235 réponses à ce sujet

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

Just another thing the EC will have to deal with.

[frylock23]

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.

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.

I'll try this another way.

My husband and I had three cats that were all the same age. One of them started getting these weird skin tumors relatively early on in his life. We finally got a vet to diagnose them. They were/are skin cancer. At that point, the vet removed all the tumors he could with the exception of one large on his tail that would have necessitated amputating the entire tail. The vet said he left it because it was extremely likely that the cat would only get more tumors as time went on, and he has.

The thing is, these skin tumors are pretty much all benign. However, there is a chance every year that one of them might metastecize into a malignant form of the cancer and attack his internal organs and kill him. At that point, the vet gave him maybe three years. That was over five years ago. Currently, that cat has outlived his two housemates who have both since passed away. He is 15 years old and has not yet developed any malignancies from his many skin tumors.

As you say, it only takes once. And with every skin tumor he develops, he has another chance of that once taking place. But it hasn't yet, and until it does, he lives the full life of a healthy cat (well, healthy for a 15-year-old geezer cat).

Star Brat would have killed him out right.

[ohiocat110]

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

We tend to give synthetics too much credit in these thought experiments. We assume they're single-minded, one-purposed, and utterly perfect in their goals and expansion. There's plenty that can go wrong in a synthetic civilization. If they never change, they stagnate. If they do change, there is the possibility for some kind of virus or cascading system failure. Much like how an organic species could genetically engineer itself to all die of cancer or be sterile. Organic life is only as good as its DNA, and synthetic life is only as good as its operating code. Both must be able to adapt.

The ME universe seems to support that. Not once are we shown or told of any actual terminally hostile synthetic species. Not the Geth. Not the Reapers (cybernetic). Not EDI. The Catalyst warns us of it, but never gives an example. Would have been a hell of a reveal to tell Shepard about the time the Reapers fought a million-year war against a virulent synthetic empire, but we're not told and there's no indication anything like that ever happened.

This goes back to the original point that the Catalyst is either lying, making assumptions that aren't possible, or nobody at Bioware put more than five minutes of thought into the ending. It's interesting that none of the Reapers we talk to have anything to say about protecting the galaxy from synthetics. Sovereign actually corrupted the Heretic Geth into helping the Reapers, consequences be damned, apparently. What the Catalyst said simply can't be taken at face value.

Modifié par ohiocat110, 01 juin 2012 - 01:45 .

[Cypher_CS]

I wish you could explain what it is you were trying just now with that.

Cause it deals more with the question of Morality, which we aren't talking about here.
And the analogy doesn't really fit anyway.

[frylock23]

Cypher_CS wrote...

I wish you could explain what it is you were trying just now with that.

Cause it deals more with the question of Morality, which we aren't talking about here.
And the analogy doesn't really fit anyway.

I am trying to explain that there is no such thing as a law of averages.

We don't know what the bare probability of a TS developing in any one scenario is; the Star Child doesn't tell us.

You can roll a 6-sided die and there is one probability that you will receive any one result. You can roll the same six sided die over and over, and just because you may not have rolled one particular result in anyof your previous rolls does not increase your chances of getting that result in the next throw. You still have same base probability of getting that result as you had the first time you threw the die. The base chance never changes.

You keep saying that it only takes once. And I say that since we don't know what the base probability of the scenario is, it may very well be worth the gamble.

[Parabolee77]

But what if they used "SPACE MAGIC" to kill all the organics?

[Vigilant111]

ohiocat110 wrote...

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

We tend to give synthetics too much credit in these thought experiments. We assume they're single-minded, one-purposed, and utterly perfect in their goals and expansion. There's plenty that can go wrong in a synthetic civilization. If they never change, they stagnate. If they do change, there is the possibility for some kind of virus or cascading system failure. Much like how an organic species could genetically engineer itself to all die of cancer or be sterile. Organic life is only as good as its DNA, and synthetic life is only as good as its operating code. Both must be able to adapt.

The ME universe seems to support that. Not once are we shown or told of any actual terminally hostile synthetic species. Not the Geth. Not the Reapers (cybernetic). Not EDI. The Catalyst warns us of it, but never gives an example. Would have been a hell of a reveal to tell Shepard about the time the Reapers fought a million-year war against a virulent synthetic empire, but we're not told and there's no indication anything like that ever happened.

This goes back to the original point that the Catalyst is either lying, making assumptions that aren't possible, or nobody at Bioware put more than five minutes of thought into the ending. It's interesting that none of the Reapers we talk to have anything to say about protecting the galaxy from synthetics. Sovereign actually corrupted the Heretic Geth into helping the Reapers, consequences be damned, apparently. What the Catalyst said simply can't be taken at face value.

I like the virus bit u raised, but I am afraid that synthesis supporters are gonna say "oh synthetics will survive just like humans had survived the black plague... but yes it shows that synthetics also have weaknesses and their growth can be limited, that reflects my point about them being created by organics and carry similar organic properties, they are tangible, they are not ghosts or any entity that is entirely incomprehensible to organics

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...

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

You presuppose that synthetics would have a morality based on organics' priorities. Morality is not a question of sentience, only reflection on morality is. Our basic sense of morality is not the result of rational thought, but of biology and cultural imprinting. We construct rational universal systems based on that sense, but those systems are not the root of our morality. Were they that, questions of morality wouldn't trigger irrational emotional responses more often than not.

Let me ask you: would you hesitate to remove an anthill from your garden; knowing that your intervention will kill most of the ants, because of a sense of morality?

[Ieldra]

frylock23 wrote...
You keep saying that it only takes once. And I say that since we don't know what the base probability of the scenario is, it may very well be worth the gamble.

Yet again, I say a hypothesis presented by a billion-year-old super-intelligent AI should not be casually dismissed because of factors we do not know. *It* may know them. Though we should be able to ask it.....

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Let me ask you: would you hesitate to remove an anthill from your garden; knowing that your intervention will kill most of the ants, because of a sense of morality?

Yep. 

I wouldn't even dream of it if the ants cried for help or tried to reason with me. 

Plus, I think ants, and their colonies, are the most fascinating things created by nature. I'd actually enjoy having one in my garden. 

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

frylock23 wrote...
You keep saying that it only takes once. And I say that since we don't know what the base probability of the scenario is, it may very well be worth the gamble.

Yet again, I say a hypothesis presented by a billion-year-old super-intelligent AI should not be casually dismissed because of factors we do not know. *It* may know them. Though we should be able to ask it.....

It's a billion-year-old super-intelligent AI (which, aside from the fact it means it's on the other side of a singularity thereby undermining the point completely, is all speculation), so perhaps we shouldn't casually dismiss it.

On the same shtick, it's responsible for the genocide of unknowable trillions of lives based on a percieved guess, and is quite obviously manipulating Shepard. 

I'd say that makes it even on terms of trust. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 01 juin 2012 - 02:33 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

ohiocat110 wrote...

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

We tend to give synthetics too much credit in these thought experiments. We assume they're single-minded, one-purposed, and utterly perfect in their goals and expansion. There's plenty that can go wrong in a synthetic civilization. If they never change, they stagnate. If they do change, there is the possibility for some kind of virus or cascading system failure. Much like how an organic species could genetically engineer itself to all die of cancer or be sterile. Organic life is only as good as its DNA, and synthetic life is only as good as its operating code. Both must be able to adapt.

The ME universe seems to support that. Not once are we shown or told of any actual terminally hostile synthetic species. Not the Geth. Not the Reapers (cybernetic). Not EDI. The Catalyst warns us of it, but never gives an example. Would have been a hell of a reveal to tell Shepard about the time the Reapers fought a million-year war against a virulent synthetic empire, but we're not told and there's no indication anything like that ever happened.

This goes back to the original point that the Catalyst is either lying, making assumptions that aren't possible, or nobody at Bioware put more than five minutes of thought into the ending. It's interesting that none of the Reapers we talk to have anything to say about protecting the galaxy from synthetics. Sovereign actually corrupted the Heretic Geth into helping the Reapers, consequences be damned, apparently. What the Catalyst said simply can't be taken at face value.

This is at least why I'm partially annoyed by the introduction of Javik and Bioware's claim that he's "unnecessary" to the experience. Don't get me wrong, he's a great character/dlc, but a large part of my conversations with him have centered around the synthetic conflict before the Reapers.

When I first reached ME3's ending where the Catalyst ass-pulled the "Organics vs. Synthetics" conflict, my initial reaction was "wtf", especially since ME2 and ME3 both focus on the humanization of Synthetic species, specifically EDI and the Geth. No matter how we play it out, EDI becomes an accepted member of the Normandy, and even if we destroy the Geth, Legion's final moments indicate that it was a moment of sorrow. These together made it difficult to take the Catalyst's theme seriously, especially since ME appeared to have moved away from fear of AI since the first game.

[Taboo]

Cypher_CS wrote...

I wish you could explain what it is you were trying just now with that.

Cause it deals more with the question of Morality, which we aren't talking about here.
And the analogy doesn't really fit anyway.

That's the difference between you and I. I am not a moral relavist, at all. Ethics always matter to me.

I refuse to resolve the Reaper threat in a manner like Synthesis. The threat will not occur for at least ten thousand years.

What I haven't seen addressed either is the variables involved in the scenario. Given the circumstances of the galaxy post crucible use, I don't think we're going to see Synthetics for a long, long time. When I think about it, we need certain circumstances to have what we are worried about.

The Star Gazer scene shows that we haven't been wiped out for ten thousand years. It could be a million years until we achieve anything again. I never see this factored into the equation.

There are just too many variables to factor in.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 01 juin 2012 - 02:58 .

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You presuppose that synthetics would have a morality based on organics' priorities. Morality is not a question of sentience, only reflection on morality is. Our basic sense of morality is not the result of rational thought, but of biology and cultural imprinting. We construct rational universal systems based on that sense, but those systems are not the root of our morality. Were they that, questions of morality wouldn't trigger irrational emotional responses more often than not.

Let me ask you: would you hesitate to remove an anthill from your garden; knowing that your intervention will kill most of the ants, because of a sense of morality?

So ur view is that morality wouldn't result from synthetics being sentient? my view is contrary, if they are sentient like organics then they must have at least a sense of morality

In terms of rationality, one could argue that it is not rational for the Geth to help organics, I mean what benefits can they get, but they did it anyway; one could also argue that wiping out all organics are irrational if no benefit can be gained

You are also assuming that morality ONLY triggers irrational responses, no, it is EMOTIONS that trigger them, people often take careful consideration of what is right and what is wrong (albeit sometimes influenced by irrational emotions), while weighing up options, morality is not exactly the opposite of rationality, and that morality is also subjected to individual judgement

With synthetics being sentient, I would like to think they would do a better job in determining what is right or wrong, even if they don't have a sense of morality, rationality would tell them not to wipe out organics 

With ants, depends on how ant-infested my house is, most of the time I just leave them alone, I admit, we can be dismissive of inferior form of life, but mostly because they are non - sentient, this is my way only, other people might remove them straight away, some people may not do anything to them at all, I don't think sentient synthetics can actually come to a consensus to kill off all organics

Modifié par Vigilant111, 01 juin 2012 - 02:57 .

[Taboo]

I live in Montana, around nature. My recent vacation took place in a village near a lake.

It is more than possible to co-exist.

MORE than possible.

[Cypher_CS]

frylock23 wrote...

I am trying to explain that there is no such thing as a law of averages.

We don't know what the bare probability of a TS developing in any one scenario is; the Star Child doesn't tell us.

You can roll a 6-sided die and there is one probability that you will receive any one result. You can roll the same six sided die over and over, and just because you may not have rolled one particular result in anyof your previous rolls does not increase your chances of getting that result in the next throw. You still have same base probability of getting that result as you had the first time you threw the die. The base chance never changes.

You keep saying that it only takes once. And I say that since we don't know what the base probability of the scenario is, it may very well be worth the gamble.

Yes, the probability will always be 1/6.
However, say for each of those results, there's a different pay off. A different utility.
For:
1, you get 10$
2, you get One Million Dollars (Dr' Evil voice!)
3, you get the entire combined fortunes of Bill Gates, Queen Elizabeth (well, her worth, at least, wtih all assets), and... EA. - that's like...150BN$?
4, you get all profits for you and your family and all your decendants for eternity, from all mining endevours in the Sol system. Say it's 10 Gazzillions?
5, you get  pay a fine of 100$.
6, you pay a fine of all your savings, all your relative's savings and enter a program of fines from here till eternity where all your decendents will live indentured in servitude just to pay off these fines. Say... -Infinity?

Now, calculate the Expectancy of that and see if you get a positive number or a negative number.
Here's a clue - it's Negative.

P.S.
I wasn't the one talking about the Law of Averages.

[Taboo]

Yes, but it is not your right to influence the way life will be. You had one goal, to defeat the Reapers. The rest of time is NOT yours to influence.

If we are destroyed in the future then so be it. I am MORE than willing to bet that we will be wiped out by each other before Synthetics do so.

[Cypher_CS]

Taboo-XX wrote...

That's the difference between you and I. I am not a moral relavist, at all. Ethics always matter to me.

I refuse to resolve the Reaper threat in a manner like Synthesis. The threat will not occur for at least ten thousand years.

What I haven't seen addressed either is the variables involved in the scenario. Given the circumstances of the galaxy post crucible use, I don't think we're going to see Synthetics for a long, long time. When I think about it, we need certain circumstances to have what we are worried about.

The Star Gazer scene shows that we haven't been wiped out for ten thousand years. It could be a million years until we achieve anything again. I never see this factored into the equation.

There are just too many variables to factor in.

That's fine.
That's the whole idea of Bioware's RPGs.
Different choices for different people.
While I do have my own ethics, I don't mind going in to role play something... beyond.

[Vigilant111]

Cypher_CS wrote...

P.S.
I wasn't the one talking about the Law of Averages.

That was me, I implied that Catalyst's statement about created destroying creators is not true because I believe that synthetics and organics will co-exist, and there will be no chaos, see the average result being that synthetics destroy organics for countless cycles, and I am saying from this time forward, things will change for the better, the cycle of violence has ended if organics and synthetics work hard to keep peace, the key is not the averages, its the surprising event of keeping peace becoming possible, well, the abnormal event, its hard to win lotteries, but some people DID win

[Tonymac]

The whole premise of Starchild is preposterous. Its a dime store joke made into a game ending. Its nothing more than quaking developers and a lead writer with no clue, and a band of yes-men who said "Gee boss, good idea." *Browns nose appropriately*

All of those years that ME1 and 2 were made there was talent somewhere in the organization. Whoever that person was left. What remained was the ones who get the accolades, yet never contributed intellectually or creatively. When left to their own devices, we get an ending like Starchild -utter and insulting rubbish.

The ending we got for ME3 was not inspired. It is not artistic. There was no talent in it. Kids in grade school speak out better stories to their action figures. Bioware should know this - and I believe they do. The fact that they throw the 'artistic integrity' card is pretty much an "Ah ha, I got your money!" while they do the meatspin.

Had they agreed that it should be fixed, rather than looking down their noses at us and playing the 'integrity' card and 'you only get an EC', then maybe they would not be losing so many fans.

[Taboo]

The Star Child makes some semblance of sense, he just doesn't present it very well. That is why we need the Extended Cut.

[Someone With Mass]

Wait, it takes statistics to show why the Catalyst is the most retarded thing in existence? I thought the brain damaged and insultingly simplistic circular logic was enough proof.

As for the very tired "artistic integrity" argument, it kind of requires the presence of art in the first place. What ME3's ending did was just pretentious in a very sad and desperate attempt to be edgy.

In other words:

[ArchDuck]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

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.

Got it, you have no real point but are just making dismissive sounds. I never stated the extermination of 99% of a race was collateral damage. That is all your assumption and it is a strawman argument but thanks for playing.

I had stated that it is likely that most of the deaths of non-combatants were of collateral damage scenarios. I am sure there would have been at least some systematic killings especially on the Quarian vs Quarian part (after all people tend to be very harsh when dealing with "collaborators" and "traitors"). But ultimately I don't find it difficult to believe that the majority of non-combative casualties would most likely be a bi-product of strikes against combative individuals and groups. Especially when you get into weapons of mass destruction and the resulting effects to the environment.

[frylock23]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Let me ask you: would you hesitate to remove an anthill from your garden; knowing that your intervention will kill most of the ants, because of a sense of morality?

Yep. 

I wouldn't even dream of it if the ants cried for help or tried to reason with me. 

Plus, I think ants, and their colonies, are the most fascinating things created by nature. I'd actually enjoy having one in my garden. 

What are the ants doing that I would need to remove them from my garden? Last time I checked, ants are not exactly a bad thing to have in one's garden. Those carpenter ants that are killing my elm tree, you know, the one that is dangerously overhanging my neighbor's house ... those I might to do something about. And I won't be doing it because I necessarily have anything against them. I'd be doing it because they're in danger of knocking a tree over on my neighbor's house which endangers my neighbors' lives and property, and if they succeed, it will destroy their nest anyhow when the tree comes down.

[CaptainZaysh]

ArchDuck wrote...

Got it, you have no real point but are just making dismissive sounds. I never stated the extermination of 99% of a race was collateral damage. That is all your assumption and it is a strawman argument but thanks for playing.

Oh, I'm dreadfully sorry!  I must have imagined that when you were asked to explain the deaths of billions of noncombatants across multiple solar systems that you gave an answer that I could only categorise as breathtakingly stupid or shockingly dishonest: "collateral damage".  I sincerely apologi-

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?

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

Hmmm.