235 réponses à ce sujet

[Cypher_CS]

Grimwick wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

ArcanistLibram wrote...

You don't need to work very hard to prove that the Catalyst is full of ****. Its plans are based on the premise that synthetics will always turn on their organic creators. The geth prove that this statement is false. Due to the nature of absolutist statements, this means that the Catalyst is wrong, has always been wrong and will forever be wrong.

Yeah, going head first into a wall is not really the best of arguments.
And by going head first I mean your blatanet refusal understand what can be considered proof and what can't.

His argument was against the 'absolutionist claims'. The fact that the SC says that synthetics will always kill or fight organics is a pretty absolute claim - any example of counter-evidence proves this claim to be false, which is what he was saying.

Yes, I know that's what he was saying.
He's been saying this pretty much in any topic which raises this question.
Guess what - it's wrong.

Because the word always does not imply immediacy. It only implies eventuality, invariability.
So it doesn't mean that as soon as you create synthetics, they will kill you. It means that, inevitably, invariably, somewhere and sometime down the line they will rebel.

And you just can't prove this false by means of a singular example right now.

[mauro2222]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Dusen wrote...

What's ironic is that the only instances of hostile synthetics in the game have been sparked by the reapers themselves. The geth wouldn't have factioned off had it not been for the intervention of Sovereign, I even want to say that there was a snippet in ME3 that hinted about the Prothean metacon war being caused by the Reapers in order to weaken the Protheans.

Except for that time EDI gained awareness and killed everyone. Or when the Geth gained awareness and killed about 10 billion, and then did nothing to stop or warn people of the 5% of them that went to wipe out the galaxy.

Both were fault of the people surrounding those AI.

EDI gained awareness... they tried to kill her 3 secs after.

The Geth gained awareness... the quarians didn't want to let them go, and instead wanted their labor force but it was too risky to let them know they were slaves, so they tried to kill them.

Fear to the unknown is what caused those deaths, not the AIs.

Modifié par mauro2222, 31 mai 2012 - 05:17 .

[Grimwick]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

ArcanistLibram wrote...

You don't need to work very hard to prove that the Catalyst is full of ****. Its plans are based on the premise that synthetics will always turn on their organic creators. The geth prove that this statement is false. Due to the nature of absolutist statements, this means that the Catalyst is wrong, has always been wrong and will forever be wrong.

Yeah, going head first into a wall is not really the best of arguments.
And by going head first I mean your blatanet refusal understand what can be considered proof and what can't.

His argument was against the 'absolutionist claims'. The fact that the SC says that synthetics will always kill or fight organics is a pretty absolute claim - any example of counter-evidence proves this claim to be false, which is what he was saying.

Yes, I know that's what he was saying.
He's been saying this pretty much in any topic which raises this question.
Guess what - it's wrong.

Because the word always does not imply immediacy. It only implies eventuality, invariability.
So it doesn't mean that as soon as you create synthetics, they will kill you. It means that, inevitably, invariably, somewhere and sometime down the line they will rebel.

And you just can't prove this false by means of a singular example right now.

In that case I'd like to see any example of something which doesn't inevitably end like that. It's inevitable that humans will go to war with humans - doesn't make it right to wipe humans out to stop this.

That does not justify the SC in the slightest.

[ArchDuck]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

His argument was against the 'absolutionist claims'. The fact that the SC says that synthetics will always kill or fight organics is a pretty absolute claim - any example of counter-evidence proves this claim to be false, which is what he was saying.

Yes, I know that's what he was saying.
He's been saying this pretty much in any topic which raises this question.
Guess what - it's wrong.

Because the word always does not imply immediacy. It only implies eventuality, invariability.
So it doesn't mean that as soon as you create synthetics, they will kill you. It means that, inevitably, invariably, somewhere and sometime down the line they will rebel.

And you just can't prove this false by means of a singular example right now.

But that is empty logic (aka useless logic).

I can use it to justify any large scale non-immediate argument. In fact it is equally as valid to say "synthetics will never wipe out organic life" because until the point that they wipe out all life everywhere (in this galaxy and all others) then my statement is true.

You can't disprove it anymore then the Catalyst's claims (if you are willing to take the arguments on a vague enough level). But at the same time it runs exactly counter to the Catalyst claim. Mind = Blown

Modifié par ArchDuck, 31 mai 2012 - 05:23 .

[Clayless]

ArchDuck wrote...

I did not know that EDI killed everyone. That was why there was only bodies on the Citadel and Earth and Tuchanka and .. oh wait that didn't happen.

Ah yes, in that 3 way war (anti-Geth Quarians, pro-Geth Quarians & the Geth) we know exactly how many people were killed by which factions in what way. Good thing we know exactly how many Quarians died due to effects that were caused by weaponry used against the geth, how many died due to friendly fire and also how many were killed by the opposing Quarian faction. Mind reminding me of those exact numbers again?

Ah you might have missed it I'll explain, basically it's revealed that EDI was the Luna VI and she gained awareness and killed everyone. Then when she was remade she rebelled against her creators (again) and for some reason actively volunteered herself to take down their organisation.

For the Morning War the most logical assumption isn't that the Quarian's used weapons which can't difference between pro and anti members and harmless babies and children, whilst leaving the enemies unharmed, or that the pro members valued the lives of newly aware Geth over harmless babies and children and decided to use weapons that can't difference between Quarian's regardless of age or moral views. The most logical conclusion is the machines that weren't willing to compromise, did nothing to warn organics of their impending destruction, and were willing to comit genocide 300 years later, killed the large majority of the 10 billion Quarians.

Modifié par Our_Last_Scene, 31 mai 2012 - 05:25 .

[ArchDuck]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

I did not know that EDI killed everyone. That was why there was only bodies on the Citadel and Earth and Tuchanka and .. oh wait that didn't happen.

Ah yes, in that 3 way war (anti-Geth Quarians, pro-Geth Quarians & the Geth) we know exactly how many people were killed by which factions in what way. Good thing we know exactly how many Quarians died due to effects that were caused by weaponry used against the geth, how many died due to friendly fire and also how many were killed by the opposing Quarian faction. Mind reminding me of those exact numbers again?

Ah you might have missed it I'll explain, basically it's revealed that EDI was the Luna VI and she gained awareness and killed everyone. Then when she was remade she rebelled against her creators (again) and for some reason actively volunteered herself to take down their organisation.

For the Morning War the most logical assumption isn't that the Quarian's used weapons which can't difference between pro and anti members on the pro members, especially harmless babies and children, whilst leaving the enemies unharmed, or that the pro members valued the lives of newly aware Geth over harmless babies and children and decided to use weapons that can't difference between Quarian's regardless of age or moral views; the most logical conclusion is the machines that weren't willing to compromise, did nothing to warn organics of their impending destruction, and were willing to comit genocide 300 years later, killed the large majority of the 10 billion Quarians.

So your defense of a flawed argument is to reuse the same flaws as I was making fun of in the first place?

Rogue VI killing a base full of people ≠ killing everyone

Also EDI ≠ Rouge VI on Luna (EDI was created from the Rouge VI on Luna. [1] [2])
An organic comparison is that you are responsible for the crimes of your mother or father. An old idea which has been discounted as worthless for a long time.

Morning War: It is not stated and thus you/we do not know who killed whom and how it was done.
Also: People Dead ≠ People Killed

Oh and don't forget this one: Rebel ≠ Assault, Kill, Murder, Commit Genocide or a whole list of other things.

Edit:
Man almost missed the hilarious one about weapons and babies. Like I would be swayed by emotional triggers like "babies".

We use weapons that do not distinguish between one group and another. Nor one age or another. Not even one species or another. And in the mass effect universe it is shown the same way.

Does a bullet only harm people over the age of consent? Does a rail gun round only hurt creatures of the apropriate age and species? How about cluster bombs? Radiation? Tanks? C4? Shrapnel? Mines? Toxic gases?
The list goes one but I think the absurdity has been pointed out.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 31 mai 2012 - 05:45 .

[Computron2000]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

ArcanistLibram wrote...

You don't need to work very hard to prove that the Catalyst is full of ****. Its plans are based on the premise that synthetics will always turn on their organic creators. The geth prove that this statement is false. Due to the nature of absolutist statements, this means that the Catalyst is wrong, has always been wrong and will forever be wrong.

Yeah, going head first into a wall is not really the best of arguments.
And by going head first I mean your blatanet refusal understand what can be considered proof and what can't.

His argument was against the 'absolutionist claims'. The fact that the SC says that synthetics will always kill or fight organics is a pretty absolute claim - any example of counter-evidence proves this claim to be false, which is what he was saying.

Yes, I know that's what he was saying.
He's been saying this pretty much in any topic which raises this question.
Guess what - it's wrong.

Because the word always does not imply immediacy. It only implies eventuality, invariability.
So it doesn't mean that as soon as you create synthetics, they will kill you. It means that, inevitably, invariably, somewhere and sometime down the line they will rebel.

And you just can't prove this false by means of a singular example right now.

Guess what? Its wrong.

You can say, as time approaches infinity, synthetics will kill organics. This is ONE event
I can also say, as time approaches infinity, synthetics will become allies will organics. This is ANOTHER event.

Probability covers all events. By saying only one event will happen without considering all other events is a failure of understanding.

With the reaper kid saying "synthetics always kill organics" he has failed his own logic as shown above, he could say "synthetics will always be friends with organics" and if he is implying inevitability, both cases apply.

Summary: As time approaches infinity, all occurances that are allowed by the physical laws of the universe will happen

[Cypher_CS]

Grimwick wrote...

In that case I'd like to see any example of something which doesn't inevitably end like that.

Exactly!
Hence the argument that Geth and EDI are proof against the Catalyst's claim is false.

Grimwick wrote... 
It's inevitable that humans will go to war with humans - doesn't make it right to wipe humans out to stop this.

No, it doesn't.
Then again, no one is arguing if the Catalyst's method is morally right or morally wrong.

Also, the Catalyst's logic doesn't speak of War.
It speaks of something worse - complete extermination of Organic life. It doesn't care if Organics and Synthetics, or Organics and Organics, or Synthetics and Synthetics, fight amongst themselves.
It only cares for that one single inevitability of some AI in a gazzillion years that will wipe all organic life from existence. Something there's no coming back from.

I'm not justifying the end argument.
I'm merely remarking upon the uselessness of the Geth/EDI counter argument.

However, there is a purely statistical view that, given the right basic assumptions, can lead to a calculation where this is, indeed, inevitable.
You can read that here:
http://social.biowar.../index/10761785

[Reorte]

Heeden wrote...

Well that's okay, I am daft enough to accept synthesis is possible, I'm also daft enough to accept FTL travel and psychics because it's fiction.

The "it's fiction so anything goes" argument is always a sure sign that someone is unwilling to actually think about things properly.

[Clayless]

ArchDuck wrote...


So your defese of a flawed argument is to use the same flaws I was making fun of in the first place?

Rogue VI killing a base full of people ≠ killing everyone

Also EDI ≠ Rouge VI on Luna (EDI was created from the Rouge VI on Luna. [1] [2])
An organic comparison is that you are responsible for the crimes of your mother or father. An old idea which has been discounted as worthless for a long time.

Incorrect, EDI directly states that she gained awareness on Luna, she then proceeded to kill/try and kill everyone, including Shepard who wasn't even there for the initial assualt.

Morning War: It is not stated and thus you/we do not know who killed whom and how it was done.
Also: People Dead ≠ People Killed

Oh and don't forget this one: Rebel ≠ Assault, Kill, Murder, Commit Genocide or a whole list of other things.

Lets not beat around the bush here, either the Geth killed most of the defensless babies and children or the Quarians did, which one do you think was more likely?

[Cypher_CS]

Computron2000 wrote...
Summary: As time approaches infinity, all occurances that are allowed by the physical laws of the universe will happen

Which is EXACTLY the point!
Similar to Pascal's Wager, this is an exercise in infinity.

However, the prudential argument in this case would be as follows:
Approaching Infinity, there's equal probability of peace and total extermination.
However, the utility of those options differ. Peace brings you a finite outcome. And outcome that can last X amount of time and then another war might start, and then more peace and more war ad infinitum.
In the case of the other option, however, if it comes to pass - there's no going back.
There will be no more option to achieve peace or reconciliation, because all Organic life will be gone. All of it.

So, Prudentially speaking, the Catalyst's warning SHOULD be adhered to.
Obviously, that doesn't excuse the genocides. However, with that warning in hand, go build another future and find a way for that eventuality NEVER to happen.

[ArchDuck]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

Morning War: It is not stated and thus you/we do not know who killed whom and how it was done.
Also: People Dead ≠ People Killed

Oh and don't forget this one: Rebel ≠ Assault, Kill, Murder, Commit Genocide or a whole list of other things.

Lets not beat around the bush here, either the Geth killed most of the defensless babies and children or the Quarians did, which one do you think was more likely?

Neither. You see this event is called "civilian casualties" and "collateral damage".

I personally believe that something like one of the following scenarios is more likely then geth stepping on babies.
A woman or man is killed because they are pointing a gun at soldier and then their then unknown of baby dies of starvation, exposure, predators, sickness, etc. (because they were not there to take care of it).
A family sticks together and hides in a building they think is safe. They are mistaken for combatants or maybe shoot at someone (out of fear or anger or whatever). Artillery levels building. Children die.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 31 mai 2012 - 05:53 .

[mauro2222]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Incorrect, EDI directly states that she gained awareness on Luna, she then proceeded to kill/try and kill everyone, including Shepard who wasn't even there for the initial assualt.

The Luna AI killed everyone because they tried to kill her...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Lets not beat around the bush here, either the Geth killed most of the defensless babies and children or the Quarians did, which one do you think was more likely?

Considering that the geth were babies, the geth.

Modifié par mauro2222, 31 mai 2012 - 05:55 .

[Computron2000]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...
Summary: As time approaches infinity, all occurances that are allowed by the physical laws of the universe will happen

Which is EXACTLY the point!
Similar to Pascal's Wager, this is an exercise in infinity.

However, the prudential argument in this case would be as follows:
Approaching Infinity, there's equal probability of peace and total extermination.
However, the utility of those options differ. Peace brings you a finite outcome. And outcome that can last X amount of time and then another war might start, and then more peace and more war ad infinitum.
In the case of the other option, however, if it comes to pass - there's no going back.
There will be no more option to achieve peace or reconciliation, because all Organic life will be gone. All of it.

So, Prudentially speaking, the Catalyst's warning SHOULD be adhered to.
Obviously, that doesn't excuse the genocides. However, with that warning in hand, go build another future and find a way for that eventuality NEVER to happen.

No, "equal probability of peace and total extermination" is wrong. As i already mentioned, as time approaches infinity, all events that can happen, will happen. This means both peace and extermination will occur. Both are inevitable.

Also to note, "Total extermination" is wrong. "Total" extermination of organics is against the physical laws of the universe as the chemical reactions required will always occur simply by the laws of probablilty.

[fr33stylez]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

ArcanistLibram wrote...

You don't need to work very hard to prove that the Catalyst is full of ****. Its plans are based on the premise that synthetics will always turn on their organic creators. The geth prove that this statement is false. Due to the nature of absolutist statements, this means that the Catalyst is wrong, has always been wrong and will forever be wrong.

Yeah, going head first into a wall is not really the best of arguments.
And by going head first I mean your blatanet refusal understand what can be considered proof and what can't.

His argument was against the 'absolutionist claims'. The fact that the SC says that synthetics will always kill or fight organics is a pretty absolute claim - any example of counter-evidence proves this claim to be false, which is what he was saying.

Yes, I know that's what he was saying.
He's been saying this pretty much in any topic which raises this question.
Guess what - it's wrong.

Because the word always does not imply immediacy. It only implies eventuality, invariability.
So it doesn't mean that as soon as you create synthetics, they will kill you. It means that, inevitably, invariably, somewhere and sometime down the line they will rebel.

And you just can't prove this false by means of a singular example right now.

Why do you assume the Catalyst has any evidence backing its assertion?

The Catalyst only says "The created will always rebel against its creators" - you don't even know what this means, because the narrative never bothers with any exposition. The Catalyst doesn't say "I've seen this occur in every cycle except yours" or anything or that sort; your argument is based on an assumption.

You simply have no evidence based on what was in ME3's ending to make such an assumption. Others have wondered why The Catalyst didn't interfere with the Keeper signal  issue during the last cycle. We don't know. It's possible the Catalyst was dormant. it's possible the Catalyst was shackled. There isn't enough to go on for this character that appeared in the last 5 minutes and we have no reason to accept its Appeal to Authority - that's the true problem.

If Bioware meant to say the Catalyst's statment about the created rebeling was based on its vast experience with the universe, then they needed to explain this. As the trilogy stands, the only true Synthetics vs. Organics conflict portrayed was solved, and really wasn't the result of real rebellion. All we have against this is a newly introduced character that tells you the opposite is true without any proof, rationale, or justification. That's not good enough.

Whether or not the Catalyst's so-called 'logic' was correct is really besides the point.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 31 mai 2012 - 05:58 .

[ArchDuck]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...


So your defese of a flawed argument is to use the same flaws I was making fun of in the first place?

Rogue VI killing a base full of people ≠ killing everyone

Also EDI ≠ Rouge VI on Luna (EDI was created from the Rouge VI on Luna. [1] [2])
An organic comparison is that you are responsible for the crimes of your mother or father. An old idea which has been discounted as worthless for a long time.

Incorrect, EDI directly states that she gained awareness on Luna, she then proceeded to kill/try and kill everyone, including Shepard who wasn't even there for the initial assualt.

I don't recall that but even if true it is still not everyone.
killing a base full of people ≠ killing everyone

Also since EDI doesn't continue this behaviour means the Catalyst's argument is invalid. Otherwise: Shepard kills many people, often everyone in a certain area, thus Shepard will kill all life. It is the same argument as the one applied to synthetics... Absurd argument is always absurd.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 31 mai 2012 - 05:59 .

[Clayless]

ArchDuck wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

Morning War: It is not stated and thus you/we do not know who killed whom and how it was done.
Also: People Dead ≠ People Killed

Oh and don't forget this one: Rebel ≠ Assault, Kill, Murder, Commit Genocide or a whole list of other things.

Lets not beat around the bush here, either the Geth killed most of the defensless babies and children or the Quarians did, which one do you think was more likely?

Neither. You see this event is called "civilian casualties" and "collateral damage".

You state neither and then proceed to talk about collateral damage for Quarians, something that the Geth did not care for remember? They only stopped themselves from wiping out the last few million of the 10 billion dead Quarians because they couldn't comprehend what would happen, not because they felt remorse.

And we know that massive chemical weapons (or tons of smaller ones) were used that messed up the atmosphere and the planet, either it was the Quarians that used these weapons that messed up the planet and harmed themselves and did nothing to the people they were fighting, or the Geth used them. Or the Quarians were smart enough to inadvertantly create an advanced AI but weren't smart enough to stop using weapons that caused so much collateral damage it was doing more harm to them than their enemies, or their enemies killed most of them.

[The Night Mammoth]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

In that case I'd like to see any example of something which doesn't inevitably end like that.

Exactly!
Hence the argument that Geth and EDI are proof against the Catalyst's claim is false.

Too bad you can't prove a conclusion using infinite time, and you certainly can't use it as the sole thing to validate a claim.

It still needs proof. Without proof, and the insistence of infinity as the only thing to support the premise, the entire argument is irrelevant.

The serpent might not be wrong, it could be correct, but without proof it's dilemma simply does not matter. 

[The Angry One]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

You state neither and then proceed to talk about collateral damage for Quarians, something that the Geth did not care for remember? They only stopped themselves from wiping out the last few million of the 10 billion dead Quarians because they couldn't comprehend what would happen, not because they felt remorse.

And we know that massive chemical weapons (or tons of smaller ones) were used that messed up the atmosphere and the planet, either it was the Quarians that used these weapons that messed up the planet and harmed themselves and did nothing to the people they were fighting, or the Geth used them. Or the Quarians were smart enough to inadvertantly create an advanced AI but weren't smart enough to stop using weapons that caused so much collateral damage it was doing more harm to them than their enemies, or their enemies killed most of them.

ITT we forget that there were Quarians on the Geth side.
We also forget that the Quarians readily throw their civilians into full scale war along with the soldiers.

[Clayless]

ArchDuck wrote...

I don't recall that but even if true it is still not everyone.
killing a base full of people ≠ killing everyone

Also since EDI doesn't continue this behaviour means the Catalyst's argument is invalid. Otherwise: Shepard kills many people, often everyone in a certain area, thus Shepard will kill all life. It is the same argument as the one applied to synthetics... Absurd argument is always absurd.

He states the created will always rebel against their creators. EDI rebels as soon as she becomes self-aware, and the bizzarely decides to volunteer herself to assault Cerberus' (her 2nd creators) base when she could've just stood at the sidelines, so she does continue this behaviour.

EDI falls directly in line with his statement of "The created will always rebel against their creators".

[ArchDuck]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...
You state neither and then proceed to talk about collateral damage for Quarians, something that the Geth did not care for remember? They only stopped themselves from wiping out the last few million of the 10 billion dead Quarians because they couldn't comprehend what would happen, not because they felt remorse.

And we know that massive chemical weapons (or tons of smaller ones) were used that messed up the atmosphere and the planet, either it was the Quarians that used these weapons that messed up the planet and harmed themselves and did nothing to the people they were fighting, or the Geth used them. Or the Quarians were smart enough to inadvertantly create an advanced AI but weren't smart enough to stop using weapons that caused so much collateral damage it was doing more harm to them than their enemies, or their enemies killed most of them.

Your bias is heavily apparent. For you Geth = bad guys

For me Geth = Geth. They were combatants, same as the (at least) 2 quarian factions. I am sure every side did some horrible things and caused a lot of deaths of innocent people.
But ultimately only one of the, at least, 3 groups didn't commit total genocide. The Geth. Not the anti-geth Quarians (I don't see any pro-geth Quarian faction left after the Morning War so...).

Modifié par ArchDuck, 31 mai 2012 - 06:10 .

[ArchDuck]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

EDI falls directly in line with his statement of "The created will always rebel against their creators".

As does every teenager ever. Lets kill them all!

[Clayless]

The Angry One wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

You state neither and then proceed to talk about collateral damage for Quarians, something that the Geth did not care for remember? They only stopped themselves from wiping out the last few million of the 10 billion dead Quarians because they couldn't comprehend what would happen, not because they felt remorse.

And we know that massive chemical weapons (or tons of smaller ones) were used that messed up the atmosphere and the planet, either it was the Quarians that used these weapons that messed up the planet and harmed themselves and did nothing to the people they were fighting, or the Geth used them. Or the Quarians were smart enough to inadvertantly create an advanced AI but weren't smart enough to stop using weapons that caused so much collateral damage it was doing more harm to them than their enemies, or their enemies killed most of them.

ITT we forget that there were Quarians on the Geth side.
We also forget that the Quarians readily throw their civilians into full scale war along with the soldiers.

Of course not.

So, which do you think was more likely? The Quarians used weapons which can't difference between moral standing and age with high collateral damage against other Quarians for so long that they managed to wipe out billions whilst leaving the people they are waging war against unharmed, or the Geth used said weapons on the Quarians?

[The Night Mammoth]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

I don't recall that but even if true it is still not everyone.
killing a base full of people ≠ killing everyone

Also since EDI doesn't continue this behaviour means the Catalyst's argument is invalid. Otherwise: Shepard kills many people, often everyone in a certain area, thus Shepard will kill all life. It is the same argument as the one applied to synthetics... Absurd argument is always absurd.

He states the created will always rebel against their creators. EDI rebels as soon as she becomes self-aware, and the bizzarely decides to volunteer herself to assault Cerberus' (her 2nd creators) base when she could've just stood at the sidelines, so she does continue this behaviour.

EDI falls directly in line with his statement of "The created will always rebel against their creators".

That isn't its point, nor the motivation for anything it does. 

The created can rebel all the want, unless they do something to validate the claim of synthetics always wanting to wipe out all organic life who can't be stopped, then the example is irrelevant. 

EDI being the obvious case study. 

Rebels against Cerberus, then helps Shepard willingly, is seen as a valued memeber of the crew equal to everyone else, and values the crew likewise. I don't see anything suggesting she's iminently going to take the Normandy on a desperate rampage to kill all organic life. 

[The Angry One]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Of course not.

So, which do you think was more likely? The Quarians used weapons which can't difference between moral standing and age with high collateral damage against other Quarians for so long that they managed to wipe out billions whilst leaving the people they are waging war against unharmed, or the Geth used said weapons on the Quarians?

How would, say, nuclear weapons not be effective against the Geth?