365 réponses à ce sujet

[Alerithon]

The logic, such that is can be called that, is hardly sound, even within the confines of its own creation.

First, the premise that AI will become sentient and then go on to destroy all organic life. Within the confines of the game, we haven't seen this at all. At no point does the game say that AI will seek to destroy all organic life. The AI will rise up to destroy their creators, yes,but ALL organic life? No. Also, within the confines of the game, we see the Geth-Quarian conflict. We learn in ME3 that this conflict is not what we thought it was, and in fact disproves the Reaper logic.

Second, the solution...destroy advanced organic life before it can create AI that will rebel...does not work. It's not a solution, it's a stalling tactic. Because the Reaper logic admits that there is a cycle. But instead of addressing the cause of what it perceives to be the problem, it just punts it down the line. Instead of solving the problem, it perpetuates it. That's not a solution.

Third, the Reaper logic assumes that organic intelligence is superior to AI. Where does it pull this from? There's nothing internally or externally logical about elevating one form of intelligence over the other. I'd say that, as ME3 is written, the Geth appear to be far more worthy of preservation than many Quarians are.

And of course, finally, there's the grand departure from the heart of the series, where the player gets to decide whether Shepherd goes along or approves of something. There's no rebellion against the Reaper logic. No chance to talk against it. The first ME had this in spades...with a high enough paragon/renegade score, you could avoid one whole combat instance against Saren by getting him to realize the fallacy of his belief, and get him to shoot himself. Sure, there was no way to avoid the final confrontation of the Sovereign-possess Saren, but before that, the player had the chance to spit in the face of the Reaper's logic.

[covertdrizzt]

The Starchild's logic is not cyclical, illlogical, flawed or fallacious in any way. The Starchild's logic is, in fact, foolproof. If you disagree with the logic, that's fine ... you're not meant to agree with a logic which concludes that killing most of the galaxy's inhabitants is the correct course of action to take. But that doesn't invalidate the logic.

The Starchild believes that if technology evolves to a certain advanced point, self-aware machines will develop which have enough power to destroy all sentient life in the galaxy in a similar event to the well-trodden science-fiction concept of the Singularity, and that these machines will inevitably rise up against their creators and destroy them. Given the finality of this consequence, it needs to take the course of action which will 100% prevent this from ever occuring. And the logic of preventing the technology which creates the machines from ever being invented is undeniably sound. It's the only 100% certain way. So it creates a force which will make sure that technology in the galaxy never advances beyond a certain point by destroying the most technologically developed civilisations every 50,000 years, thus keeping the technology level below a safe threshold.

All of that is soundproof. Let's go through the common issues people have with it.

Thats not sound proof.  every society's tech is based on the tech they leave behind.  So if they wanted to keep technology below a certain level the would destroy all the mass relays and citidel.  By leaving all that stuff behind they speed up technological evolution greatly.

[Suparaddy]

"what was a non-fatal mistake which enveloped the Quarians home planet
and space would've resulted in the complete destruction of all life in
the galaxy."

This is incorrect.  The geth archives clearly show that they never intended to pursue any threats beyond Rannoch's system, instead preferring to hunker down rather than face the unknown void of space.  It wasn't until Reaper intervention did the Geth venture beyond the Perseus Veil and take on a more aggressive behavior towards organic life.  We have no data for comparison about what would have happened if the Reapers had not exerted influence over the Geth.  (Should we cull generations of Germans because historical data suggests their actions led to the extermination of millions of innocent lives?  Would it still have happened if Hitler had not come to power?)

The supposition that the Quario-Geth conflict would have spilled over to the point of total galactic destruction of life is just that: supposition.  There is no evidence to support this conjecture.

There is also no evidence to support the galaxial ability of pre-hawtness-camel-toe EDI to commit genocide on a universal scale from her base upon Luna.  (An apparently, when given a hot set of tata's and some quality time with Seth Green, she turns rather amiable towards organics)

While your argument that synthetics, in all probability, will be aggressive towards their creators holds water, the extrapolation that they can and will commit galactic-wide genocide has no supporting evidence.  (The Reapers do not count, their nature by admission is incomprehensible by our feeble minds)

The Catty's logic is foolproof...to the Catty (I refuse to address it by its laughably silly colloquial nomenclature).  It has formulated this algorithm to apply as a solution to a problem he has observed.  However, as it presents its basis for its argument, it fails to present concrete data to support its solution, which has understandably drawn the ire of many a ME player.

In truth, the Catty's logic is more incomplete, than faulty.  There is plenty of data to suggest that the presence of multiple sentient organic beings in any localized volume of space/time will inevitably be drawn into conflict, and that there is a strong correlation to the level of technological prowess in relation to the capacity for destruction to be caused by said beings.  Therefore, it can be logically extrapolated that where any life exists - so too does the possibility of complete organice genocide.  In order to prevent such conflict, regardless of the source of the genocide, the Catty would be better off just extinguishing life as a whole.

But of course, that in itself is a supposition-logical, yes-but a supposition nonetheless.  As organic beings, we don't want to believe such a heinous thing could occur, but as social sciences can confirm - the one constant of social interaction is conflict.  Therefore, this supposition brings in an argument of a larger scope: if life is 'doomed' to conflict, what then is our purpose?  Why do we 'exist'?

And therein lies the base, underlying argument which encapsulates this entire literary sham of an ending: the purpose of life as a whole.  Synthetic or Organic, the distinction does not matter.  Bioware has greatly overcomplicated the endless, eternal question - the chicken or the egg?  In this case, they put forth an interesting twist - what if the egg could potentially smash every chicken in existence?  Do you take out the eggs?  Or the Chickens?  Take out the Roosters and Hens and leave the chicks, so that you may return in a couple months to kill them?  If you truly think about it, anybody can play the role of a Reaper if they raise chickens.  As a matter of fact, I'm gonna go to my local farm right now, stare at some hens and go "My purpose is beyond your understanding.  You evolve upon lines that we dictate..."

This is why Bioware has failed and succeeded.  They took an ageless, eternal question that nobody truly thinks about anymore, gave us a reason to think about it, and now people are posing the question again.  But they failed, because ffs Bioware, this was not what I asked for.

[Pockydon]

I don't think it's a question of the logic itself, more of how it is presented. The star child was one of the worst ideas in video game history, and his existence alone completely destroys any chance the ending had of being good.
As for the actual logic, it does make sense. Stop synthetics killing everyone by killing only the people who would create the synthetics in the first place. There are definitely better solutions out there (like using the reapers to destroy the evil synthetics rather than the people) but the logic works. However, it is still incredibly bad due to the context. The reapers should never have had a backstory, and their backstory itself doesn't really have much to do with the rest of the game.

Modifié par Pockydon, 11 mai 2012 - 03:56 .

[Il Divo]

The Razman wrote...

Except for the fact that if the Reapers hadn't been stopping technology from achieving the level that synthetic life had achieved massive superiority over organic, then the scale of the threat would be fatal.

On the contrary, the issues of AIs being shackled and the reasoning behind it is a major subplot within Mass Effect. The concept of the Geth destroying their creators is one of the main stories of Mass Effect. You can say that the motivations mattered ... but they really don't. War is war when it comes down to it, no matter who started it. And you don't need to have a generic "kill organics" mentality to find the destruction of all organic life logically beneficial to you, a synthetic race.

And it was a subplot which, regardless of playthrough, is resolved with "Hey, this can work". Mass Effect by the end doesn't present us with any issues which are resolved with ambiguity regarding synthetics, least of all in the main narrative. Side with the Quarians at Rannoch. Perfect example: it doesn't end with the demonization of Legion and the Geth, it ends with Shepard/Tali regretful at what they actually had to do to end the conflict. And that it's a conflict between machines and organics is never really made relevant at that point. If the goal is to damn synthetics because of the heretics or what EDI began as, well, good luck. But that argument can be applied to a million other groups from real life (Germany World War II, various terrorist groups) or other examples from Mass Effect (the Krogan, Biotic Terrorists, etc), which continues to emphasize that it's not how the Catalys frames it.

Motivation matters because otherwise the conflict isn't synthetic vs. organics. It's race vs. race, which is a timeless concept. You continue to emphasize how fatal the scale would be, which is somewhat funny. You don't need synthetics to achieve absolute destruction. See Mutually Assured Destruction theory. Had that been the Catalyst's plan and had the Catalyst actually cited evidence for it, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 mai 2012 - 04:13 .

[beyondsolo]

Suparaddy wrote...

This is incorrect.  The geth archives clearly show that they never intended to pursue any threats beyond Rannoch's system, instead preferring to hunker down rather than face the unknown void of space.  It wasn't until Reaper intervention did the Geth venture beyond the Perseus Veil and take on a more aggressive behavior towards organic life.  We have no data for comparison about what would have happened if the Reapers had not exerted influence over the Geth.  (Should we cull generations of Germans because historical data suggests their actions led to the extermination of millions of innocent lives?  Would it still have happened if Hitler had not come to power?)

[...]

In truth, the Catty's logic is more incomplete, than faulty.  There is plenty of data to suggest that the presence of multiple sentient organic beings in any localized volume of space/time will inevitably be drawn into conflict, and that there is a strong correlation to the level of technological prowess in relation to the capacity for destruction to be caused by said beings.  Therefore, it can be logically extrapolated that where any life exists - so too does the possibility of complete organice genocide.  In order to prevent such conflict, regardless of the source of the genocide, the Catty would be better off just extinguishing life as a whole.

I'd like to add to this that if you look back at the history of organic life, it's essentially a tale of oppression, conflict, and violence. Humanity alone, while it has brought forward some amazing things, is a story of oppression of the weaker through the stronger and of outright crimes against sentient life. It would seem that, according to the Catalyst's logic, it would probably be best to wipe out all live, as you pointed out.

Further, there is an additional reason why we as empathic beings need to contest the Catalyst's logic: numbers. Even if infinitely powerful machines wiped out all organic life forever once, the number of beings who died a gruesome death would still be lower than that of Reaper cycles ad infinitum. Leaving organics to their business would allow many more to live their lives out in peace, allowing them to shape their future according to their responsibility. Taking that away under the premise that they can't handle themselves and possible AI they're possibly going to develop is logically and ethically revolting, to say the least. It also makes me question the writing team's knowledge and understanding of recorded human philosophy.

Modifié par beyondsolo, 11 mai 2012 - 04:20 .

[The 20th Maine]

I don't think you can argue logically from a specific example to a general conclusion, which seems to be what many are doing in their attempt to show that synthetic life will rebel against and seek to destroy organic life.  For example:

1. Nelly is an elephant
2. Nelly is pink
Therefore: All elephants are pink

This is not logical as I do not have to accept the conclusion even if I do except the premiss' (which in this example are also wrong but this was the example they kept on using at University).  It works in the mass effect universe just as well.  I can't remember the name of the Krogan that worked for Mr Thax but I will call him Bob.

1. Bob is a Krogan
2. Bob is polite and charming
Therefore: All Krogan are polite and charming.  (This is clearly not true even though 1 and 2 are accurate)

An argument is logical where: If I accept the premiss', then I must also accept the conclusion.  However, you can also have a logical argument that is complete rubbish if the premiss' are not acceptable.

1, All Asari have pink skin.
2. Liara is an Asari.
Therefore: Liara has pink skin. (This is a logical argument but is still rubbish because 1 is not accurate)

A sound argument should be logical and have accurate premiss'.  For example:

1. The Geth are all examples of synthetic life.
2. Legion is an example of The Geth.
Therefore: Legion is an example of synthetic life.

The only sound argument I can think of relating to the Starchild does not have anything to do with synthetic life attempting to wipe out organic life,  It is more to do with what will happen to the Starchild.

1. 'The created' will always rebel against 'the creators' (I do not agree, but the Starchild states this as a fact)
2. The Starchild created the Reapers.
Therefore: The Reapers will rebel against the Starchild.

I personally can not think of a sound argument to show that there is an inevitable conflict between synthetic life and organic life based on what we see in Mass Effect.  Any sound argument that could be made would probably have to include the premiss that 'synthetic life will seek to destroy organic life'.  Neither Legion or EDI express a desire to do this (ever).  So to make such an argument work you would have to speculate as to their actions in the future or claim that they are not synthetic life.

To my mind, the Starchild's argument is not logical and it is not based on accurate premiss' 

[AlanC9]

I'm not quite sure why it's a problem for the Reapers to be motivated by bad logic. Aren't they, um..... supposed to be wrong? They're the bad guys, last time I checked.

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 mai 2012 - 05:07 .

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm not quite sure why it's a problem for the Reapers to be motivated by bad logic. Aren't they, um..... supposed to be wrong? They're the bad guys, last time I checked.

Keep in mind though, other villains don't really have their half-assed motivations thrown out in the last five minutes. Let's use the Operative from the Firefly film Serenity as an example. There's alot of people who wouldn't agree with how he goes about things but:

1) He's introduced at the start of the film.
2) We're given sufficient examination into the nature of his character.
3) Nathan Fillion's character is not required to accept his bad logic, but actively fights it the entire film.

The Catalyst doesn't meet any of these three. He appears at the last second to toss us his motivation when the plot demands, without any exposition as to how he reached his conclusion. We don't prove him wrong, despite his bad logic, he decides to toss us a bone with his three solutions from the Crucible.

Bad logic isn't inherently the problem. That Shepard isn't fighting with all his being against thelogic at the end is. Even more important, at least being able to see why the villain believes as he does, even if we find it repulsive. Maybe the Catalyst was programmed to create the Reapers because the first ever civilization was (almost) overcome by synthetics. Okay, that would give us something to go on so it feels like the writers didn't put it together in the last few seconds.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 mai 2012 - 05:08 .

[beyondsolo]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm not quite sure why it's a problem for the Reapers to be motivated by bad logic. Aren't they, um..... supposed to be wrong? They're the bad guys, last time I checked.

It's not a problem. The problem is that the claim in the OP about Reaper logic not being faulty is indefensible because the logic is faulty, as many others and myself have pointed out.

Modifié par beyondsolo, 11 mai 2012 - 05:03 .

[Grimwick]

The 20th Maine wrote...

The only sound argument I can think of relating to the Starchild does not have anything to do with synthetic life attempting to wipe out organic life,  It is more to do with what will happen to the Starchild.

1. 'The created' will always rebel against 'the creators' (I do not agree, but the Starchild states this as a fact)
2. The Starchild created the Reapers.
Therefore: The Reapers will rebel against the Starchild.

I personally can not think of a sound argument to show that there is an inevitable conflict between synthetic life and organic life based on what we see in Mass Effect.  Any sound argument that could be made would probably have to include the premiss that 'synthetic life will seek to destroy organic life'.  Neither Legion or EDI express a desire to do this (ever).  So to make such an argument work you would have to speculate as to their actions in the future or claim that they are not synthetic life.

To my mind, the Starchild's argument is not logical and it is not based on accurate premiss' 

This is very very true.
The premises of the SC are based on no evidence - simply his word. We can debate or speculate as to what his evidence was or is, but the end result is that any actions we make on the premise that he is right is based on a faulty premise - making it illogical as a choice.

Until the SC provides us evidence (and it better be good) it is illogical to accept everything he says and his solutions thereof.

At OP, there are in fact other arguments about the logic of the SC - just stating 3 potential counter-arguments doesn't mean you have solved them all.

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...
Bad logic isn't inherently the problem. That Shepard isn't fighting with all his being against the logic at the end is. Even more important, at least being able to see why the villain believes as he does, even if we find it repulsive. Maybe the Catalyst was programmed to create the Reapers because the first ever civilization was (almost) overcome by synthetics. Okay, that would give us something to go on so it feels like the writers didn't put it together in the last few seconds.

My take on it was that the first civilization was overcome by synthetics, who later realized that this was a mistake. But yeah, we definitely don't have a good grasp on how this came about.

I didn't have a problem with Shepard not arguing at the end. It seemed utterly pointless to me, since I always read the Catalyst as just a VI remnant of whatever intelligence had set up this mess. Naturally, people who didn't feel that way about the Catalyst would feel differently about that convo.

If people are looking for reasons for inevitable AI-organic conflict, there's a few available from SF. In works that Bio directly ripped off for ME, there are the Foe in Frederik Pohl's Heechee novels, who have plans for remaking the universe into something that bengs like them would better but organics wouldn't like at all (the "dark energy" plotline is sort of like this plan in reverse), and the TechnoCore from Hyperion, who were created by an evolutionary process that favors destructive competition over the co-existence that biological evolution favors, resulting in a fundamentally hostile psychology (not very ME-related, since AI's aren't created this way in that universe). In Charles Stross'  Accelerando (free ebook from the author, and definitely worth a read) the Vile Offspring aren't so much hostile to organic life as they are utterly disinterested in it -- they destroy organics when they get in the way, which unfortunately happens quite often (making them somewhat similar to Pohl's Foe).

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 mai 2012 - 05:34 .

[beyondsolo]

AlanC9 wrote...

If people are looking for reasons for inevitable AI-organic conflict, there's a few available from SF. In works that Bio directly ripped off for ME, there are the Foe in Frederik Pohl's Heechee novels, who have plans for remaking the universe into something that bengs like them would better but organics wouldn't like at all (the "dark energy" plotline is sort of like this plan in reverse), and the TechnoCore from Hyperion, who were created by an evolutionary process that favors destructive competition over the co-existence that biological evolution favors, resulting in a fundamentally hostile psychology (not very ME-related, since AI's aren't created this way in that universe). In Charles Stross'  Accelerando (free ebook from the author, and definitely worth a read) the Vile Offspring aren't so much hostile to organic life as they are utterly disinterested in it -- they destroy organics when they get in the way, which unfortunately happens quite often (making them somewhat similar to Pohl's Foe).

But there is also plenty of literature that takes a different approach. For example, Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" is an excellent example of how technology permeates our lives, intelligent or not, and that it is possible to grow beyond those conflict-inducing dualities of "us" and "them." Further, Orson Scott Card's Ender Quartet deals with foreigness, which is very relevant here because ME2 and ME3 thematize organic life as familiar and machine life as foreign, but (according to the scale of foreigness in Card's books) becoming more familiar with another species is not a development on their part but on ours.

I am still not convinced that any combination of existing life must ultimately result in cataclysmic conflict. If there is proof of this assertion, then it has yet to be presented.

[Hunter of Legends]

Il Divo wrote...

The Starchild is not using logic, as far as we can perceive. Logic requires that there is a clear premise and conclusion, which together compose an argument. The Star Child does no such thing. He presents a claim, nothing more.

That there exist counter-arguments to the Star Child's claim (EDI and the Geth) which Shepard is not allowed to present as evidence is perhaps the biggest crime the ending commits, especially since the Star Child doesn't provide any backing for his claims.

And we have a winner.

[Tigerman123]

The book that I was immediately reminded of when reading the ending was Vernor Vinge's a Fire upon the Deep, he was the one who coined the phrase technological singularity after all, and that book is all about the potential dangers that a highly advanced intelligence could pose to less developed civilisations. (There are other analogues too, the way the Geth and Legion's minds work is probably borrowed from the tynes, the Reapers as a gestalt collection of discrete organic minds are very similar to the Powers)

You can accept that the Catalyst's thesis is something that a rational and intelligent being could hold, without agreeing with it yourself, that is something that you have to decide for yourself as a player, Bioware aren't being prescriptive. I'm not really sure why people are claiming that it's fundamentally illogical or somehow a new idea. In the first usage of the word robot, they rebelled against humanity; Asimov's laws provide for benign machines, but they're there to answer the implicit fear of creating something far more capable than yourself.

Edit: damn auto correct

Modifié par Tigerman123, 11 mai 2012 - 08:47 .

[Bocks]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

THE ENDING ISN'T BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD

YOU JUST DONT UNDERSTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND

[furryrage59]

I love that meme so much and has enough truth to it to be amusing.

[SalsaDMA]

AlanC9 wrote...

My take on it was that the first civilization was overcome by synthetics, who later realized that this was a mistake. But yeah, we definitely don't have a good grasp on how this came about.

But why was it a mistake?

What prevented the synthetics from going: "Woopsie. We killed them all. Oh well, who cares. At least we got no conflicts with them now. Let's go play checkers for the rest of the lifetime of the universe..."

You can't make a claim like yours without treading deep into dangerous theological waters, and I think adding religion to the game as a 'reason' for stuff to happen is the last thing it needs...

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

My take on it was that the first civilization was overcome by synthetics, who later realized that this was a mistake. But yeah, we definitely don't have a good grasp on how this came about.
 

But that's the key issue we're having; you and I are speculating, which is why I make such a big deal about the Catalyst not actually using logic, since we don't have a premise. When I make a claim about inevitability, it is not necessary that I'm employing empirical experience in reaching my conclusion. If I say "All Republics will eventually become corrupt", it is not by necessity true that I have observed this phenomenon even once.

Maybe it was one time, where the synthetics came so close to succeeding at their genocide, and the first civilization realized they could never take this chance again. Maybe it's like Razman suggests and the First Civilization noticed a trend of synthetics starting off peacefully before declaring war on all organic life. Heck, maybe the Catalyst watched Terminator one too many times and came up with the solution on his own. Ultimately, all we know that is confirmed with each cycle is that the Reapers wipe out all advanced life. We don't even know if the Reapers even bother to wait to see if organic life creates synthetics.

I didn't have a problem with Shepard not arguing at the end. It seemed utterly pointless to me, since I always read the Catalyst as just a VI remnant of whatever intelligence had set up this mess. Naturally, people who didn't feel that way about the Catalyst would feel differently about that convo.

That's a possibility, though I always read him as an AI. But in this case, I think writing the Catalyst as a character whom Shepard could not confront lowers him to the level of Mira, from Noveria, and I think that lacks the emotional punch necessary for what they're trying to deliver. But then, I also thought that the Catalyst as a character was unnecessary and they could have written in Harbinger to fill that role, with a bit of fine-tuning.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 mai 2012 - 07:26 .

[xbeton0L]

All efforts to the war strategy are non-negotiable.

Meaning you will do what you originally set out to do, and no one will compromise nor empathize with you. Even if you have suitable alternative solutions to the problem.

[Tallin Harperson]

The 20th Maine wrote...

I don't think you can argue logically from a specific example to a general conclusion, which seems to be what many are doing in their attempt to show that synthetic life will rebel against and seek to destroy organic life.  For example:

1. Nelly is an elephant
2. Nelly is pink
Therefore: All elephants are pink

This is not logical as I do not have to accept the conclusion even if I do except the premiss' (which in this example are also wrong but this was the example they kept on using at University).  It works in the mass effect universe just as well.  I can't remember the name of the Krogan that worked for Mr Thax but I will call him Bob.

1. Bob is a Krogan
2. Bob is polite and charming
Therefore: All Krogan are polite and charming.  (This is clearly not true even though 1 and 2 are accurate)

An argument is logical where: If I accept the premiss', then I must also accept the conclusion.  However, you can also have a logical argument that is complete rubbish if the premiss' are not acceptable.

1, All Asari have pink skin.
2. Liara is an Asari.
Therefore: Liara has pink skin. (This is a logical argument but is still rubbish because 1 is not accurate)

A sound argument should be logical and have accurate premiss'.  For example:

1. The Geth are all examples of synthetic life.
2. Legion is an example of The Geth.
Therefore: Legion is an example of synthetic life.

The only sound argument I can think of relating to the Starchild does not have anything to do with synthetic life attempting to wipe out organic life,  It is more to do with what will happen to the Starchild.

1. 'The created' will always rebel against 'the creators' (I do not agree, but the Starchild states this as a fact)
2. The Starchild created the Reapers.
Therefore: The Reapers will rebel against the Starchild.

I personally can not think of a sound argument to show that there is an inevitable conflict between synthetic life and organic life based on what we see in Mass Effect.  Any sound argument that could be made would probably have to include the premiss that 'synthetic life will seek to destroy organic life'.  Neither Legion or EDI express a desire to do this (ever).  So to make such an argument work you would have to speculate as to their actions in the future or claim that they are not synthetic life.

To my mind, the Starchild's argument is not logical and it is not based on accurate premiss' 

Okay, try this sylligism:

1. Synthetic life does not require organic life for its continued existence.
2. Synthetic life has and will continue to war with organic life
Therefore synthetic life could justifiably wipe out all organic life.

Yes, it didn't happen in the case of the geth or EDI, but to say it won't happen because it doesn't occur in this case is actually not a valid argument.

1. Geth did not destroy organic life
2. Geth are synthetic life.
Therefore synthetic life will not destroy organic life.

But Geth are not all synthetic life, so the argument is not valid.

It's funny that people don't get that Reapers not killing all organic life is also for their own good -- on top of any programming they may have. Since Reapers are made up of organic life, they wil preserve organic life, which is why that flowchart people keep posting is invalid.

Modifié par Tallin Harperson, 11 mai 2012 - 08:44 .

[Tallin Harperson]

Sal86 wrote...

1. If reapers are not AI then you have to answer the first question as 'No'. The chart still works.

2. Not sure what you're trying to say on that one. Looks to me like you crossed out what it said and then wrote the same thing in different words?

1. The point being made is Reapers are only one type of AI, and just because one type of AI does not destroy all organic life it does not follow that all AI will not destroy all organic life. That is not a valid argument.

Modifié par Tallin Harperson, 11 mai 2012 - 08:47 .

[Jarneklo]

The thing that does not make any sense for me is that if these aggresive synthetics are 100% sure to develope wouldnt all other galaxies already host such synthetics that would be capable of travelling between galaxies.