365 réponses à ce sujet

[Tallin Harperson]

Jarneklo wrote...

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.

Perhaps. But we don't know there isn't a Catalyst in all the other galaxies, too.

[beyondsolo]

Tallin Harperson wrote...

Okay, try this sylligism:

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

Your second point is speculation. As was pointed out several times in this thread, this is not an irrefutable necessity. Further it is contrary to key developments in the game (geth/EDI).

Tallin Harperson wrote...

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.

As I said. However, the second part of your statement is too generalistic. You can't say that it "can't" happen because it didn't happen in a specific case. But based on the case you can say that it "won't" happen in this case. The geth and EDI, as I have also pointed out in this thread before, live and make decisions based on their experiences. They are part of a moral system.

Tallin Harperson wrote...

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

Try this:

1. The geth fought the quarians in self-defense (established in ME3).
2. Geth are synthetic life.
Therefore, synthetic life can be expected to act according to similar stimulus/response patterns as organic life. This does not mean that there will always be peace, but it also doesn't necessitate a cataclysmic conflict.

Tallin Harperson wrote...

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

How so? Geth are completely synthetic. They are AI. I admit that I may be misunderstanding your point, though. Feel free to clarify.

Tallin Harperson wrote...

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.

I'm going to repeat two distinct points I already made in this thread.

First, the Reapers are a pathetic archive because the preserve no culture of the species and rob them of free will. They do the Catalyst's bidding. They are slaves--rampaging, genocidal mass-graves. This is necessary for them to function without conflict among themselves. It's highly unlikey that a species that went through the horrors of a Reaper invasion would play along with the scheme if they retained any of their consciousness. Therefore, the preservation point is out.

Second, I find it borderline amusing that you would claim that the genocide of a species is for its own good. It's not. It's not for anyone's good. In fact, the point that the Reapers are allegedly protecting all organic life that is ever going to exist by wiping out organic life that currently exists significantly increases the number of beings who die a gruesome death over the two alternatives: (a) everything goes well for every and organics manage to keep peace with themselves and all AI, ( organics fail and get wiped out forever by AI. The Reaper cycle has the gruesome murder score topped against both these possibilties. As an empathic human being I find this particular part of the Catalyst's reasoning disgusting.

Modifié par beyondsolo, 11 mai 2012 - 09:00 .

[JBONE27]

beyondsolo wrote...

Tallin Harperson wrote...

Okay, try this sylligism:

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

Your second point is speculation. As was pointed out several times in this thread, this is not an irrefutable necessity. Further it is contrary to key developments in the game (geth/EDI).

Tallin Harperson wrote...

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.

As I said. However, the second part of your statement is too generalistic. You can't say that it "can't" happen because it didn't happen in a specific case. But based on the case you can say that it "won't" happen in this case. The geth and EDI, as I have also pointed out in this thread before, live and make decisions based on their experiences. They are part of a moral system.

Tallin Harperson wrote...

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

Try this:

1. The geth fought the quarians in self-defense (established in ME3).
2. Geth are synthetic life.
Therefore, synthetic life can be expected to act according to similar stimulus/response patterns as organic life. This does not mean that there will always be peace, but it also doesn't necessitate a cataclysmic conflict.

Tallin Harperson wrote...

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

How so? Geth are completely synthetic. They are AI. I admit that I may be misunderstanding your point, though. Feel free to clarify.

Tallin Harperson wrote...

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.

I'm going to repeat two distinct points I already made in this thread.

First, the Reapers are a pathetic archive because the preserve no culture of the species and rob them of free will. They do the Catalyst's bidding. They are slaves--rampaging, genocidal mass-graves. This is necessary for them to function without conflict among themselves. It's highly unlikey that a species that went through the horrors of a Reaper invasion would play along with the scheme if they retained any of their consciousness. Therefore, the preservation point is out.

Second, I find it borderline amusing that you would claim that the genocide of a species is for its own good. It's not. It's not for anyone's good. In fact, the point that the Reapers are allegedly protecting all organic life that is ever going to exist by wiping out organic life that currently exists significantly increases the number of beings who die a gruesome death over the two alternatives: (a) everything goes well for every and organics manage to keep peace with themselves and all AI, ( organics fail and get wiped out forever by AI. The Reaper cycle has the gruesome murder score topped against both these possibilties. As an empathic human being I find this particular part of the Catalyst's reasoning disgusting.

I agree with everything you've said except one thing.  It was established in the first game that the Geth were acting in self-defense.  When you talk to Tali she basically says that the quarians became nervious about the geth becoming sentiant and so attacked their creations.

[beyondsolo]

JBONE27 wrote...

I agree with everything you've said except one thing.  It was established in the first game that the Geth were acting in self-defense.  When you talk to Tali she basically says that the quarians became nervious about the geth becoming sentiant and so attacked their creations.

I don't remember this, but I'm willing to concede the point.

[Tallin Harperson]

beyondsolo wrote...

Tallin Harperson wrote...



1. Synthetic life does not require organic life for its continued existence.
2. Synthetic life wars with organic life (who starts it is immaterial)
3. War can end in total destruction of one side
Therefore synthetic life could wipe out all organic life.

Okay, let's try fixing that... So, it's no longer a syllogism, but it is logically sound.

Your second point is speculation. As was pointed out several times in this thread, this is not an irrefutable necessity. Further it is contrary to key developments in the game (geth/EDI).

It is not a necessity, but it does not have to be. All the Catalyst is saying is that it could happen. The only reason the war ended between the Geth and Quarians was Shep's interference. The Quarians would have kept fighting, and this could easily have caused the Geth to re-evaluate whether it was logical to preserve the Quarians if they will continually try to destroy them. They already sided with the Reapers for the purpose of self-preservation (note, this is not the heretics, but the Geth who do not believe the Reapers are gods), so they do strive to preserve themselves. If the Geth had destroyed the Quarians, what would the Galactic response be? I would think that they would seek to destroy the Geth for their own protection, and from there it would not take much for the Geth to realize they have no need for organic life at all, and it should probably all be wiped out for the preservation of the Geth. Maybe it wouldn't happen that way, but that is certainly one logical conclusion. As it turns out, the Geth would most likely not be powerful enough to wipe out all life, but such a AI could exist in the future.

Try this:

1. The geth fought the quarians in self-defense (established in ME3).
2. Geth are synthetic life.
Therefore, synthetic life can be expected to act according to similar stimulus/response patterns as organic life. This does not mean that there will always be peace, but it also doesn't necessitate a cataclysmic conflict.

The necessity of the event is not required, only the possibility.

Tallin Harperson wrote...

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

How so? Geth are completely synthetic. They are AI. I admit that I may be misunderstanding your point, though. Feel free to clarify.

1. Humans are alive.
2. Socrates is human.
Therefore Socrates is alive.

It would be more correct to say "Some humans are alive." Just because a segment of synthetic life does something, it does not follow that the entirety of synthetic life will do the same thing. 

Edit: I should also point out, there is no requirement that the Geth will continue to not wipe out organic life, just as, even if Socrates is alive, he can also die, and therefore not be alive.
 

I'm going to repeat two distinct points I already made in this thread.

First, the Reapers are a pathetic archive because the preserve no culture of the species and rob them of free will. They do the Catalyst's bidding. They are slaves--rampaging, genocidal mass-graves. This is necessary for them to function without conflict among themselves. It's highly unlikey that a species that went through the horrors of a Reaper invasion would play along with the scheme if they retained any of their consciousness. Therefore, the preservation point is out.

Second, I find it borderline amusing that you would claim that the genocide of a species is for its own good. It's not. It's not for anyone's good. In fact, the point that the Reapers are allegedly protecting all organic life that is ever going to exist by wiping out organic life that currently exists significantly increases the number of beings who die a gruesome death over the two alternatives: (a) everything goes well for every and organics manage to keep peace with themselves and all AI, ( organics fail and get wiped out forever by AI. The Reaper cycle has the gruesome murder score topped against both these possibilties. As an empathic human being I find this particular part of the Catalyst's reasoning disgusting.

Not the point. They preserve organic by only taking advanced organic life. In the last cycle, humans, asari, turians, quarians, etc. were all present, but not advanced enough to be taken. They will continue to leave less advanced life because they require life to advance to a certain point for the good of their own species (if not for other reasons). Yes, this is not good for the individual species, but it is good for organic life in general, which is the Catalyst's point.

Modifié par Tallin Harperson, 11 mai 2012 - 09:40 .

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

To OP: Dude, you trolling? 

Modifié par TheShogunOfHarlem, 11 mai 2012 - 09:34 .

[SalsaDMA]

Tallin Harperson wrote...

 They preserve organic by only taking advanced organic life. In the last cycle, humans, asari, turians, quarians, etc. were all present, but not advanced enough to be taken. They will continue to leave less advanced life because they require life to advance to a certain point for the good of their own species (if not for other reasons). Yes, this is not good for the individual species, but it is good for organic life in general, which is the Catalyst's point.

Preserve?

They are as preserved as a slab of dead meat in my freezer.

What's the point of that kind of 'preserving'?

And that is not even touching on the horrible ethical debate of having starbrat making whimsical choices on who to toothpaste or kill based simply on when he stumbled upon someone...

[Archer]

I have a question/observation about the Star Childs logic for the current cycle.

The Geth arent actually true AI. Each individual programe isnt self aware. Geth gain intelligence by networking individual programes.

Now my question is this- Which Race in the current cycle can be said to be responsible for altering individual Geth Programes to become fully aware?

Take one Gold star if your answer was The Reapers.

Some other observations-


If the purpose of the Reapers is to preserve life and prevent AI/Synthetics from wiping life out why doest the remaining Reaper Vanguard (ie Sovereign for this cycle) simply monitor organic development, and as soon as an organic race creates AI, call in the Reapers and wipe the AI out.

The star child, if we assume this is some form of advanced AI aboard the Citadel, could also fufill the above role. As an integrated part of the Citadel it would be idealy placed to do this.

Why do the Reapers co-opt the very Synthetics they are supposedly "protecting" organic life from to use as a weapon to destroy the organics?

What is the point in wiping out all space faring civilizations AFTER they have created AI/Synthetics? Is prevention not better than cure?

Heres a random thought- the Citadel is Reaper Technology. Why hasnt every single organic individual who has set foot on the place been indoctronated? As the seat of power in each cycle just indoctrinate the leadership and have them ban AI research.

OP was a good read with some interesting ideas and points but i think its the height of arogance to claim "no more should be said about faulty logic."

Modifié par eveynameiwantisfekintaken, 11 mai 2012 - 10:00 .

[Tallin Harperson]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Preserve?

They are as preserved as a slab of dead meat in my freezer.

What's the point of that kind of 'preserving'?

And that is not even touching on the horrible ethical debate of having starbrat making whimsical choices on who to toothpaste or kill based simply on when he stumbled upon someone...

Naw, more like the cows you haven't slaughtered yet because they haven't reached maturity. I didn't say it was moral, merely logical if you seek to preserve organic life.

And since he's giving you an ability to choose a solution that doesn't require that slaughter, it's not a reason the choices themselves are bad.

[beyondsolo]

Tallin Harperson wrote...

It is not a necessity, but it does not have to be. All the Catalyst is saying is that it could happen. The only reason the war ended between the Geth and Quarians was Shep's interference.

Agreed. It's a possibility. And some of the quarian leaders were so crazy for the war that they would have sacrificed the rest of their species.

Tallin Harperson wrote...

The Quarians would have kept fighting, and this could easily have caused the Geth to re-evaluate whether it was logical to preserve the Quarians if they will continually try to destroy them. They already sided with the Reapers for the purpose of self-preservation (note, this is not the heretics, but the Geth who do not believe the Reapers are gods), so they do strive to preserve themselves.

This is also true. The geth are, like all life, prone to misjudgment and reevaluation. The geth entered what they believed to be an alliance of convenience with the Reapers to meet the more imminent threat posed by the quarians. I'd like to point out that this decision had nothing to do with machine life vs. organic life.

Tallin Harperson wrote...

If the Geth had destroyed the Quarians, what would the Galactic response be? I would think that they would seek to destroy the Geth for their own protection, and from there it would not take much for the Geth to realize they have no need for organic life at all, and it should probably all be wiped out for the preservation of the Geth. Maybe it wouldn't happen that way, but that is certainly one logical conclusion. As it turns out, the Geth would most likely not be powerful enough to wipe out all life, but such a AI could exist in the future.

You admit that it doesn't have to develop that way. I agree. In fact, there is evidence that supports the contrary: after the geth chased the quarians off in the first war, they just remained largely isolated. Even if they wiped out the quarians this time to eliminate a threat they learned persisted, they would still support Shepard. It's a matter of politics and survival rather than organics vs. synthetics.

Tallin Harperson wrote...

The necessity of the event is not required, only the possibility.

Again, I find basing mass genocide on the possibility of something happening in the future absolutely heinous, but that's just me, I guess.

Tallin Harperson wrote...

1. Humans are alive.
2. Socrates is human.
Therefore Socrates is alive.

It would be more correct to say "Some humans are alive." Just because a segment of synthetic life does something, it does not follow that the entirety of synthetic life will do the same thing.

Ah, I see. You didn't mean that the geth were only partially synthetic, but rather that the geth were only a fraction of the totality of synthetic life. Thanks for clarifying that. I was beginning to think that one of us had lost it.

Tallin Harperson wrote...

Edit: I should also point out, there is no requirement that the Geth will continue to not wipe out organic life, just as, even if Socrates is alive, he can also die, and therefore not be alive.

This is where I think the Catalyst's reasoning becomes philsophically indefensible. It implies that because some synthetic life may wage war on organic life, the risk that some super powerful synthetics will do it one day is grounds for mass genocide on organics. It's problematic for two main reasons:

First, it would seem that 21st Century humanity has already developed more sophisticated methods of dealing with conflicts than an AI that is millions of years old. The Catalyst has never heard anything of a dialectic approach to resolving oppositions. It has never heard anything about considering each civilization in its own right, be it organic or synthetic. The Catalyst generalizes, and such over-generalization is bound to cause massive problems. The Reaper cycle and the repeated mass genocide are proof of that.

Tallin Harperson wrote...

Not the point. They preserve organic by only taking advanced organic life. In the last cycle, humans, asari, turians, quarians, etc. were all present, but not advanced enough to be taken. They will continue to leave less advanced life because they require life to advance to a certain point for the good of their own species (if not for other reasons). Yes, this is not good for the individual species, but it is good for organic life in general, which is the Catalyst's point.

They don't preserve life. They make a useless archive. By killing sentient beings who are alive. This entire logic collapses because it assumes that future life that doesn't exist yet is worth more than current life. It's not, at least not to a degree that justifies the Reaper cycles. We may make sacrifices for our children, but that is our decision. It is us who must shape the future for generations to come. It is us who must find a way to talk to new species who emerge on the galactic scene (a major theme in ME1). The Reapers and their flimsy theory of how they're saving organic life by annhihilating it over and over again is indefensible.

Modifié par beyondsolo, 11 mai 2012 - 10:02 .

[Getorex]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Obvious troll is obvious.

Don't call people trolls because they don't agree with us. She isn't a troll.

Maybe not a troll but certainly a foggy "thinker". 

Non-thinker is what I mean to say. 

That meme is 100% correct and EDI AND the Geth prove it AND it is bullcrap logic to say, "if you aren't 100% sure that they wont..."

There isn't 100% certainty that any given baby wont grow up to be a new Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot/Jeffry Dahmer!  So kill them all, damnit.

Nuke the site from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.

Bullcrap "logic" as in "not logical AT ALL".

[Gatt9]

The Razman wrote...

tobiasks wrote...

Hi Razman, very well written, but I would not call it soundproof. I am unsure if you read Gatt9's post on page 1, because atleast you did not reply to him, but he pretty much explains why it is indeed not soundproof.

I have limited time, and Gatt9's post unfortunately didn't seem worth answering ... nothing in it that I saw was based on any kind of evidence that's contained within the game, merely groundless speculation (and I don't use the word "speculation" lightly, seeing as its thrown about so often on here).

But if you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to give it a shot in PM.

To be more specific,  I poked holes in all of his arguements he couldn't deal with.  So he's going to pretend the post isn't there instead. 

He wants to use the flawed in-game excuses to support his logic that only works in the confines of EA's explanations,  rather than deal with any real knowledge and reasoning,  since the Starchild *really* falls apart once you actually stop thinking of the "Unvierse" as the 50 plants in the game,  and when you're forced to stop anthropromorphizing AI.

He's set up a series of false premises,  and is specifically picking and choosing what he responds to so he can try to stay within the realm of his false premises.

[Hunter of Legends]

Gatt9 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

tobiasks wrote...

Hi Razman, very well written, but I would not call it soundproof. I am unsure if you read Gatt9's post on page 1, because atleast you did not reply to him, but he pretty much explains why it is indeed not soundproof.

I have limited time, and Gatt9's post unfortunately didn't seem worth answering ... nothing in it that I saw was based on any kind of evidence that's contained within the game, merely groundless speculation (and I don't use the word "speculation" lightly, seeing as its thrown about so often on here).

But if you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to give it a shot in PM.

To be more specific,  I poked holes in all of his arguements he couldn't deal with.  So he's going to pretend the post isn't there instead. 

He wants to use the flawed in-game excuses to support his logic that only works in the confines of EA's explanations,  rather than deal with any real knowledge and reasoning,  since the Starchild *really* falls apart once you actually stop thinking of the "Unvierse" as the 50 plants in the game,  and when you're forced to stop anthropromorphizing AI.

He's set up a series of false premises,  and is specifically picking and choosing what he responds to so he can try to stay within the realm of his false premises.

Surprisingly common tactic on these boards.

[starscreamerx31]

Alot of massive flaws in that wall of text (sighs). I guess some people dont understand reason and rationality. A shame.

[TheRealJayDee]

The Razman wrote...

What in Shepard's lifetime are you referring to? I don't remember the game where all organic life was wiped out forever.

The Geth and rogue AIs. It's in the OP.

So the Geth, who acted in self-defence and actively decided not to hunt down and wipe out their creators and can eventually make peace with them, are an example of a genocide commited on an organic race by synthetics?

Riiiiight...

The Razman wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

The argument fails precisely because it relies only on inevitability, which justifies everything.

Sorry, but you're not making a very good case here. The Starchild has decided that its inevitable. That's all you really need to know unless you have something which invalidates its premise, and all the evidence we have on its premise actually supports it instead.

What exactly are you talking about here? Everything we get to see about the organics/synthetics subject shows us that there is no inevitability of war and extinction. "Because the Starchild has decided it's inevitable" just isn't any kind of proof, and we should question his word. SC doesn't provide us with any proof or even evidence besides "I say so". **** him!

edit: that's what you get for typing a reply and leaving it unposted for several hours. Smart people above me have already said everything I evenr want to say on this and more.

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 11 mai 2012 - 11:28 .

[detbasketball13]

The OP is always playing the devils advocate on all things wrong with the game, He knows the ending is full of bulls&^t logic but he still tries to make excuses for it. You haven't made a good point ever on anything mass effect dude. Give up with the pointless garbage. Face it the endings sucked move on. Stop trying to bail out this crappy ending.

[wrighty232]

That's like the Allies saying after WW1 saying we should destroy all Germans because we went to war with them before and have no reason to believe it wont happen again. It's not in synthetics and organics nature to fight, simply because the geth dont inherently hate and want to destroy organics, and the quarians with synthetics. No real reason to believe synthetics will always fight organics.

Sorry if you're German and my example offended you. ):

[The Razman]

*sigh* There's three frickin' pages and I can't separate the troll posts from the actual ones. Or more precisely, I don't have time to.

You, as Shepard, have spent three games fighting synthetics who want to kill you, dealing with AIs which had to be shackled for people's safety, and witnessing the results of what hyper-advanced synthetics are capable of. Then you get to the end and feel qualified to say "Well, maybe it won't happen, so I reject your premise that preventing synthetics is necessary". And I've just realised that I could spend an age arguing why the fact that war and conflict has already broken out so many times in Shepard's lifetime makes it naive to assume it won't happen in the future, but it's so much easier to point out that in the grand scheme of things ... you're just arguing about how necessary it is rather than the logic of it.

You want to argue that maybe it won't happen, on the grounds that you have idealism that all war will be eventually solved and that synthetics which are vastly more powerful than us won't rise up and destroy us all ... good for you. The Starchild has taken a less idealistic view, and implemented the only logically 100% soundproof method of achieving its goal. End of story.

[Il Divo]

The reason why your argument is so funny is that it attempts to extrapolate a pattern from isolated, weak examples. Shepard spent three games fighting synthetics trying to kill him. He also spent those three games fighting organics, machine gods, mutant bugs, and whatever else your mind can think of. But of course, I don't see anyone extrapolating some pattern that war between all life is inevitable, which would actually make far more sense as a motivation. Apparently there's something special about synthetics that makes them more likely to go to war with organics than any other species. But for some odd reason, the Catalyst can't point out what that is.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 mai 2012 - 12:35 .

[Sgt Stryker]

The Razman wrote...

*sigh* There's three frickin' pages and I can't separate the troll posts from the actual ones. Or more precisely, I don't have time to.

You, as Shepard, have spent three games fighting synthetics who want to kill you, dealing with AIs which had to be shackled for people's safety, and witnessing the results of what hyper-advanced synthetics are capable of. Then you get to the end and feel qualified to say "Well, maybe it won't happen, so I reject your premise that preventing synthetics is necessary". And I've just realised that I could spend an age arguing why the fact that war and conflict has already broken out so many times in Shepard's lifetime makes it naive to assume it won't happen in the future, but it's so much easier to point out that in the grand scheme of things ... you're just arguing about how necessary it is rather than the logic of it.

You want to argue that maybe it won't happen, on the grounds that you have idealism that all war will be eventually solved and that synthetics which are vastly more powerful than us won't rise up and destroy us all ... good for you. The Starchild has taken a less idealistic view, and implemented the only logically 100% soundproof method of achieving its goal. End of story.

So what? In all three games Shepard also fights plenty of organics that want to kill him. Does that mean all organics must be exterminated as well, just because a few organics dare to attack Shepard?

The Starchild is nothing but a genocidal loose cannon, and makes the likes of Genghis Khan, Hitler, and Mao look like Mr. Rogers in comparison. Such a force must be opposed and disagreed with at any opportunity.

[TheRealJayDee]

The Razman wrote...

You, as Shepard, have spent three games fighting synthetics who want to kill you, dealing with AIs which had to be shackled for people's safety, and witnessing the results of what hyper-advanced synthetics are capable of. Then you get to the end and feel qualified to say "Well, maybe it won't happen, so I reject your premise that preventing synthetics is necessary".

Like the Geth, who later allied themselves with me and made peace with their creators.

Like EDI, who was UNshackled and before and after not only saved me, my ship and my crew on several occasions, but also fell in love with one of my best friends?

Like an endless cycle of genocides commited by the Reapers, as ordered by the Starchild himself? Yeah, those results are really evil. That's why we might've wanted to stop the genocide machines and their creator/leader, who at some point thought he'd come up with the perfect solution to a hypothetical problem that really bothered him and decided to never look back.

In my games I never got the feeling that "organics vs. synthetics until extinction" was anymore inevitable than "organics vs. organics until extinction". The only being who believes this is the Starchild, who is also responsible for the only examples of genocides committed by synthetics we can actually account for. Excuse me for deciding not to believe the mass-mass-mass-murderer whose only real argument is "because I believe and say it's so".

[Tigerman123]

He doesn't say that synthetics are more likely to go to war than organics, his argument is that synthetics are capable of driving organic life to extinction to due their potential to far exceed them technologically. The rachni, even the Reapers had military strength and scientific understanding which was at least comprehensible to the citadel species; the entire point of a post singularity civilisation is that wouldn't be possible, that they could wipe us out on a whim or incidentally, especially because this isn't hard scifi and the cap on what is feasible is very high, eg the crucible

[brfritos]

Argument 1: That it's an illogical course of action to take because we don't know that synthetics rising up against their creators is an inevitability (and that the Geth prove it).

So we should've killed all germans in WWII because they can't be trusted?

Also Shepard reply that without hope - or "naive idealism" - we are pratically machines and this sustains the organic humans in difficult times.

My main problem is not the lack or prevalence of logic, is that Shepard is totally submissive to the Catalyst.
Also the Catalyst don't argue about this particular statement, giving the impression he doesn't or are unwilling to take it into account.

A sentient machine appears to be able to take thousands of scenarios in their conclusions, like EDI does and sucessfully prove it can be done.
And the Geth are the proof, because they contradict the Singularity concept.

In the article you provided is stated: "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).
But guess what, Legion and even the Geth VI says they admire the concept of hope and cooperation of the organics and are willing to emulate (or upgrade them) this concepts.

Also remember the Technological Singularity is a "concept", not a theory.

Argument 2: That the Starchild's argument is cyclical (creating synthetics to kill organics in order to prevent synthetics killing organics).

Again using the same example, we had a certain person 70 years ago that stated that a particular race "are undoubtely a race, but is not human".
Then he try to exterminate them.

And this make sense?

The peace with the Geth will last? I don't know. The Geth will turn against organics after Shepard giving them the final stage of their evolution? I don't know.
The synthetic Geth will turn against the organics humans, asari, turians and salarians for certainty in the future? Excuse me, there's no proof whatsoever that support this will happen regardless.

Remember the Geth Prime and Legion said Shepard improved the opinions of the geth about organics and they will hold to this.
The Geth evolved into something different than the Reapers and Legion is also different from the other Geth, given the perspective he gainned when joining Shepar in the Normandy for the first time.

Javik and the Catalyst stands that machines don't change, but the course of the events proven them wrong.

Argument 3: That the Starchild could simply destroy the synthetics instead of destroying the life that creates them

My main problem is not that the Starchild could simply destroy the Reapers, my main problem with this particular line of thinking is what the hell he was doing when Sovereign invaded the Citadel?
Playing chess? Babysitting his little baby Reapers? Not even a "hello son, I created you, do you need help against those pesky ships"?

This logic itself pretty much throws out the window the entire story of ME1.

If the Catalyst is the Citadel, why on Earth he needed Saren to activate the Citadel master control? How the Protheans were able to corrupt the signal to the keepers if he's the Citadel?

[Father_Jerusalem]

I think that regardless of whether or not you agree with the Starchild's logic (and I happen to agree with it, especially if you substitute the word "kill" organics with the word "preserve" organics) the simple fact is that the Starchild - and whoever created the Starchild - agrees with his logic, and has a giant Reaper army to back it up.

You disagree with his logic, you gotta fight through the Reapers and prove him wrong and end the cycle, which... is exactly what Shepard does.

[The Razman]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

The Razman wrote...

You, as Shepard, have spent three games fighting synthetics who want to kill you, dealing with AIs which had to be shackled for people's safety, and witnessing the results of what hyper-advanced synthetics are capable of. Then you get to the end and feel qualified to say "Well, maybe it won't happen, so I reject your premise that preventing synthetics is necessary".

Like the Geth, who later allied themselves with me and made peace with their creators.

Like EDI, who was UNshackled and before and after not only saved me, my ship and my crew on several occasions, but also fell in love with one of my best friends?

Good. For. Them. That makes all the killing ok, then.

Are you really saying the fact that it all worked out ok in the end means that the death and the war and the destruction never happened? And that all AIs and synthetics are going to turn out "good" after all like them? Because the whole point is that it doesn't matter how many "good" synthetics or AIs you bring up ... they prove the potential for death and destuction, and it'd only take one incident with a "bad" one once the technological threshold has been surpassed to destroy all life in the galaxy.

The Starchild doesn't take that risk. Extreme, but logical.