235 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 The Reapers knew about Earth/humanity before they were advanced/space-faring species.

Why couldn't a more advanced AI?

[Taboo]

The only person who has this knowledge is the Catalyst.

He has no back up information.

He is irrelevant.

[Sisterofshane]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 The Reapers knew about Earth/humanity before they were advanced/space-faring species.

Why couldn't a more advanced AI?

But did they really know about humans during the Prothean Cycle?  The catalyst only states "Much like we left your civilization the last time we were here..."

I likened it to them acknowledging that they only actively pursued those civilizations that had met a certain level of technology that put them on the "radar" so to speak.  So by not actively searching for them, they were "leaving" them behind.  This doesn't necessarily mean that they knew they were there.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Sisterofshane wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 The Reapers knew about Earth/humanity before they were advanced/space-faring species.

Why couldn't a more advanced AI?

But did they really know about humans during the Prothean Cycle?  The catalyst only states "Much like we left your civilization the last time we were here..."

I likened it to them acknowledging that they only actively pursued those civilizations that had met a certain level of technology that put them on the "radar" so to speak.  So by not actively searching for them, they were "leaving" them behind.  This doesn't necessarily mean that they knew they were there.

Hackett says that the Reapers are avoiding the yahg when we play ME3. The galaxy knows where their homeworld is - why wouldn't the Reapers?

Also, the Protheans were aware of Earth/humanity.

[Sisterofshane]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Hackett says that the Reapers are avoiding the yahg when we play ME3. The galaxy knows where their homeworld is - why wouldn't the Reapers?

Also, the Protheans were aware of Earth/humanity.

And this doesn't really prove causality.  It is possible that they do not yet know about the yahg [at the time the statement was made] because in every other Cycle they make a point of capturing the Citadel, which is the Primary source of documents about colonized/interesting worlds about the Galaxy, and in this Cycle they fail to capture the Citadel until long after the Yahg statement is made. We know that they are not omniscient because they fail to discover the anti-Reaper weapon being built.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Sisterofshane wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Hackett says that the Reapers are avoiding the yahg when we play ME3. The galaxy knows where their homeworld is - why wouldn't the Reapers?

Also, the Protheans were aware of Earth/humanity.

And this doesn't really prove causality.  It is possible that they do not yet know about the yahg [at the time the statement was made] because in every other Cycle they make a point of capturing the Citadel, which is the Primary source of documents about colonized/interesting worlds about the Galaxy, and in this Cycle they fail to capture the Citadel until long after the Yahg statement is made. We know that they are not omniscient because they fail to discover the anti-Reaper weapon being built.

Going by that, they'd had to have found out about humans in the Protheans' cycle at least. And, you think that the Reapers wouldn't find out through indoctrinated agents about other species?

Besides, the catalyst states his MO pretty flat-out: to preserve organics in Reaper form after they've advanced. It's not like non-advanced species would build all-powerful AI if they can't even get off their own planet.

[Sisterofshane]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Hackett says that the Reapers are avoiding the yahg when we play ME3. The galaxy knows where their homeworld is - why wouldn't the Reapers?

Also, the Protheans were aware of Earth/humanity.

And this doesn't really prove causality.  It is possible that they do not yet know about the yahg [at the time the statement was made] because in every other Cycle they make a point of capturing the Citadel, which is the Primary source of documents about colonized/interesting worlds about the Galaxy, and in this Cycle they fail to capture the Citadel until long after the Yahg statement is made. We know that they are not omniscient because they fail to discover the anti-Reaper weapon being built.

Going by that, they'd had to have found out about humans in the Protheans' cycle at least. And, you think that the Reapers wouldn't find out through indoctrinated agents about other species?

Besides, the catalyst states his MO pretty flat-out: to preserve organics in Reaper form after they've advanced. It's not like non-advanced species would build all-powerful AI if they can't even get off their own planet.

They didn't find out about Ilos, either.  The point I was trying to demonstrate was that the Reapers don't actively seek out "targets" before they've reached a certain technological state.  Hence the Citadel trap.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Sisterofshane wrote...

They didn't find out about Ilos, either.  The point I was trying to demonstrate was that the Reapers don't actively seek out "targets" before they've reached a certain technological state.  Hence the Citadel trap.

iirc - Ilos was kept secret, only people that knew about it were the Protheans who were there.

Still, his reasoning doesn't suggest he would harvest primative humans even if they did know.

[Sisterofshane]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

iirc - Ilos was kept secret, only people that knew about it were the Protheans who were there.

Still, his reasoning doesn't suggest he would harvest primative humans even if they did know.

On the last part I can agree, but I would still say most of the cycle is "hit and miss".  I thought that was the reason they left a Vangaurd behind - just in case certain cycles didn't develop in ways that they expected, there would still be oversight.

[Computron2000]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...
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.

Fine, semantics.
The problem is, while the former can happen several times, with intermitent wars between them, the latter only needs once to occur.

You failed to comprehend what i was talking about. It is much more than semantics. As i already mentioned prior, you cannot take a single possibility and hold it up as the ONLY possible event. All events will happen. Your "equal probability of peace and total extermination" implies that one will happen while the other will not as time approaches infinity, which as i mentioned is false.

Your words "the latter only needs once to occur" also did not take into consideration the sentence that followed what you quoted. I will cut and paste it below.
"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.

In simpler terms, "It happened before bud, it WILL happen again"
 

Cypher_CS wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...
This begs the question of who created EDI. Also at what level of categorization are we doing?
....
As can be noted, the entire premise of who you're considering is the creator determines whether the statement of "created will always rebel against the creator" has any value at all.

Again taking this statement so literally?
Why are you being so literal?
Could it not just mean something more abstract? As Creators being Organics in General and Created being Synthetics in General?
Or, hell, even other Synthetics can be creators of more advanced Synthetics.
_______________________________________
Again, some of you here are trying so hard to disprove singular statements that you are missing the whole, the bigger picture.

What i am pointing out is kind of obvious if you read and think about what i said but i will explain further below.

When you say "created will always rebel against the creator" and use EDI as the example that she rebelled against Cerebrus, you have to consider the entire circumstance
Who is the created - EDI
What is EDI made up of - Lunar VI, Reapertech, Cerebrus tech
(The important question) WHO IS THE CORE EDI? - Lunar VI, the Reaper tech, the Cerebrus tech
Who is the creator? Alliance, Cerebrus, Humans, Reapers, Organics, Organic-Synthetics

Lets take it one by one
i) EDI = Lunar VI
Lunar VI is made accidently by the Alliance. Is EDI rebelling against the Alliance when she attacks Cerebrus base?
This is obvious no rebellion as she is NOT rebelling against her creators when she attacks Cerebrus base. Rather she is helping them.

ii) EDI = Reaper tech
Is EDI rebelling against the Reapers when she attacks Cerebrus base?
This can go either way. The Reapers may wish to use Cerebrus as a tool against the organics but they have attacked Cerebrus before. Also to note, many things incorporate Reaper tech, including Shepard, which leads to at what point is something considered "created" by a party?

iii) EDI = Cerebrus tech
Is EDI rebelling against the Cerebrus when she attacks Cerebrus base?
EDI is obviously rebelling against Cerebrus. However this requires that what Cerebrus tech added really made up EDI's core consciousness. Assuming it is so, let us look at iii) at a zoomed out angle. Cerebrus = Humans, Alliance = Humans.
Is EDI rebelling against Humans when she helps other Humans attack a Human base?

Now regarding your words "As Creators being Organics in General and Created being Synthetics in General", using EDI,
"Is EDI rebelling against Organics when she helps other Organics attack a base of Organics?"

Is the answer is no, then you have just denied reaper kid's logic as the sentence "the created will always aid the creators" is now just as inevitable as "the created will always rebel against the creators"

Modifié par Computron2000, 01 juin 2012 - 05:55 .

[Cypher_CS]

Beeno4Life wrote...

This is actually based on the assumption that the universe is infinite, which is pure conjecture.

I know, this was still fun to read.

[Cypher_CS]

Computron, by breaking up the creators into individual you only take the meaning even more literally.
Why? You haven't answered my question.

As for the Inevitability - I, personally, assume that whatever this unfathomable Ultimate Intelligence may be, it will be able to sterilize all organics.
Thus we again return to the time approaching infinity, the destruction needs only occur once.

[Computron2000]

Cypher_CS wrote...
Computron, by breaking up the creators into individual you only take the meaning even more literally.
Why? You haven't answered my question.

You should reread the entire thing to gain some actual context on what i am talking about. I am pointing out that "created" and "creator" example of using EDI as a example that reaper kid is right requires the poster to define WHAT is the created and WHO is the creator.

Your question on literalness is poor because you fail to understand that the sentence requires definition else you end up with the sentence meaning different things todifferent people depending on what the listener assumes.

A easy to understand example. A salesman tells you that he is selling a luxurious place to you. But thats all he says. Tell me what exactly is he selling you? You don't know because you need to answer this question

What does "luxurious" mean to you? To a child in somalia? To Bill Gates? to the salesman himself?

Cypher_CS wrote...
As for the Inevitability - I, personally, assume that whatever this unfathomable Ultimate Intelligence may be, it will be able to sterilize all organics.
Thus we again return to the time approaching infinity, the destruction needs only occur once.

At which point your assumption is incorrect and is the basis of the failure of your argument. Think carefully. You assume that said creature who has itself arisen from the physical laws of the universe is capable of rewriting the physical laws of the universe and/or the laws of probability to ensure that something that has happened before will NEVER happen from now until near infinity.

Modifié par Computron2000, 01 juin 2012 - 08:16 .

[Ieldra]

ohiocat110 wrote...
It's statistically impossible for synthetic life to fully eradicate organic life in the galaxy. The Milky Way contains 200-400 billion stars, with an estimated 10 billion planets in the habitable zone. (Numbers that seem to increase every time there's an advance in astrophysics) A 50,000 year Reaper cycle wouldn't even be long enough to survey all habitable planets for signs of life, unless the Reapers number in the billions.

Anitomical humans supposedly evolved 200,000 years ago on Earth. For synthetics to fully eradicate all advanced organic life, they would have to have the capability of surveying and potentially waging war with 50,000 worlds per year, every year, forever. And that's assuming they never encounter setbacks like a system failure or war from a civilization that's more powerful. It also assumes synthetic life will never factionalize, never experience a civil war, and will constantly work toward the goal of destroying all organics. It's assumed synthetics will turn on their creators, but never explaines why they would view all organic life as automatically hostile. It's also assumed they will act as Von Neumann machines and replicate an expand indefinitely.

It may take longer, but organic life is always going to come back unless synthetics utterly sterilize the entire galaxy, and sterilize every newly formed star system before organics can evolve. I suppose it's possible that the galaxy would one day be packed wall to wall with hostile killer robots, but exceedingly improbable. Hardly the certainty that the Catalyst makes it out to be.

Your calculations are based on wrong assumptions:

If synthetic life starts out on one planet, conquers another star system and fully populates it every 1000 years, continuing the expansion from all conquered planets, then conquering and repopulating eight billion planets will take....

33000 years.

You are forgetting exponential growth. Which is entirely plausible with the resources of whole star systems at your disposal. As for never factionalizing - perhaps they will, but it doesn't matter because organics are such easy targets.
And yes, synthetics will have the capability to build more of themselves. Anything else would make no sense, since otherwise they would't become a civilization in the first place.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 juin 2012 - 09:08 .

[Kreid]

What Ieldra said, you also have the gray-goo scenario, and there are theoretical ways of sterilizing a whole galaxy that could be possible for a powerful enough superintelligence.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

ohiocat110 wrote...
It's statistically impossible for synthetic life to fully eradicate organic life in the galaxy. The Milky Way contains 200-400 billion stars, with an estimated 10 billion planets in the habitable zone. (Numbers that seem to increase every time there's an advance in astrophysics) A 50,000 year Reaper cycle wouldn't even be long enough to survey all habitable planets for signs of life, unless the Reapers number in the billions.

Anitomical humans supposedly evolved 200,000 years ago on Earth. For synthetics to fully eradicate all advanced organic life, they would have to have the capability of surveying and potentially waging war with 50,000 worlds per year, every year, forever. And that's assuming they never encounter setbacks like a system failure or war from a civilization that's more powerful. It also assumes synthetic life will never factionalize, never experience a civil war, and will constantly work toward the goal of destroying all organics. It's assumed synthetics will turn on their creators, but never explaines why they would view all organic life as automatically hostile. It's also assumed they will act as Von Neumann machines and replicate an expand indefinitely.

It may take longer, but organic life is always going to come back unless synthetics utterly sterilize the entire galaxy, and sterilize every newly formed star system before organics can evolve. I suppose it's possible that the galaxy would one day be packed wall to wall with hostile killer robots, but exceedingly improbable. Hardly the certainty that the Catalyst makes it out to be.

Your calculations are based on wrong assumptions:

If synthetic life starts out on one planet, conquers another star system and fully populates it every 1000 years, continuing the expansion from all conquered planets, then conquering and repopulating eight billion planets will take....

33000 years.

You are forgetting exponential growth. Which is entirely plausible with the resources of whole star systems at your disposal. As for never factionalizing - perhaps they will, but it doesn't matter because organics are such easy targets.
And yes, synthetics will have the capability to build more of themselves. Anything else would make no sense, since otherwise they would't become a civilization in the first place.

I must ask this, how exactly did synthetics advance so fast and so powerful to eradicate organic so quickly? and the galaxy is actually mostly barren and do not support any lifeform, there are always variables to limit exponential growth

At least one thing the OP is right about is that new life will always evolve, and I am not so sure that synthetics will dedicate and reduce their entire existence into eradicating even the tiniest bit of organic life

EDIT: The point is, synthetics are created by organics, they must share certain organic attributes, and therefore require some similar life - sustaining conditions, e.g. room temputure /humidity is important for a laptop etc. Synthetics are not invincible, they are subjected to wear and tear, I mean we saw a thresher maw took down a harbinger

Modifié par Vigilant111, 01 juin 2012 - 10:07 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Creid-X wrote...

What Ieldra said, you also have the gray-goo scenario, and there are theoretical ways of sterilizing a whole galaxy that could be possible for a powerful enough superintelligence.

Random, far-flung, real world theories, you mean, certainly not something to be concerned with or kill everyone in the galaxy repeatedly over when all you have is a hypothesis. 

[Ieldra]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

What Ieldra said, you also have the gray-goo scenario, and there are theoretical ways of sterilizing a whole galaxy that could be possible for a powerful enough superintelligence.

Random, far-flung, real world theories, you mean, certainly not something to be concerned with or kill everyone in the galaxy repeatedly over when all you have is a hypothesis. 

A hypothesis supported by a billion-year-old super-intelligent AI. I would say that it deserves some consideration.

@Vigilant111:
I am presupposing post-singularity synthetics. It wouldn't take a long time before organics are as ants to them. They *may* choose to preserve them because of ecological balance, but yet again, they might not. Anway, organics will have been left behind so far that they simply won't matter any more. They'll be increasingly confined, eventually becoming extinct.

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

What Ieldra said, you also have the gray-goo scenario, and there are theoretical ways of sterilizing a whole galaxy that could be possible for a powerful enough superintelligence.

Random, far-flung, real world theories, you mean, certainly not something to be concerned with or kill everyone in the galaxy repeatedly over when all you have is a hypothesis. 

A hypothesis supported by a billion-year-old super-intelligent AI. I would say that it deserves some consideration.

It's the one providing the premise for you to speculate on. It's not supporting anything. 

Considered and dismissed. 

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

What Ieldra said, you also have the gray-goo scenario, and there are theoretical ways of sterilizing a whole galaxy that could be possible for a powerful enough superintelligence.

Random, far-flung, real world theories, you mean, certainly not something to be concerned with or kill everyone in the galaxy repeatedly over when all you have is a hypothesis. 

A hypothesis supported by a billion-year-old super-intelligent AI. I would say that it deserves some consideration.

@Vigilant111:
I am presupposing post-singularity synthetics. It wouldn't take a long time before organics are as ants to them. They *may* choose to preserve them because of ecological balance, but yet again, they might not. Anway, organics will have been left behind so far that they simply won't matter any more. They'll be increasingly confined, eventually becoming extinct.

Right now I need more time to formulate an answer to the above, but tackling the issue from a morality angle, if the synthetics are sentient enough then they would not harm the organics unless their interests are threathened, it would all depend on the extent of conflicts for resources, and whether they can co-operate and discover more

[Cypher_CS]

Computron2000 wrote...

You should reread the entire thing to gain some actual context on what i am talking about. I am pointing out that "created" and "creator" example of using EDI as a example that reaper kid is right requires the poster to define WHAT is the created and WHO is the creator.

Your question on literalness is poor because you fail to understand that the sentence requires definition else you end up with the sentence meaning different things todifferent people depending on what the listener assumes.

A easy to understand example. A salesman tells you that he is selling a luxurious place to you. But thats all he says. Tell me what exactly is he selling you? You don't know because you need to answer this question

What does "luxurious" mean to you? To a child in somalia? To Bill Gates? to the salesman himself?

Sorry, but that analogy is not really that apt.
Creators and Created, the absolute broadest senses, imply a line of... assembly, of succession or, well, creation.
Where as Luxury is completely relative.

Yes, Creators and Created can and do have relative meanings, as you've examplified, but they still rely on that sense of implied succession.
And that is all that matters here. All that matters.

And yes, I understand that you're trying to use that example to negate arguments of EDI in Support of Synthetic Rebellion.
But, again, it is enough she rebells against one of those you examplified. Doesn't need to be all.

Never mind that I, personally, do not hold to this entire debate of Geth or EDI being examples of rebellion, simply because it's completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. They aren't proof of either side (though, yes, they do prove that both probabilities are larger than 0).

Computron2000 wrote... 
At which point your assumption is incorrect and is the basis of the failure of your argument. Think carefully. You assume that said creature who has itself arisen from the physical laws of the universe is capable of rewriting the physical laws of the universe and/or the laws of probability to ensure that something that has happened before will NEVER happen from now until near infinity.

Says who?
If it can sterilize worlds, then yes.
And sure, there's the probability that new life will arise in another few billions. But, again, that life will be doomed to a similar fate - much earlier than the current Organics.

Of course, there's also the possibility that this new Organic, once it evolves to sapient levels will believe this ultimate intelligence to be God. Woah... wait a god dam....

[CaptainZaysh]

ArchDuck wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...
Collateral damage?



You're ridiculous.

Mind elaborating? At the moment what you have posted doesn't make much sense.

Sorry, but if I have to explain why euphemising the 99% extermination of a race as "collateral damage" is ridiculous behaviour, then you'll never understand it.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 01 juin 2012 - 12:21 .

[Vigilant111]

@Ieldra2: my view is that this acceleration of technological change would be limited, both singularity and evolution are similar in some ways and different in some ways

Singularity: derives from technological change, the purpose of it is to make life easier, and to overcome obstacles, traces back to the survival instincts, which belong solely to organics

Evolution: adaptation to environment, largely for survival purposes

My opinion is that while evolution has no real ending, technological change will be limited, maybe not end, but the progress will decrease to an infinitely low level

To me, increased technological change meaning taking more variables into the equation (giving more consideration to ever increasing risk factors), while it is beneficial to add more variables into a simple equation, more variables to a complex equation would be counter productive, the equation or trend that you are trying to investigate becomes meaningless. A machine becomes smarter by having more connections (more information, more points of view) in their "brains", but I think there is a limit to the amount of such connections, there must be an equilibrium (optimum) point.

Also, synthetics must be stimulated to undergo technological change, it cannot just happen for no purpose, and I believe that stimulus rests in the interaction with organics, if all organics are wiped out, I don't think synthetics have a purpose to exist rather than merely a memory storage

To sum up, singularity, like evolution is constrained by the elements in the galaxy, synthetics are no bigger than the galaxy itself

[lillitheris]

Vigilant111 wrote...

@Ieldra2: my view is that this acceleration of technological change would be limited, both singularity and evolution are similar in some ways and different in some ways

Singularity: derives from technological change, the purpose of it is to make life easier, and to overcome obstacles, traces back to the survival instincts, which belong solely to organics

You can’t come up with your own definition of ‘singularity’ for this discussion.

[Vigilant111]

lillitheris wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

@Ieldra2: my view is that this acceleration of technological change would be limited, both singularity and evolution are similar in some ways and different in some ways

Singularity: derives from technological change, the purpose of it is to make life easier, and to overcome obstacles, traces back to the survival instincts, which belong solely to organics

You can’t come up with your own definition of ‘singularity’ for this discussion.

I apologize, so it is RAPID/ACCELARATED technological change