9089 réponses à ce sujet

[The Night Mammoth]

KingZayd wrote...

I'm sorry, how does that prevent extinction? That's like saying having not just 1 nuclear power, but having 2 nuclear powers who can keep up with one another (like the USA and USSR) makes it a lot less likely to lead to extinction.

All it does it make it more likely that there'll be heavy losses on both sides. Just because both have the power to upgrade doesn't mean that one won't upgrade better and beat the other.

Aaaaaaand we have a winner. 

Best analogy yet. 

[Ieldra]

@Taboo:
We won't get a definitive number. It's meaningless anyway, since those who don't want to believe the Catalyst will just say its data or the rules of its simulation are flawed. What we may get - and Bioware would be really stupid if they didn't provide this - is more exposition in a general sense, and the ability to question the Catalyst.

As for Aguirre, I only know a few scenes and thus I can't say anything about the logic of the narrative and the presentation, but I agree that a completely new perspective at the end of a story needs a more elaborate exposition than something which had been present from the start.

Again about the geth, remember that space is big? You could destroy a dozen star systems in a remote area of the galaxy with nobody noticing, unless you do it by turning the star supernova. Use systems with red dwarfs and nobody will notice even if they're only 50ly away. And geth space is very remote. I have no problem with the geth building their megastructure without anyone noticing it for a very long time.

[Ieldra]

KingZayd wrote...
I'm sorry, how does that prevent extinction?

It doesn't prevent conflict of course. And it doesn't prevent heavy loss of life if it occurs. But it (1) levels the playing field so that any conflicts are extremely unlikely to result in the annihilation of one side, since the civilizations are spread over the galaxy, and (2) enables meaningful communication. Over all three games we have proven again and again that co-existence between near-equal factions (give or take an order of magnitude) is possible. We just need to make sure that the necessary conditions exist.

From any hypothetical advanced synthetics' side, it's the difference between burning out an anthill and going to war with an advanced civilization. And that doesn't even take into account that there may not be any more post-singularity synthetics. Synthetics may still be built, but there won't be such a demand for highly-intelligent ones any more. Since they'd have to be treated as regular people by default, the disadvantages would outweigh the benefit. Most machines will be relatively dumb.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 juin 2012 - 06:12 .

[Taboo]

 I'm unsure how the Geth create more Geth, but I believe that they would need more to become more intelligent correct? Someone would notice, eventually and seeing as the Quarians didn't want the Dyson swarm created, I think we'd see some nasty conflicts.

A Dyson construct is built for the specific needs of the creators, and in the case of the Geth, it would house intelligence for them. Once they reach a singularity the results are unpredictable. The original construct may not survive because it could surpass what the original construct was built for. This is the issue with the event horizon, even the Geth can't predict it. I can't reach a consensus. It's just shoved in my face.

The enitrety of Aguirre takes place with a a Spanish Conquistador unit in the Amazon. You can watch the film in either German or English. They shouldn't be speaking either language. The point I'm making is that it is that way from the start, and the audience believes it. Herzog doesn't fumble around with asnine logic. That's the issue I have here. It just shows up.

That's Storytelling 101 here. You don't do that.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 07 juin 2012 - 06:12 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

From any hypothetical advanced synthetics' side, it's the difference between burning out an anthill and going to war with an advanced civilization.

That's complete conjecture, but okay.

[KingZayd]

Ieldra2 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
I'm sorry, how does that prevent extinction?

It doesn't prevent conflict of course. And it doesn't prevent heavy loss of life if it occurs. But it (1) levels the playing field so that any conflicts are extremely unlikely to result in the annihilation of one side, since the civilizations are spread over the galaxy, and (2) enables meaningful communication. Over all three games we have proven again and again that co-existence between near-equal factions (give or take an order of magnitude) is possible. We just need to make sure that the necessary conditions exist.

From any hypothetical advanced synthetics' side, it's the difference between burning out an anthill and going to war with an advanced civilization. And that doesn't even take into account that there may not be any more post-singularity synthetics. Synthetics may still be built, but there won't be such a demand for highly-intelligent ones any more. Since they'd have to be treated as regular people by default, the disadvantages would outweigh the benefit. Most machines will be relatively dumb.

1) Or, it means they'll be able to direct just as many asteroids/orbital stations at one another, with one side getting just enough of a lead resulting in 1 side being extinct, and the other being nearly extinct.

2) Peace is actually easier when there's a clear superior. People are less likely to start a war when they know they can't win. They're more likely to submit than fight a war that has no chance of success. Yes, on the other people might start wars they know they will win, but only if they're warmongering. Are you saying the synthetics want war?

[KingZayd]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

From any hypothetical advanced synthetics' side, it's the difference between burning out an anthill and going to war with an advanced civilization.

That's complete conjecture, but okay.

They're also more likely to do the latter. What interest do they have in an anthill, never mind burning it. Are they sadists?

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
I'm unsure how the Geth create more Geth, but I believe that they would need more to become more intelligent correct? Someone would notice, eventually and seeing as the Quarians didn't want the Dyson swarm created, I think we'd see some nasty conflicts.

I find your assertion that somebody would notice unconvincing. The quarians don't have geth space under observation until ME3 when they feel strong enough to attack them.

A Dyson construct is built for the specific needs of the creators, and in the case of the Geth, it would house intelligence for them. Once they reach a singularity the results are unpredictable. The original construct may not survive because it could surpass what the original construct was built for. This is the issue with the event horizon, even the Geth can't predict it. I can't reach a consensus. It's just shoved in my face.

I rationalize that the Catalyst has the mathematical tools to make highly probable predictions. There is no such thing as an intrinsic unpredictability on the macroscale. There is only a perceived unpredictability from the point of view of those who don't understand the laws governing the event yet. Unless it's a quantum event. I agree that more exposition is needed, and the lack of foreshadowing (It was there. They CUT it, if you can believe that) is a major storytelling failure, but I can supply the missing logic for now.

You do know that you're applying unreasonable standards here? None of the other events and technologies in the ME universe has been as foolproof as you demand of this.

That's the issue I have here. It just shows up.

That's Storytelling 101 here. You don't do that.

I have already agreed with this in my previous answer to you.

@KingZayd:
To stay within the analogy, they're destroying the anthill because it's standing in a place where they want to build a house. Also you appear to misunderstand: my point was that destroying a planet inhabited by organics would be as destroying an anthill would be to us, from the perspective of post-singularity synthetics.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 juin 2012 - 06:33 .

[frylock23]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
I'm unsure how the Geth create more Geth, but I believe that they would need more to become more intelligent correct? Someone would notice, eventually and seeing as the Quarians didn't want the Dyson swarm created, I think we'd see some nasty conflicts.

I find your assertion that somebody would notice unconvincing. The quarians don't have geth space under observation until ME3 when they feel strong enough to attack them.

A Dyson construct is built for the specific needs of the creators, and in the case of the Geth, it would house intelligence for them. Once they reach a singularity the results are unpredictable. The original construct may not survive because it could surpass what the original construct was built for. This is the issue with the event horizon, even the Geth can't predict it. I can't reach a consensus. It's just shoved in my face.

I rationalize that the Catalyst has the mathematical tools to make highly probable predictions. There is no such thing as an intrinsic unpredictability on the macroscale. There is only a perceived unpredictability from the point of view of those who don't understand the laws governing the event yet. Unless it's a quantum event. I agree that more exposition is needed, and the lack of foreshadowing (It was there. They CUT it, if you can believe that) is a major storytelling failure, but I can supply the missing logic for now.

You do know that you're applying unreasonable standards here? None of the other events and technologies in the ME universe has been as foolproof as you demand of this.

That's the issue I have here. It just shows up.

That's Storytelling 101 here. You don't do that.

I have already agreed with this in my previous answer to you.

@KingZayd:
To stay within the analogy, they're destroying the anthill because it's standing in a place where they want to build a house.

I still think that properly, they should have saved synthesis for an entirely different IP so that they could inject it into the story in such a way so that all the issues could be addressed. Using the last 5 minutes of an already established franchise and IP that never really posited this in the first place except as something horrific via the Reapers was an extremely poor choice.

Even if you spent the entire last game on this, there's too much here to do it well with what we already know about ME and its universe. It needs its own game with its own world.

Mac Walters may have been all hot to trot to use his latest, coolest idea, but much like the crew of the Normandy in ME2, it should have been saved. Saved for a different game where it could be given the treatment it needed to be fully realized as a serious idea and not some half-baked throwaway. Someone needs to sew an editor to Walters' hip, someone who can just say NO to the guy. Honestly.

[KingZayd]

Space is big. The Geth have shown they have no need of planets. As it stands, there isn't a clash for "house" space, as the Geth and organics tend to have different requirements. And the advanced civilisation takes up much more space, and more resources. The advanced civilisation is more of a nuisance to the Geth.

Synthesis makes the Geth more organic, and us more synthetic, meaning we're more likely to end up needing the same resources if anything.

Modifié par KingZayd, 07 juin 2012 - 06:38 .

[frylock23]

KingZayd wrote...

Space is big. The Geth have shown they have no need of planets. As it stands, there isn't a clash for "house" space, as the Geth and organics tend to have different requirements. And the advanced civilisation takes up much more space, and more resources. The advanced civilisation is more of a nuisance to the Geth.

Synthesis makes the Geth more organic, and us more synthetic, meaning we're more likely to end up needing the same resources if anything.

I understood that the Geth were building a superstructure, but was it ever directly implied how large it actually was?

Did it actually have to be something on the order of a sun eveloping Dyson Sphere? Or was it possible that is was actually something still mammoth in size but more like a planetoid that runs off solar power?

At any rate it sounded more or less to me like the Geth pretty much intended to go inside and engage in endless bouts of naval gazing. Perhaps they were going to calculate the meaning of life the universe and everything to prove that the answer was not 42, but regardless, it didn't sound like they wanted anything more than to commune together forever. Certainly if they were an acquisitive species, the galaxy at large would have found out about it in the past 300 years.

[Taboo]

 I'm referring to people keeping tabs on the Geth. People knew the were behind the Perseus Veil and I'm fairly certain man groups, akin to Cerberus would be keeping an eye on them.

We had a discussion yesterday, amonst many people, including Pro-Enders and came to the conclusion that the Catalyst is not an AI, but a VI. Dean the Young, xsob and myslef reached this conclusion that he is not and evergrowing omnipotent intelligence but something more akin to a Microsoft Office Paper Clip Tool.

We arrived at this conclusion with several bits of data:

A: The Catalyst has not, for millions of years obtained any relevenat data.

1. He proceeds to wipe out any advanced Civilization based upon their growth as a species. He does not factor in feedback loops into the growth chart. This is an override. He had to be programmed to do this. An AI would be able to make a legitimate assesment because they are capable of independant thought.

2. Whatever data he does have, predates any actual Harvest. That is to say the data input would have had to have been programmed into him by his creators. Much like a computer however, he simply enacts the protocol on a cycle, much like an automated computer does updates or a back up.

You cannot create predictions without relative data. Science does not work this way. In no way shape or form can he predict the possibility of a singularity because he has no evidence to prove otherwise. This is his fallacy.

A singularity is possible therefore it is absolute.

This has nothing to do with how intelligent he is. You cannot calculate the infinite. It's like dividing by zero, it can't be done.

He is nothing more than a piece of programming that has misinterpreted his input. He is no different from the HAL 9000 in this regard.

This is why we made the comparison to the Paper Clip, when Shepard shows up, he gives him options.

"I see you're having some problems with the Reapers, can I suggest Destroy, Synthesis or Control? I no longer have any bearing on the topic at hand!"

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 07 juin 2012 - 07:20 .

[The Night Mammoth]

frylock23 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Space is big. The Geth have shown they have no need of planets. As it stands, there isn't a clash for "house" space, as the Geth and organics tend to have different requirements. And the advanced civilisation takes up much more space, and more resources. The advanced civilisation is more of a nuisance to the Geth.

Synthesis makes the Geth more organic, and us more synthetic, meaning we're more likely to end up needing the same resources if anything.

I understood that the Geth were building a superstructure, but was it ever directly implied how large it actually was?

Did it actually have to be something on the order of a sun eveloping Dyson Sphere? Or was it possible that is was actually something still mammoth in size but more like a planetoid that runs off solar power?

At any rate it sounded more or less to me like the Geth pretty much intended to go inside and engage in endless bouts of naval gazing. Perhaps they were going to calculate the meaning of life the universe and everything to prove that the answer was not 42, but regardless, it didn't sound like they wanted anything more than to commune together forever. Certainly if they were an acquisitive species, the galaxy at large would have found out about it in the past 300 years.

It wasn't talked about. 

Legion just says it was a superstructure, I'm not even sure the phrase Dyson Sphere was used, but don't take my word for it on that specific point. 

By our understanding it was just a massive databank where all Geth programs could reside and communicate. 

This could, in theory, lead to the Geth consensus becoming more intelligent. It could then, in theory, lead to to a state of superintelligence, and could then, in theory, lead to a technological singularity. 

The effects of which are impossible to predict, like any singularity. Which is one reason why any explanation using it is flawed. 

[KingZayd]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Space is big. The Geth have shown they have no need of planets. As it stands, there isn't a clash for "house" space, as the Geth and organics tend to have different requirements. And the advanced civilisation takes up much more space, and more resources. The advanced civilisation is more of a nuisance to the Geth.

Synthesis makes the Geth more organic, and us more synthetic, meaning we're more likely to end up needing the same resources if anything.

I understood that the Geth were building a superstructure, but was it ever directly implied how large it actually was?

Did it actually have to be something on the order of a sun eveloping Dyson Sphere? Or was it possible that is was actually something still mammoth in size but more like a planetoid that runs off solar power?

At any rate it sounded more or less to me like the Geth pretty much intended to go inside and engage in endless bouts of naval gazing. Perhaps they were going to calculate the meaning of life the universe and everything to prove that the answer was not 42, but regardless, it didn't sound like they wanted anything more than to commune together forever. Certainly if they were an acquisitive species, the galaxy at large would have found out about it in the past 300 years.

It wasn't talked about. 

Legion just says it was a superstructure, I'm not even sure the phrase Dyson Sphere was used, but don't take my word for it on that specific point. 

By our understanding it was just a massive databank where all Geth programs could reside and communicate. 

This could, in theory, lead to the Geth consensus becoming more intelligent. It could then, in theory, lead to to a state of superintelligence, and could then, in theory, lead to a technological singularity. 

The effects of which are impossible to predict, like any singularity. Which is one reason why any explanation using it is flawed. 

Legion tells us that the closest analogy is a Dyson Sphere. Just as the Dyson Sphere traps all the solar radiation, the Geth construct is designed to maximise Geth-Geth communication efficiency and therefore prevent any wasted potential intelligence.

[Ieldra]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
This could, in theory, lead to the Geth consensus becoming more intelligent. It could then, in theory, lead to to a state of superintelligence, and could then, in theory, lead to a technological singularity. 

The effects of which are impossible to predict, like any singularity. Which is one reason why any explanation using it is flawed.

Not so. The thing is, we don't have the mathematical tools to predict it, just as we don't have the tools to tell what goes on in a black hole. These things aren't intrinsically unpredictable, unlike certain things on the quantum level, We just don't know how to do it. The Catalyst may have the tools.

[Taboo]

That's the issue. He's sophisticated, but he more closely resembles a VI who can only share the nature of his programming.

You can't violate basic things to reach a conclusion.

[Ieldra]

@Taboo:
You make assumptions about the internal workings of the Catalyst with almost no data at all. You have no idea about the data it may or may not have obtained, thus you cannot draw conclusions about how it uses those data.

Also, I repeat, you're applying impossible standards to this. Would you do this for any other element of the the ME universe, it would long have collapsed under the weight of the rationalizations necessary to function. You don't have enough information to prove the Catalyst wrong and to say *anything* about its internal workings, and that's that. So can we please let this rest? There is nothing that violates "basic logic" in the Catalyst because you don't have the data to draw such a conclusion.

If you keep this up, I'll counter with a demand to explain ME's FTL. Or inter-species sex. Or biotics. In hard science terms!

Edit:
There's also this: if you are absolutely determined to find problems, you will find them. I say there are enough obvious problems with the ending to add another which needs rather convoluted reasoning to find.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 juin 2012 - 08:19 .

[Taboo]

I don't think asking him for data is impossible. As I've stated before, he is not a Lovecraftian Horror.

You're right, I am making assumptions, as are you. I seriously doubt anyone at Bioware gave Synthesis as much thought as you did.

The issue is verisimilitude in the face of blunt narrative implementation. That's the issue. FTL,sex, and biotics are all explained from the start, so they are categorized under suspension of disbelief.

The problem is a lack of DATA.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
I don't think asking him for data is impossible. As I've stated before, he is not a Lovecraftian Horror.

I did not say that. Where did you get that from? Of course we must be able to ask it for data, and it should be possible to obtain them from it.

You're right, I am making assumptions, as are you. I seriously doubt anyone at Bioware gave Synthesis as much thought as you did.

Probably not. But I do it to wrest some satisfaction from the ending and to build a post-Synthesis world (how often have I said that now). To expend the same effort to destroy a world seems unsatisfying, everywhere but in science. 

The issue is verisimilitude in the face of blunt narrative implementation. That's the issue. FTL,sex, and biotics are all explained from the start, so they are categorized under suspension of disbelief.

The problem is a lack of DATA.

Indeed. But the same lack of data that makes it hard to suspend our disbelief to accept the Catalyst's logic also makes it impossible to draw any conclusions about how it thinks.

Edit:
OT: Have I ever told you how much I agree with your sig? MIranda's treatment was awful in ME3.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 juin 2012 - 08:27 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...
This could, in theory, lead to the Geth consensus becoming more intelligent. It could then, in theory, lead to to a state of superintelligence, and could then, in theory, lead to a technological singularity. 

The effects of which are impossible to predict, like any singularity. Which is one reason why any explanation using it is flawed.

Not so. The thing is, we don't have the mathematical tools to predict it, just as we don't have the tools to tell what goes on in a black hole. These things aren't intrinsically unpredictable, unlike certain things on the quantum level, We just don't know how to do it. The Catalyst may have the tools.

It's called an event horizon for a reason. 

If you're subscribing to the singularity explanation you don't pick-and-choose what suits you. 

Saying the Catalyst 'might' have the tools is utter imagination. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 07 juin 2012 - 08:29 .

[Taboo]

 I've made several topics on the matter. Are you familiar with Lovecraft at all?

Take a look at this here.

With the introduction of the Catalyst, I always felt that they lost this...power.

I really don't see the Catalyst as anything more than a machine with an opinion. I AM of course just speculating.

Unfortunately, I can see them clarifying the Destroy ending more. Given some business experience, the only way to get people to calm down IS to give Miranda a better ending. Or Tali. Or Liara.

[Ieldra]

@Night Mammoth:
A singularity is a place where the scientific and mathematical tools *WE KNOW* fail to work, denying us understanding. For now. We cannot predict the effects of a singularity because we lack the mental tools, for no other reason. Well ok, *perhaps* it is intrinsically unpredictable, but we cannot know that either. The Catalyst may have the tools to understand. Well, it may also not have them and lie to us, but I've dealt with that objection in the OP. We cannot know, but for the same reason that we cannot predict the effects of a singularity, it is also impossible for us to conclusively disprove the possibility of an intellect which can understand it, and conclusively disprove that the Catalyst is such an entity.

Thus, if I want to use the singularity as a premise, I can do so without inconsistency. All I need to assume is that the Catalyst is an entity with the necessary mental tools and the necessary knowledge to predict the effects of a technological singularity. This is sound science fictional thinking, actually.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 juin 2012 - 08:53 .

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

We had a discussion yesterday, amonst many people, including Pro-Enders and came to the conclusion that the Catalyst is not an AI, but a VI. Dean the Young, xsob and myslef reached this conclusion that he is not and evergrowing omnipotent intelligence but something more akin to a Microsoft Office Paper Clip Tool.

To be an AI does not require being ever-growing or omnipotent, it's the name given to a machine believed to be sentient.

1. He proceeds to wipe out any advanced Civilization based upon their growth as a species. He does not factor in feedback loops into the growth chart. This is an override. He had to be programmed to do this. An AI would be able to make a legitimate assesment because they are capable of independant thought.

It is the Reapers who monitor the galaxy and decide when to initiate the harvest but following their programming makes them a shackled AI, not a VI. I'm a bit unsure what you're trying to say about legitimate assessments.

2. Whatever data he does have, predates any actual Harvest. That is to say the data input would have had to have been programmed into him by his creators. Much like a computer however, he simply enacts the protocol on a cycle, much like an automated computer does updates or a back up.

That's a huge supposition, all we know is his data led him develop the Reaper cycle. We don't know if the data was planted at his creation and Reapers were his first solution, or if other solutions were tried first and it took new data to give him new ideas.

You cannot create predictions without relative data. Science does not work this way. In no way shape or form can he predict the possibility of a singularity because he has no evidence to prove otherwise. This is his fallacy.

A singularity is possible therefore it is absolute.

This has nothing to do with how intelligent he is. You cannot calculate the infinite. It's like dividing by zero, it can't be done.

You have no idea how much data the Catalyst had to base his predictions on, for all you know before getting involved the Catalyst could have seen thousands of sentient species driven to extinction at the hands of their own creations. If science observes the same thing happen the same way thousands of times it usually feels pretty confident saying it will happen, even if the technical truth is only it is incredibly likely to happen.

He is nothing more than a piece of programming that has misinterpreted his input. He is no different from the HAL 9000 in this regard.

How do you mean he "misnterpreted his input", what do you think his input was?

It's not that I'm against the idea of him being a VI, I just don't think you have very compelling reasons given how little we know of his origins and being an AI makes more sense when you consider his relationship with the Reapers.

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

 I've made several topics on the matter. Are you familiar with Lovecraft at all?

Take a look at this here.

Wikipedia sez...
Unanswered questions. Characters in Lovecraft's stories rarely if ever fully understand what is happening to them, and often go insane if they try.

I'd say they nailed that part pretty firmly.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
I've made several topics on the matter. Are you familiar with Lovecraft at all?

Take a look at this here.

With the introduction of the Catalyst, I always felt that they lost this...power.

I have referenced Lovecraft in the OP on this thread I am familiar with Lovecraftian horror and the strength of the relief I feel about ME3 having subverted it you cannot imagine. For me, it is easily the best feature of the trilogy. Had they stuck to the  Lovecraftian theme, the trilogy would ultimately not have been a story I care for at all. From the first encounter with Sovereign I wanted nothing more than to understand what it's all about, and I don't care for the message that something can't be understood.  

Unfortunately, I can see them clarifying the Destroy ending more. Given some business experience, the only way to get people to calm down IS to give Miranda a better ending. Or Tali. Or Liara.

I see the danger of that. Even though Destroy doesn't need much clarification IMO.