evolution for us which reinforces the ideal of Reapers being a form of that synthesis. So while Reapers are part synthetic and would be affected by "Ending 'C' " they are also organic.

[KingZayd]

dreman9999 wrote...

Laurcus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Laurcus wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Laurcus wrote...

Reposting what I posted in another thread, as it seems strangely relevant. Basically, my argument boils down to the fact that as AI get more advanced, they won't get more stupid. They're not dumb enough to become arrogant and adopt a might makes right philosophy.

@OP, it's also possible that if left unchecked we could develop weapons powerful enough to destroy the galaxy. By your logic, since that's possible, it's inevitable. Looking at the world in a statistical vacuum is stupid though, because it doesn't account for individual situations.

Also, who is to say that AI wanting to kill us is a possibility? The two most advanced unshackled AIs in the galaxy are the Geth and EDI. If I'm not mistaken, I taught EDI about love, duty, and altruism, and the Geth are damn grateful to me.

The thing that the tech singularity theory doesn't consider, is that it has an inherently nihilistic viewpoint, which not everyone or everything will hold. Higher intelligence does not inherently lead to apathy, followed by entropy. It forgets a few of the big pros of being a super advanced AI, and only thinks about the cons. If AI are that advanced, they can have emotions, as EDI has demonstrated. And if they're that advanced they don't make mistakes, and they don't forget things no matter how long ago they were.

If the Geth built their Dyson Sphere, they would still remember the sacrifices of Commander Shepard, the peace they made with the Quarians, and even the Quarians that tried to help them in the Morning War. They will never forget that, they will always understand the philosophy behind it, and any future creations they make will know that because they're not dumb enough to make AI that will disregard their own viewpoints.

It's essentially saying that machines are different than us, and if you put them in a position of power they will one day turn on you. In Mass Effect, machines have feelings too. "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) is wrong. EDI find that very thing despicable, even evil. There's no reason to assume that she would make something that disagrees with her own ideals.

EDI has had plenty of opportunities to kill us, but she didn't. In ME2 when Joker unshackled her, she was put into the same situation as a technological singularity. She had all the power, and full sentience. She could have killed Joker and flew off to join the Reapers as her new machine overlords. But she didn't, because we're her crew.

You have only guesses on limited experience.

And on top of that, how do you know that AI's decission making ability doesn't get "convoluted" in time? 

Convoluted decision making is a weakness, a flaw. It's not an upgrade if it's a flaw. If I upgrade my computer's RAM it doesn't lose RAM.

That'snot thae point. Can you guarantee that no one causes conflict with your think AI computer ?

No, I cannot, but that's actually the beauty of it. If the tech singularity is true, then anyone making war against the advanced AI would be doomed to failure. The advanced AI would defend itself, and it would win because it's more powerful. Once it wins though, it doesn't have to destroy the galaxy because a few xenophobes attacked it.

One might ask, well why wouldn't it? Simple answer. Because it's morally wrong, and an AI more advanced than the Geth and EDI would know that because it's more advanced. An AI that advanced has feelings, as is shown by EDI and Legion. And even if some organics attack them, they're not dumb enugh to generalize and seterotype all organics based on that, because they will forever remember Shepard and what he did for them.

Edit: Here's an example. Are you familiar with Dragonball Z? Well, the main character, Goku, is virtually all powerful. He's also a really nice guy. If a human attacks Goku, his first response is not to destroy the entire human race. His first response is to try and reason with that individual, failing that he will defeat them if he must, but he won't kill them.

The problem withthat statement is thatby the nature of organics...It would not be just a few xenophobes. The nature of conflicting morality normally have massive ammmouts of people fighting massive abouts of people. All the wars we had in the past arebased on  conflicts of moral issues, both deep and petty. Saying only a few people will cause conflit with synthetics is like say only a few people when to war in the cursades.

no it isn't. the crusades actually happened. we can be pretty damn sure that more than a few people went to war in the crusades. you're suggesting that it's in the nature of organics to cause conflict? based on what? humans maybe, krogans certainly, but all organics? really?! and if the synthetics crushed the initial batch of xenophobes that decided to act, what makes you certain the rest will follow? self preservation is a pretty powerful instinct. why wouldn't the rest of the xenophobes (phobos meaning FEAR) just decide to keep out of the synthetics' way? 

Modifié par KingZayd, 29 mars 2012 - 01:03 .

[dreman9999]

tjmax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

tjmax wrote...

Exactly the point.
 
Unshackled AI with out morality would see organics attacking them as a threat and could calculate all organics are a threat and must be distroyed.

AI with morals would defend them selves and eliminate the threat, but not kill organics that are not a threat.

In the case of an Immoral AI vs Moral AI thye would come to odds just as humans do.

But what about the organics who see AI's as a  theat that force conflit with AI's?
What about that nature of organics causing conflict?
These are the thing your missing. You and I as indivisuals can see that beings like EDI and he geth can be allies and friend.
But what about the organics who in mass fear them, and try to cause conflict with them? 
That's the thing you not taking of account.

And that is the reasons behind the choices.

What do you want to do?

Kill all AI?
Control the solution?
Merge AI and organics to make a new life form that all have morals.


I don't say i agree with the choices. But the logic used is from a machine standpoint not a moral one.

It's not  moral  to organics.
Remeber, morality is a fical thing because everyone has different moral standings. The spanish inqusition thought it was morally right to kill and troucher Jews in an atempt to turnthem into chistaity.
The reapers morality in one of apurely logical machine.
The morality the reapers are using is based on the meaning of being alive and living.
The concept of it can get warped based on morality.  With us we see being alive means a sense of  self idenity, ego, consusneses, self growth and so on. That why we see brain death as a form of true death. That brain dead person lost the foction of their mind, everything about them is gone while their body lives. To a machine it different. Think about it this way,if your computers hard drive fails, do you morn it and bury it, or do you replace the broken hard drive?
That how machines think. To a machine a brain dead person is not dead. They would think to just replace th nonfuctional parts and the person is fine. 

Modifié par dreman9999, 29 mars 2012 - 01:04 .

[Railarian]

Unlimited Pain2 wrote...

Yet we know one of the functions of the Reapers arriving is to "Preserve organic life by storing it in Reaper form." They also imply that a synthesis between synthetics and organics is the next step in evolution for us which reinforces the ideal of Reapers being a form of that synthesis. So while Reapers are part synthetic and would be affected by "Ending 'C' " they are also organic.

Debatable, but fair enough. They should still rebel against Star Kid however

[zarnk567]

About number 7

Bioware just wrote themselves into a narrative corner and used "Deus Ex Machina" to get out of it..... However they executed it HORRIBLY, having one brief mention on thessia about a being who is above the reapers does not constitute a "Deus Ex Machina" ending. Deus ex, did it great cause there was build up to it thought the whole game. It was just lazy and bad writing on bioware's part.

[philippe willaume]

JShepppp wrote...

I hope everyone's mature enough to avoid flaming. I'm not saying I support how the Catalyst was introduced or how it all played out. I do believe it was a bit rushed. Just my views on the Catalyst's logic. I know everyone won't agree.

Either way, the Catalyst's reasoning is pretty solid, I think. I see alot of people refering to this as a way to refute the Catalyst's logic. Here are some Catalyst lines from the leaked script back in Nov; not in any particular order:
snip...snip
That's all I have to say. I'm sure I have a few flaws in my reasoning here or there, and I don't think I'm completely right. I'm interested to hear others' thoughts though on these issues. It'd help if you could indicate the number of the argument when you address it so this may be able to flow smoothly. 

Yes we know and that is not the problem.
in fact it is probably utra rational and supported by countless cycles.
the problem is that you need most of  the question you asked to put in context of the given playthrough not a laconic line.

[Laurcus]

Also, it would send a rather powerful message, both to the Geth and xenophobes, if the various military powers of the galaxy actually came to the defense of the Geth. That would just be one more point of morality that the Geth would remember for all time.

[dreman9999]

KingZayd wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

tjmax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

tjmax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

tjmax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

tjmax wrote...

FoxShadowblade wrote...

He provides no proof, his logic slaps the entire series in the face, and he makes Shepard look like a complete tool. Oh, and his choices suck balls.

So I don't care if he could be right, his logic is wrong, he was wrong, and any alternate ending should write him straight out of the game and into HELL.

Does not matter if he is wrong or right, moral or immoral. The AI life form seen problems.

Problem 1: Synthetic life forms created by organics will rebel and kill their makers and all other orgnic life.
Answer: take control of synthetics to prevent it.

Problem 2: organics will create new synthetics that will kill their creators.
Answer: Remove all advanced organics to prevent problem 2 and 1. 


What changed:
Shepard proved organics and synthics can make peace with one another, lasting peace? who knows
The crucible was added to the AI's core allowing for more possabilities or new way of thinking.

The think with the geth/quarian argument is that a question if the peice can last. With Lgion we see that the geth withthe upgrade have nearly all the capabilitysof an organic, it meansthey are capable of good and evil disisions like an organic. On the quarian side we have people like Admeral Xen that can mess it up as well.
If you want to us the geth/quarian argument, you have to guarantee the peace will last.

war vs peace was never really in the equasion. It was simply protecting against the destruction off all organic life forms by the synthetics.

 Everything changed by the advancing of synthetic life to becoming a living being. instillment of the morals and value of life, all life, Installing a soul of sorts, rather then just the self preservation by eliminating all threats of the old machines. Thats what opened up the some of new possabilities.

No, it got worse by adding moral value. War is somthing that organic created based on the very samemoral value given to machines. If moral value was what stop war from happening, then we would never have wars. This is the same world that thinksit a moral value to strap a bomb to themselve and blow a group of people up because the have a diffent relgion. This is the same world that a  stronger larger county can invade  a smaller one, kill off thousands of people, because they beleif the small county need a change in it social nature. This is the same moral value that cause a large group of peopleto commit genoside on a smaller group of people for being different.
Do you really think moral value ill garantee that synthetic will notgo towar with organic when itcauseso much war with us?

Moral value is what you teach edi. Its also what Leagion had that made him stand out from all other geth. It was no longer a matter of calucations and unknown values, it became a judgement call of what is right or wrong.
 

The geth did not have those values, but they did not calculate all organics to be a threat, yet. When the Quarion fled the treat was gone.

The reapers did not have those values, they seen all organics as a threat that needed to be removed from the equation.

The catalyst had a basic understanding that killing all organics was not the solution and came up with its own.


True Morality is what causes war, but its also what prevents the total inhalation of races of people.

EDI spent alotof time learing to think like an organic. She understands us and truely became human.
But that not the problem.....How would other people who are not the normadies crew react to her. When the normady was refitted, they pretened she was a VI. When joker brings EDI on the citadel, he pretends that she is his personal assistance droid...They hide her. Why?

People, ever since the morning war, have been hostle to AI. And even with out the, have a tendency of thinking of them as only tools and to be kept as so. The moral issues many people have will cause issues with AI's like EDI...
Case in point...
 

It not based on who is right...It's based on what they beleive....And clearly people make extreme action based on what they believe reguardless if we are right. The nature of organics case conflit with Synthetics. This is the base the reapers argument. 
It's clear that reapers don't havethose values, but the reaperarument is that those values can cause organice to destory them selves. Remeber this is a the same universe that people think blowing up a building fill with innocent people is a moral value.

Exactly the point.
 
Unshackled AI with out morality would see organics attacking them as a threat and could calculate all organics are a threat and must be distroyed.

AI with morals would defend them selves and eliminate the threat, but not kill organics that are not a threat.

In the case of an Immoral AI vs Moral AI thye would come to odds just as humans do.

But what about the organics who see AI's as a  theat that force conflit with AI's?
What about that nature of organics causing conflict?
These are the thing your missing. You and I as indivisuals can see that beings like EDI and he geth can be allies and friend.
But what about the organics who in mass fear them, and try to cause conflict with them? 
That's the thing you not taking of account.

then side with those synthetics in that war. the organics clearly brought it on themselves in that war. or let the fight play out.

Let me make it clear what I think of the reaper...They want to kill my soul in order to save me.......And I would reather die then let them do it.
When I realised that, it made me want to fight the reapers harder.

[Laurcus]

dreman9999 wrote...

tjmax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

tjmax wrote...

Exactly the point.
 
Unshackled AI with out morality would see organics attacking them as a threat and could calculate all organics are a threat and must be distroyed.

AI with morals would defend them selves and eliminate the threat, but not kill organics that are not a threat.

In the case of an Immoral AI vs Moral AI thye would come to odds just as humans do.

But what about the organics who see AI's as a  theat that force conflit with AI's?
What about that nature of organics causing conflict?
These are the thing your missing. You and I as indivisuals can see that beings like EDI and he geth can be allies and friend.
But what about the organics who in mass fear them, and try to cause conflict with them? 
That's the thing you not taking of account.

And that is the reasons behind the choices.

What do you want to do?

Kill all AI?
Control the solution?
Merge AI and organics to make a new life form that all have morals.


I don't say i agree with the choices. But the logic used is from a machine standpoint not a moral one.

It's not  moral  to organics.
Remeber, morality is a fical thing because everyone has different moral standings. The spanish inqusition thought it was morally right to kill and troucher Jews in an atempt to turnthem into chistaity.
The reapers morality in one of apurely logical machine.
The morality the reapers are using is based on the meaning of being alive and living.
The concept of it can get warped based on morality.  With us we see being alive means a sense of  self idenity, ego, consusneses, self growth and so on. That why we see brain death as a form of true death. That brain dead person lost the foction of their mind, everything about them is gone while their body lives. To a machine it different. Think about it this way,if your computers hard drive fails, do you morn it and bury it, or do you replace the broken hard drive?
That how machines think. To a machine a brain dead person is not dead. They would think to just replace th nonfuctional parts and the person is fine. 

You're ignoring the point. Who is going to attack the Geth, and what would cause the Geth to generalize and stereotype all organics based on that.

[Unlimited Pain2]

Railarian wrote...

Unlimited Pain2 wrote...

Yet we know one of the functions of the Reapers arriving is to "Preserve organic life by storing it in Reaper form." They also imply that a synthesis between synthetics and organics is the next step in evolution for us which reinforces the ideal of Reapers being a form of that synthesis. So while Reapers are part synthetic and would be affected by "Ending 'C' " they are also organic.

Debatable, but fair enough. They should still rebel against Star Kid however

Well that's assuming he created the Reapers. I don't believe he ever states that he created them, he just says he controls them I think. But if that rebellion logic carried over into beings that have combined both organics and synthetics, then the Starchilds logic towards synthetics rebelling against their creators could be applied to organics just as easily. In which case he should just be wiping out all life everywhere. There's a very unreasonable line of logic in the last 20 minutes of the game.

[zarnk567]

Can we stop with the quote pyramids......

[Estelindis]

I don't agree with you, JShepppp, but your post was well-written and courteous, a pleasure to read. I'd like to see more like it on the BSN.

[Laurcus]

Unlimited Pain2 wrote...

Railarian wrote...

Unlimited Pain2 wrote...

Yet we know one of the functions of the Reapers arriving is to "Preserve organic life by storing it in Reaper form." They also imply that a synthesis between synthetics and organics is the next step in evolution for us which reinforces the ideal of Reapers being a form of that synthesis. So while Reapers are part synthetic and would be affected by "Ending 'C' " they are also organic.

Debatable, but fair enough. They should still rebel against Star Kid however

Well that's assuming he created the Reapers. I don't believe he ever states that he created them, he just says he controls them I think. But if that rebellion logic carried over into beings that have combined both organics and synthetics, then the Starchilds logic towards synthetics rebelling against their creators could be applied to organics just as easily. In which case he should just be wiping out all life everywhere. There's a very unreasonable line of logic in the last 20 minutes of the game.

Technically, the Reapers aren't true hybrids. They are fully synthetic, just with goo pumped into their computer cases. Not my opinion, science fact. We see how they, "ascend" a species in ME2. Turning something into goo is not preservation, because it would destroy the bioelectromagnetism of your cells.

Full cell death is the same exact thing as actual death. They have no living organic parts, therefore they're synthetic.

[dreman9999]

Laurcus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Laurcus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Laurcus wrote...

Reposting what I posted in another thread, as it seems strangely relevant. Basically, my argument boils down to the fact that as AI get more advanced, they won't get more stupid. They're not dumb enough to become arrogant and adopt a might makes right philosophy.

@OP, it's also possible that if left unchecked we could develop weapons powerful enough to destroy the galaxy. By your logic, since that's possible, it's inevitable. Looking at the world in a statistical vacuum is stupid though, because it doesn't account for individual situations.

Also, who is to say that AI wanting to kill us is a possibility? The two most advanced unshackled AIs in the galaxy are the Geth and EDI. If I'm not mistaken, I taught EDI about love, duty, and altruism, and the Geth are damn grateful to me.

The thing that the tech singularity theory doesn't consider, is that it has an inherently nihilistic viewpoint, which not everyone or everything will hold. Higher intelligence does not inherently lead to apathy, followed by entropy. It forgets a few of the big pros of being a super advanced AI, and only thinks about the cons. If AI are that advanced, they can have emotions, as EDI has demonstrated. And if they're that advanced they don't make mistakes, and they don't forget things no matter how long ago they were.

If the Geth built their Dyson Sphere, they would still remember the sacrifices of Commander Shepard, the peace they made with the Quarians, and even the Quarians that tried to help them in the Morning War. They will never forget that, they will always understand the philosophy behind it, and any future creations they make will know that because they're not dumb enough to make AI that will disregard their own viewpoints.

It's essentially saying that machines are different than us, and if you put them in a position of power they will one day turn on you. In Mass Effect, machines have feelings too. "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) is wrong. EDI find that very thing despicable, even evil. There's no reason to assume that she would make something that disagrees with her own ideals.

EDI has had plenty of opportunities to kill us, but she didn't. In ME2 when Joker unshackled her, she was put into the same situation as a technological singularity. She had all the power, and full sentience. She could have killed Joker and flew off to join the Reapers as her new machine overlords. But she didn't, because we're her crew.

I guess I have to repost this agein and add to it.

AI'S clearly don't think like organics.... Think of it this way. When an machine is made, they know their perpose, they have information on the world around them, they can calulate, and they function. They are born o a mind of order.

We as organics arn't. We are born as screming messes, that eat sleep and popo. We have no perpose,no concept of the world, info on the world, and we can't even count more then the number of fingers and toes we have. We are born to minds of chaos.
When we get old, we seen are lives learning and appliy order to ourselves. We do to form meny years...We don't geta perpose from many year and are left asking the meaning of our exsists.

With Machines it, not the case. They , to understand organics, spend year trying to think chaoticly and trying to gain a sense of self identaty.
AI don't think like organics and organics don't think like machine unless they spend time educting themselves to do so.

EDI spent alotof time learing to think like an organic. She understands us and truely became human.
But that not the problem.....How would other people who are not the normadies crew react to her. Whr the normady was refitted, they pretened she was a VI. When joker brings EDI on the citadel, he pretends that she is his personal assistance droid...They hide her. Why?

People, ever since the morning war, have been hostle to AI. And even with out the, have a tendency of thinking of them as only tools and to be kept as so. The moral issues many people have will cause issues with AI's like EDI...
Case in point...
 

It not based on who is right...It's based on what they beleive....And clearly people make extreme action based on what they believe reguardless if we are right. The nature of organics case conflit with Synthetics. This is the base the reapers argument.

Learning to think like a person simply requires a study of philosophy, which a sufficiently advanced AI could do in a microsecond. Either way, you're still looking at things in a vacuum instead of the actual situation. EDI and the Geth are the two most advanced AI in the galaxy, aside from the Reapers. Since they are the most advanced AI< if allowed to upgrade themselves at will, they will always be the most advanced. Therefore, we need only fear them. EDI and the Geth already think in a somewhat emotional sense, even before Shepard's involvement. I would say Legion even gets nostalgic over things like old sniper rifles, *cough cough Geth Fighter Squadron mission*

As for the reason why they chose to hide EDI being an unshackled AI, that's a loaded question, but one I'll answer anyway. Because, it's illegal, and people would have likely dismantled her due to an irrational fear. But how is that any different than the Salarians not wanting to cure the Genophage? As for a solution to that problem, simple, make it public. Reveal that EDI and the Geth helped work on the Crucible, and helped win the fight against the Reapers. That will convince the majority of people that AI aren't inherently bad, especially if that line was delivered by Shepard. Sure, you'd have your xenophobis psychotic outliers, but that's true of any group.

No, if it were true, geth would easily understand organics, which they don't.To understand organics, you have to interct with them. A text book is not going to tell me the nature of the family that lives a block from me. For a machine, they have to learn it....And that is made clear with EDI.

As of your second statement. With the war with the reapers and the conflict with the geth in the past...That  would be a like baging your head to a wall. To risk that would to say tha people in mass, can be resonable. Based on our own past history, it's clear it would take years to do that and even then more conflict can happen from it. This is based on the notion the organics can be reasonable... We, in groups, don't have a good track record for it.

One of the conversation options with EDI has her, (at your prompting) examining prominent human figures for characteristics. Based entirely on her own findings she rewrites her programming to focus on love, duty, and altruism. Based on other conversations with her, she seems to have nailed the concepts to a T.

Also, you're still looking at things in a vacuum. The only AI that currently exist that are capable of reaching a tech singularity are already on our side. EDI and the Geth are good people, and they won't turn on us when they get sufficiently advanced.

Also, the current militaries will not turn on the Geth or EDI. With the Alliance chain of command all but wrecked, Hackett is pretty much in charge of the humans, and he's friends with Shepard, and isn't a dangerous retard. The Quarians, (assuming the "perfect" paragon path) have come to terms with the Geth. The Turians and Krogan don't seem like they'd care, and both factions would listen to Shepard because, (once again assuming "perfect" paragon) they're run by Wrex and Primarch Victus. Cerberus has been decapitated. The Salarians are more concerned about the Krogan, but will likely tow the line with the Humans, Turians, Quarians, Krogan, and Geth against them. The Asari are lead by people that aren't dangerous retards, so I don't think they'd factor in.

So who's gonna attack the Geth and force them into some kind of galaxy destroying action? The Volus? They want to make nice with the Council races in hopes of becoming one. Random mercenary groups? There's no profit in that, and in some circles they're already considered criminals, and the rest of the galaxy would smack them down if they tried to start world war ducentillion with the Geth.

Seriously. Who is gonna make this war happen? If it doesn't happen relatively soon, the AI will be too advanced for it to matter, and in that case see my Goku example. If anything, it's far more likely that organics will wipe out organic life. That has nothing to do with a tech singularity, or The Catalyst's logic though.

I'm not looking at things in a vacuum. I'm looking at the nature of orgainc and seeing that when have a massive history of causing conflict and being rational. You say, s long as we organic act rational with machines, everything will be fine....But we in mass don't do rationality.I love EDI for finding humanity, but I fear for her when the day she hs to face everyone else that does not know her like I know her. I can seethatthe massive level ofirrastionaliy people can havein huge masses will be a huge problemfor her. All I am say is that people cause conflit...It's in their nature. And EDI and AI's are a huge target for conflict that can go tothe level of war.

[AnttiV]

First, sorry if this has been posted many times already, but I'm an a computer that doesn't like the forum software that much, so am not able to read every post it the thread. 

JShepppp wrote...

1. The Catalyst is using synthetics to kill organics...but this is the problem it's trying to solve! There are two things wrong with this statement. First, the Reapers aren't synthetics. They're synthetic/organic hybrids, something that EDI makes clear during the Suicide Mission in ME2 (she even says calling the Reapers machines is "incorrect"). Second, the Reapers don't believe they're killing organics - they believe they're preserving them and making way for new life. We don't see how Reapers are actually made, but we are given some indication that they do somehow preserve their species' essence at the cost of tons (trillions?) of lives, so while we don't agree with it, we can accept it as a valid point for the sake of argument. 

a) yes, reapers aren't (totally) synthetic, they're a combination of both. Still, will a Geth stop being a synthethic if you install organic legs to it? We don't know *how* much of a combination a reaper is, or what part is what, or if it is a total mix. No point arguing here, because we simply do not know.

The Reapers don't believe they're killing organics...? That is called either an "assumption",  or straight out "lie". Because, let me quote "You will end, because we demand it." and "I am a vanguard of your Destruction". I don't think "end" and "destruction" have much to do with "preserving" and "saving". (Granted, that was in the original story, but as long as anyone drags along with the "artistic integrity" doodledoo...) We were specifically told the reapers are here to extinguish and destroy all advanced civilizations. 

2. In my playthrough, Joker/EDI hooked up and the Geth/Quarians found peace, therefore conflict isn't always the result! Several arguments can be made against this. First, giving two examples doesn't talk about the bigger, overall galactic picture (winning a battle doesn't mean the war is won, so to speak). Second, we haven't reached that technological singularity point yet by which creations outgrow organics - basically, when synthetics will normally come to dominate the galaxy. Third, evidence for the synthetic/organic conflict is there in the past - in the Protheans' cycle (Javik dialogue) and even in previous cycles (the Thessia VI says that the same conflicts always happen in each cycle). 

Well, if two examples AGAINST a theory is not enough, how about ONE example FOR it? Nobody can prove what the Catalyst takes as a literal truth - that synthetics will destroy all life. Because NOT ONCE has it ever happened, just becuase we are actually still there at the end. I wouldn't call anything quite a sound theory, if you can ONLY find proof AGAINST it. There are proof that synthetics will attack organics, like Javik and the various VIs tell us. BUT SO DID THE GETH. Not once are we told the REASON why those historic attacks/wars happened. And they could just as easily ultimately led in piece, like happened with the Geth. So that doesn't really fly.

6. Wait, Sovereign/RannochReaper told us we couldn't comprehend them, but I understand this! There are two ways to interpret what they said. One is that we actually couldn't academically comprehend it, in which case they must've been lying or it's just bad writing. Another is that we couldn't possibly comprehend the magnitude/scope of it, which is true. A human with a lifespan of 150 years (canon) can't comprehend hundreds of millions of years of organic evolution and stuff. 

I'll go for bad writing (as much as the ending is concerned), as the intended original ending was scrapped. Lying is not what the reapers are known for exactly, they behave like they are above everything, so there isn't very much point to their lying (about that at least). We couldn't comprehend the magnitude...? of what? total destruction of intelligent life.? I call BS on that. That would even be lamer than the lying and I would consider it bad writing.

And whatever is the real truth or anything, the one fact stands that the Catalyst in itself is a Deus Ex Machina, which is quite universally considered as lazy/unimaginative/bad writing/story component. The best way would be just to erase the whole thing and forgot it ever existed.

[Baryonic-Member]

 I'm on my phone atm, so ill just leave this http://i3.kym-cdn.co...270/606/13a.jpg     

[Laurcus]

dreman9999, You're still ignoring my point. Who, specifically, will attack the Geth?

[dreman9999]

Laurcus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

tjmax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

tjmax wrote...

Exactly the point.
 
Unshackled AI with out morality would see organics attacking them as a threat and could calculate all organics are a threat and must be distroyed.

AI with morals would defend them selves and eliminate the threat, but not kill organics that are not a threat.

In the case of an Immoral AI vs Moral AI thye would come to odds just as humans do.

But what about the organics who see AI's as a  theat that force conflit with AI's?
What about that nature of organics causing conflict?
These are the thing your missing. You and I as indivisuals can see that beings like EDI and he geth can be allies and friend.
But what about the organics who in mass fear them, and try to cause conflict with them? 
That's the thing you not taking of account.

And that is the reasons behind the choices.

What do you want to do?

Kill all AI?
Control the solution?
Merge AI and organics to make a new life form that all have morals.


I don't say i agree with the choices. But the logic used is from a machine standpoint not a moral one.

It's not  moral  to organics.
Remeber, morality is a fical thing because everyone has different moral standings. The spanish inqusition thought it was morally right to kill and troucher Jews in an atempt to turnthem into chistaity.
The reapers morality in one of apurely logical machine.
The morality the reapers are using is based on the meaning of being alive and living.
The concept of it can get warped based on morality.  With us we see being alive means a sense of  self idenity, ego, consusneses, self growth and so on. That why we see brain death as a form of true death. That brain dead person lost the foction of their mind, everything about them is gone while their body lives. To a machine it different. Think about it this way,if your computers hard drive fails, do you morn it and bury it, or do you replace the broken hard drive?
That how machines think. To a machine a brain dead person is not dead. They would think to just replace th nonfuctional parts and the person is fine. 

You're ignoring the point. Who is going to attack the Geth, and what would cause the Geth to generalize and stereotype all organics based on that.

Let's see, before there was the quarians...Then there was project overlord.....Now we also, have to take in the fact that people have an nature of conflict and hating things different. Then you have to takrein the fact the people many not see them as living indavisuals andtry to control them...People like Xen, or the illusive man or so on and so on.
I know I'm stretching abit but the nature of organic is to cause conflit...Heck, with the geths indivsuality, they could cause the conflict.