9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

JedTed wrote...
Afterwards, if two organics joined their minds intimatly their eyes would glow.  Similar to when the asari's eyes go black when having sex.

I overlooked that. Cool indeed. So your Synthesis interpretation also has the mental networking between individuals?

@all:
The EC retconned the silly idea of a hybrid DNA. Well, the original phrase still exists, but the Catalyst's detailed exposition contradicts it. So, what do you think the circuit patterns on leaves means? I still think that "all life" in the Catalyst exposition is supposed to mean "all intelligent organic and synthetic life", and the artists got that wrong. Why? Because it's not possible to prevent the emergence of new organic life altogether, there's always abiogenesis. Also, "the problem" only affects intelligent life. Together, that means that any attempt to prevent the emergence of organic sapients would be a temporary measure at best. In comparison, synthesized civilization will most plausibly stay more advanced than newly-emerging organic or synthetic civilizations, so that's a reasonably permanent solution.

On the other hand, it appears likely to me that the writers didn't think this through. In that case, I am taking the freedom to interpret and throw one side of a contradiction out according to preference.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 mars 2013 - 11:13 .

[Obadiah]

Ieldra2 wrote...

JedTed wrote...
Afterwards, if two organics joined their minds intimatly their eyes would glow.  Similar to when the asari's eyes go black when having sex.

I overlooked that. Cool indeed. So your Synthesis interpretation also has the mental networking between individuals?

@all:
The EC retconned the silly idea of a hybrid DNA. Well, the original phrase still exists, but the Catalyst's detailed exposition contradicts it. So, what do you think the circuit patterns on leaves means? I still think that "all life" in the Catalyst exposition is supposed to mean "all intelligent organic and synthetic life", and the artists got that wrong. Why? Because it's not possible to prevent the emergence of new organic life altogether, there's always abiogenesis. Also, "the problem" only affects intelligent life. Together, that means that any attempt to prevent the emergence of organic sapients would be a temporary measure at best. In comparison, synthesized civilization will most plausibly stay more advanced than newly-emerging organic or synthetic civilizations, so that's a reasonably permanent solution.

On the other hand, it appears likely to me that the writers didn't think this through. In that case, I am taking the freedom to interpret and throw one side of a contradiction out according to preference.

I really wish the writers would post what it is they meant to acheive with Synthesis.

I think the Cataylst probably meant "all life" including plants, otherwise we'd end up with Organic life evolving somewhere in the galaxy creating Synthetics and starting an Creator/Created war where organics all die. I guess the "matrix" that got changed somehow prevents purely organic abiogenesis, but I'm not sure how that would work since organic life starts as just a molecule. Now, "naturally" evolving life already exisits in Synthesis, and when life creates an AI, they realise that they have just created a life, and not just some self-aware slave machine.

I am not sure if that logically follows, that removal of the "dividing line" of life brings about understanding. We have a history of slavery and cruelty in the current world where people are treated as objects, and there are stories like Blade Runner where created engineered  life is organic and is treated as a slave.

On the question of whether plants would display a circuit board on their leaves - honestly, I find the whole circuit board effect on everything odd. Mistaken artistic interpretation makes about as much sense as anything else. Because I take the ending more literally, I'd rather go with "temporary effect" or "nanobot sensors from the Synthesis organics nearby."

[Mobius-Silent]

Ieldra2 wrote...

JedTed wrote...
Afterwards, if two organics joined their minds intimatly their eyes would glow.  Similar to when the asari's eyes go black when having sex.

I overlooked that. Cool indeed. So your Synthesis interpretation also has the mental networking between individuals?

@all:
The EC retconned the silly idea of a hybrid DNA. Well, the original phrase still exists, but the Catalyst's detailed exposition contradicts it. So, what do you think the circuit patterns on leaves means? I still think that "all life" in the Catalyst exposition is supposed to mean "all intelligent organic and synthetic life", and the artists got that wrong. Why? Because it's not possible to prevent the emergence of new organic life altogether, there's always abiogenesis. Also, "the problem" only affects intelligent life. Together, that means that any attempt to prevent the emergence of organic sapients would be a temporary measure at best. In comparison, synthesized civilization will most plausibly stay more advanced than newly-emerging organic or synthetic civilizations, so that's a reasonably permanent solution.

I think that all tech and all life-capagle organic structures received the "new framework" tech, wrapping the structure of their DNA or DNA-analogue, that doesn't mean that non-sapient's suddenly become sapient but it does offer new evolutionary paths for pre-sapient post-organics. Hence we would see the synthesis effect on all "smart"-clothing, armour, plant-life, general tech. I also agree that it is most likely a side effect of the sub-atomic scale "pico-tech" doing it's job and that it would fade given time.

[Mobius-Silent]

Jassu1979 wrote...
1. Right up until the ending, the Reapers were consistently portrayed as sadistic, genocidal monsters using terror to demoralize and break their victims. There are references to death camps where the inmates are encouraged to turn on each other, indoctrinated pseudo-governments helping the Reapers to herd the populace to their destruction while maintaining a calm facade, shock troops created from the dead, etc.
They tried to downplay/retcon that aspect by adding lines like "When fire burns, is it at war?" to the ending, but I find that line of reasoning utterly unconvincing. The Reapers are sapient, and they understand enough about basic psychology to know EXACTLY what they are doing. It IS a war, AND a most cruel genocide, and the Reapers ARE responsible.
With all of that in mind, I find unconditional peace with these entities to be unpalatable. The justification given by the Catalyst does not nullify all the injustices the Reapers inflicted upon the galaxy, nor does it redeem them.

However, as you say, the Reapers are sapient(Thinking, reasoning, self-aware) _but_ they are not sentient (_Feeling_, thinking, reasoning, self-aware) hence they have no implicit understanding of the nature of organic suffering. It's truly a horrific thing to be in that state. this is why conflict is pre-destined, however synthesis (as presented) adds the capability of feelings and thus sentience.

The Reapers weren't sadistic, they were sociopaths, they didn't _couldn't_ enjoy what they were doing, they were simply using the most effective tools at their disposal, as Harbinger kept pointing out "We know this hurts you" and "There is no pain" they know what they were doing but were incapable of understanding what it meant to us.

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 17 mars 2013 - 01:03 .

[Dendio1]

Ieldra2 wrote...

JedTed wrote...
Afterwards, if two organics joined their minds intimatly their eyes would glow.  Similar to when the asari's eyes go black when having sex.

I overlooked that. Cool indeed. So your Synthesis interpretation also has the mental networking between individuals?

@all:
The EC retconned the silly idea of a hybrid DNA. Well, the original phrase still exists, but the Catalyst's detailed exposition contradicts it. So, what do you think the circuit patterns on leaves means? I still think that "all life" in the Catalyst exposition is supposed to mean "all intelligent organic and synthetic life", and the artists got that wrong. Why? Because it's not possible to prevent the emergence of new organic life altogether, there's always abiogenesis. Also, "the problem" only affects intelligent life. Together, that means that any attempt to prevent the emergence of organic sapients would be a temporary measure at best. In comparison, synthesized civilization will most plausibly stay more advanced than newly-emerging organic or synthetic civilizations, so that's a reasonably permanent solution.

On the other hand, it appears likely to me that the writers didn't think this through. In that case, I am taking the freedom to interpret and throw one side of a contradiction out according to preference.

Well since we are throwing things out there, what if trees are intelligent and mearly unable to communicate with us pre-synthesis?

[Dendio1]

I really wish the writers would post what it is they meant to acheive with Synthesis.

Well synthesis is all about embracing the unknown right?

I really like the comparisons between the endings and lovecraft.
Destroy- run from the truth
Control- go mad from the revelation
Synthesis- embrace the unknown

This was never about copying deus ex so much as both properties tackled lovecraft's dilema

[Dendio1]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@lillitheris:
The roleplaying perspective is so reduced in this particular scene that it's almost irrelevant, even less so with the bad writing in the scene. Shepard doesn't know about the thematic considerations that always influence players' choices, if you realize it or not. Shepard doesn't know that she's in a story full of allegories (as pointed out by Nimrodell on the previous page), and she *might* suspect that she's the model of the change but she doesn't know. But we know.

But if you want to know: when going from the phrasing in the leaked script on which my scenario is based (including the phrasing "a path you've already started down") - yes, I would very likely make that choice from a roleplaying perspective, though I can't know how I'd be shaped by the events that came before in Shepard's shoes. I would take that jump into the largely unknown. I would do it to break the hold of a cyclic past and to make life grow beyond what it had been. What can life be after it has grown beyond itself? I don't know. But stagnating (Control) or retreating from the future (Destroy) are lesser options. "There are infinite possibilities - but not for Man". I haven't put that quote at the top of my OP in vain. The much-vaunted "human condition" is something to be overcome. At least in part. Halfway, if you want, because we're to become half-synthetics.

Back to the thematic view, I could never, ever choose Destroy with conviction, because of this:

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Its pretty obvious that destroy resonants with the statement of retreating into a dark age, shunning knowledge and the revelations that come along with it.

Shaigunjoe explained that nicely, and both Destroy and Synthesis came across to me as he describes. Destroy always came across to me as a neo-Luddite, backward-looking choice, even though from a roleplaying perspective, that's not all there is to it.

I definitly feel that the final choice is more about the player than the character, as evident by the highly emotional response across these boards.

I did stumble trying to define control, as I think I wanted to fit it in with that lovecraft quote.  Though, stagnation has been a word that has crossed my mind when considering it.  Though I feel like it is a very Nietzsche end result, in the sense you have become the monster in which you fight.  Not sure what they are trying to say about that being a paragon option though.

Control: Going mad from the revelation. Teammates see shepard approach the beam, and not much later the reapers disengage. They have become servants of the catalyst shepard, bent on defending and leading the universe to it's desire.

Its not far fetched to think of shepard going mad from the revelation in this instance. Not too long ago he was hell-bent on destroying the reapers and strongly opposed controlling them. After learning their true nature, he suddenly gains grand asperations that the universe would be a better place under his rule..as defender, leader, protector.

This line of thinking represents shepards ideologies when progressed to an extreme manner. Shepard has made decisions that influenced the future of entire races, but he never outright desired total control over everything and everyone. Regardless of positive intention, he was just minutes ago arguing that humanity was not ready to wield the power reapers harness. What changed? Perhaps he lost himself..going mad from the revelation after all.

[ruggly]

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Its pretty obvious that destroy resonants with the statement of retreating into a dark age, shunning knowledge and the revelations that come along with it.

I...don't see it like that at all. 

[Dendio1]

ruggly wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Its pretty obvious that destroy resonants with the statement of retreating into a dark age, shunning knowledge and the revelations that come along with it.

I...don't see it like that at all. 

Rather than accepting the new reality synthesis offers or attempting to control the reapers to your will, you turn your back on both the representation of the unknown and of madness.

Destroy all synthetics means you erase the "forbidden knowledge" at your fingertips and usher in a literal and figurative dark age where all synthetic tech is no more. Back to simpler "safe" times

Synthesis requires courage to venture out in to the unknown.

Control can be seen as madness because you aim to enforce your will upon the universe ( not to mention do a 180 on the whole "humanity is not ready for the responsibilities control over the reapers would impose upon them". I feel control creates a synthetic cata-shep that represents the paragon and renegade shepard personality amplified a hundred fold.

Modifié par Dendio1, 18 mars 2013 - 09:09 .

[New Display Name]

While the transhumanist (or transapient, I guess, in this context) angle of Synthesis is immensely appealing, I'm not really convinced that the changed life synthesis brings would guarantee no further creation of pure synthetic slaves that would later rebel.
While the galaxy being partly synthetic already could help facilitate peace, these pure synthetics would still not understand (at least in terms of experience) the quality of being organic nor being both.

Also, Mordin/Zaeed does not appear in the synthesis ending (at least, doesn't appear with the green effects) while alive and Jacob's slide implies earth was devastated, which isn't supposed to be the case. It's a little distracting.

[CosmicGnosis]

Dendio1 wrote...

Control: Going mad from the revelation. Teammates see shepard approach the beam, and not much later the reapers disengage. They have become servants of the catalyst shepard, bent on defending and leading the universe to it's desire.

Its not far fetched to think of shepard going mad from the revelation in this instance. Not too long ago he was hell-bent on destroying the reapers and strongly opposed controlling them. After learning their true nature, he suddenly gains grand asperations that the universe would be a better place under his rule..as defender, leader, protector.

This line of thinking represents shepards ideologies when progressed to an extreme manner. Shepard has made decisions that influenced the future of entire races, but he never outright desired total control over everything and everyone. Regardless of positive intention, he was just minutes ago arguing that humanity was not ready to wield the power reapers harness. What changed? Perhaps he lost himself..going mad from the revelation after all.

... Interesting interpretation.

[Rhayak]

http://classic.battl...necromancer.jpg

[Ieldra]

Dendio1 wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Its pretty obvious that destroy resonants with the statement of retreating into a dark age, shunning knowledge and the revelations that come along with it.

I...don't see it like that at all. 

Rather than accepting the new reality synthesis offers or attempting to control the reapers to your will, you turn your back on both the representation of the unknown and of madness.

Destroy all synthetics means you erase the "forbidden knowledge" at your fingertips and usher in a literal and figurative dark age where all synthetic tech is no more. Back to simpler "safe" times

Synthesis requires courage to venture out in to the unknown.

Control can be seen as madness because you aim to enforce your will upon the universe ( not to mention do a 180 on the whole "humanity is not ready for the responsibilities control over the reapers would impose upon them". I feel control creates a synthetic cata-shep that represents the paragon and renegade shepard personality amplified a hundred fold.

Yes, I think Synthesis carries that theme of embracing the unknown, something that is fundamentally "other", and I think it's intentional. The green glow is green because it's supposed to be uncomfortable, appear somewhat creepy, indicating that this fast-track advancement will - as any evolution eventually does, artificial or natural - eventually change us into something which can't be comprehended by those who came before. I've called it "invoking a singularity on organic life".  Synthesis transcends the "human condition".

EC Destroy is somewhat ambivalent. I think the original Destroy carried the theme of rejecting the "forbidden knowledge" of Reaper technology, but the EC compromised it somewhat by saying the relays can be rebuilt. It is vague about it, though, and while we see a rebuilt Citadel in Destroy, we never see a rebuilt relay. Destroy still carries the theme of running away from truth, both in rejecting the organic/synthetic problem and as rejecting the idea that we need to change in order to survive in a bigger universe. Destroy affirms the "human condition".

I don't agree with your interpretation of Control at first glance, but I don't reject it completely at this time because I need to ponder the merit of this rather unusual interpretation first. BTW, I recommend trying the Renegade lines in the conversation with TIM. No hint of "we aren't ready for that" here. Instead you challenge TIM to take Control and end the war, and because TIM can't, you point out the Reapers won't let him, that he's under their control.

@Rhayak:
This is a long-running thread which hasn't been unattended for more than three days since its inception.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 mars 2013 - 09:49 .

[New Display Name]

Maybe narcissistic and cynical, but not mad.

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Destroy still carries the theme of running away from truth, both in rejecting the organic/synthetic problem and as rejecting the idea that we need to change in order to survive in a bigger universe. Destroy affirms the "human condition".

Wow, I never thought of it like that.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Destroy still carries the theme of running away from truth, both in rejecting the organic/synthetic problem and as rejecting the idea that we need to change in order to survive in a bigger universe. Destroy affirms the "human condition".

"Truth". Accepting the Catalyst's word as fact despite numerous opportunities to see how wrong he really is.  No thanks.  I'll stick to my own experiences over the word of someone else who doesn't even bother to provide evidence for his point of view.

It's not running away from anything.  It's saying that the Catalyst is wrong.

[Mobius-Silent]

Dendio1 wrote...
Control can be seen as madness because you aim to enforce your will upon the universe ( not to mention do a 180 on the whole "humanity is not ready for the responsibilities control over the reapers would impose upon them". I feel control creates a synthetic cata-shep that represents the paragon and renegade shepard personality amplified a hundred fold.

I don't believe that Shep's personality would be "magnified" as such, but I think it's quite clear that the transcription is limited to similar technology to that of the reapers, in that any organic undergoing a synthetic conversion would be stripped of their ability to feel, emotionally that is. Synthesis is the only option that explicitly states that synthetics gain the additional framework that allows them to "understand" Organics and as illustrated by EDI in the EC this is not simply a databank of information, it is the ability to _feel_ that was previously impossible. Hence Cata-Shep would still _remember_ having had these emotions and would also still be driven by the same motivations but would be incapable of experiencing any new emotions hence over time Shep would inevitably lose the grounding and moral sense as new experiences were evaluated simply on the basis of their logic and not with any real emotional weight. Essentially you're making a Shepard frozen in time, incapable of creating any new connections with emotional beings and with only the memory of previous emotional connection. I'd expect totalitarian behaviour within the next 2000 years at most.

Well, unless cata-shep planned on re-creating the Crucible and enacting synthesis with some other voluntary sacrificial emotional-matrix, perhaps without detonating the relays, maybe even in a localised area.

Personally I don’t see why you can’t do control _and_ synthesis, do a destructive read of Shepard for _both_ the emotional matrix and the current mind-state, that way you get digital-Shepard _with_ intact (well, scrubbed and re-created) emotions.

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 18 mars 2013 - 11:54 .

[Bfler]

Besides the fact, that synthesis is against every law of nature and against free will, it is absolutely impossible without brainwashing. Reapers are the killers, who slaughtered millions of people. Not to mention that something like a Husk or Cannibal looks like a monster. No serious person would life together with such creatures. That's the same as if a Jew would willingly buy a house next to a person like Dr. Mengele or in case of a Cannibal, somebody excavates the corpse of a death person on a cemetery, preserves it and walks around in the public with parts of it as personal trophy.

Not to mention the panic reaction of the Reapers, who become aware of themselves and what they have been before the "transformation".

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Destroy still carries the theme of running away from truth, both in rejecting the organic/synthetic problem and as rejecting the idea that we need to change in order to survive in a bigger universe. Destroy affirms the "human condition".

"Truth". Accepting the Catalyst's word as fact despite numerous opportunities to see how wrong he really is.  No thanks.  I'll stick to my own experiences over the word of someone else who doesn't even bother to provide evidence for his point of view.

It's not running away from anything.  It's saying that the Catalyst is wrong.

To me, all those people declaiming that the Catalyst is wrong prove the Rannoch Reaper right: "It is not a thing you can comprehend". Or rather, the problem is people don't want to comprehend it because it results in conclusions they don't like. It is a failing of organics, and yes, it is running away from a plausible claim.

The truth is: we do not have sufficient information to make an informed judgment about the Catalyst's claims using only information that doesn't come from the Catalyst itself. We can neither confirm nor disprove its assertions independently. However, if a million-year-old entity embodying the collective intelligence of hundreds of civilizations makes an assertion, I am well-advised to consider the possibility it might have a point, especially since its logic *is* internally consistent (see JShepppp's thread for that), and blithely asserting that it's wrong with as little evidence as the outcome of one war would be the epitome of ignorance.

Yes, asserting the Catalyst is wrong is running away from truth, the truth that there are problems we might not have the means to solve and stay what we are, that our vaunted values of determination, solidarity etc. are not enough, that our nature, the human condition, limits us and that some of our limitations need to be overcome in order to survive in a bigger universe. If you argue that the story which comes before the ending doesn't naturally lead up to such a message, you may have a point - though I have a hard time thinking up a story which does that in a manner which wouldn't be rejected all the same by people who just don't want to believe it.

By choosing Destroy, you assert that organics can solve the problem of organic/synthetic coexistence on their own. But if you deny that a high risk, a high degree of uncertainty still exists because you just don't know enough to disprove the Catalyst's assertion, then you're making a choice based on a delusion. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 mars 2013 - 12:40 .

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

To me, all those people declaiming that the Catalyst is wrong prove the Rannoch Reaper right: "It is not a thing you can comprehend". Or rather, the problem is people don't want to comprehend it because it results in conclusions they don't like. It is a failing of organics, and yes, it is running away from a plausible claim.

The truth is: we do not have sufficient information to make an informed judgment about the Catalyst's claims using only information that doesn't come from the Catalyst itself. We can neither confirm nor disprove its assertions independently. However, if a million-year-old entity embodying the collective intelligence of hundreds of civilizations makes an assertion, I am well-advised to consider the possibility it might have a point, especially since its logic *is* internally consistent (see JShepppp's thread for that), and blithely asserting that it's wrong with as little evidence as the outcome of one war would be the epitome of ignorance.

Yes, asserting the Catalyst is wrong is running away from truth, the truth that there are problems we might not have the means to solve and stay what we are, that our vaunted values of determination, solidarity etc. are not enough, that our nature, the human condition, limits us and that some of our limitations need to be overcome in order to survive in a bigger universe. If you argue that the story which comes before the ending doesn't naturally lead up to such a message, you may have a point - though I have a hard time thinking up a story which does that in a manner which wouldn't be rejected all the same by people who just don't want to believe it.

. The only instance of organics being completely overcome by synthetics is an optional choice in the game. Two other results firmly disprove him. His assertion is "All organics WILL be destroyed by their synthetic creations" this assertion dies in 2/3 cases over the skies of Rannoch. This assertion is further disproven by talking to Javik and learning about the 'Metacon' War.

There is no objective 'truth' to the Catalyst. He never supports his own position with examples. He just says so and leaves it there. His claim is not particularly hard to understand its laid out very plainly. It is just contrary to what we have experienced in the game before this.

We can independlty disprove his claims because he makes absolute claims. He says all organics will be killed. He gives no room for any other outcome. Therefore any outcome that does not come out this way disproves him. If the Catalyst's claims are a hypothesis he is blatantly ignoring evidence that runs contrary to him.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
We can independlty disprove his claims because he makes absolute claims. He says all organics will be killed. He gives no room for any other outcome. Therefore any outcome that does not come out this way disproves him. If the Catalyst's claims are a hypothesis he is blatantly ignoring evidence that runs contrary to him.

This is just nonsense. The Catalyst says "Without my intervention, synthetics will eventually surpass organics, and this will ultimately lead to the extinction of organics". This theory is based on data gathered after the leviathans created it, when several of the thrall species were destroyed by synthetics they had created, and evidence within the cycles - which were established later - cannot disprove it because the cycle prevents synthetics from getting past the singularity threshold. 

The Catalyst's theory can be wrong, but we don't have the means to disprove it. I maintain that accusations of "circular logic" and suchlike are based on wishful thinking.

Edit:
We can conclude, however, that the Catalyst is unable to change its core objectives. If it could, then its own existence as an AI which has surpassed its creators, together with organics' continued existence, would prove its theory wrong.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 mars 2013 - 01:10 .

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...
This is just nonsense. The Catalyst says "Without my intervention, synthetics will eventually surpass organics, and this will ultimately lead to the extinction of organics". This theory is based on data gathered after the leviathans created it, when several of the thrall species were destroyed by synthetics they had created, and evidence within the cycles - which were established later - cannot disprove it because the cycle prevents synthetics from getting past the singularity threshold. 

The Catalyst's theory can be wrong, but we don't have the means to disprove it. I maintain that accusations of "circular logic" and suchlike are based on wishful thinking.

Edit:
We can conclude, however, that the Catalyst is unable to change its core objectives. If it could, then its own existence as an AI which has surpassed its creators, together with organics' continued existence, would prove its theory wrong.

. The Catalyst never mentions singularity.  It's entirely irrelevant to the Reapers.  

His claim is absolutist.  He makes no room for any other alternative.  So any result that refutes the point disproves the original claim.  And he is refuted at least once in every play through with Javik.  And again in any play through where the quarians either win or make peace.

[Ieldra]

I guess it's no use arguing against someone who refuses to see the flaws in his logic. I'll try once again for good measure: The Catalyst's claim would be disproven if and only if there was a significant period of coexistence between free-willed synthetics which have surpassed their creators and these creators themselves.We have no observational evidence of that. None at all.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 mars 2013 - 01:27 .

[Steelcan]

Modifié par Steelcan, 18 mars 2013 - 01:29 .

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I guess it's no use arguing against someone who refuses to see the flaws in his logic. I'll try once again for good measure: The Catalyst's claim would be disproven if and only if there was a significant period of coexistence between free-willed synthetics which have surpassed their creators and these creators themselves.We have no observational evidence of that. None at all.

. Or if the synthetic creations are destroyed by their creators.