1256 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

lillitheris wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

This is an in-game fact: There is no synthetic threat to be found.

This is a poor argument — and rather irrelevant to this conversation, as odd as it seems. Probability dictates that the Catalyst is more likely to be correct than you. It needs to only be correct once about a hostile singularity. You need to be correct every single time.

This does not mean that it will happen, just that you can’t claim that it won’t based on a sample size of 2.

I will go one step further, you cannot expect it to happen on a sample size of 0. There is only a theory. Even in our time, Gordon Moore, the guy who was responsible for Moore's Law, which is often cited in support for the technological singularity, disputes it is a plausible concept.

There is no evidence of a synthetic threat to be found anywhere. There are only claims. And all the "hostilities" of synthetics are either caused by organic attacks or are caused by the reapers. Even in Javik's cycle the reapers caused the synthetics to become hostile. That makes it hard to believe the brat, if he previously thought that the best way to protect organics from this hypothetical threat is to destroy those same organics. Over and over again. That is stuff I don't make up. Those are in-game facts.

If BW wanted me to believe them, that's not hard because I usually hang on their lips, they should have done a better job. But don't expect me to believe the word of a cyclical maniacal genocidal brat who's only interest so far seems to be to feed those races to the reapers. All their harvesting is doing is allow them to reproduce and stay on top of the food chain. Sorry, but the brat makes a bad case and all it deserves is to be grounded for the next 100 billion years.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 17 juin 2012 - 10:46 .

[Vigilant111]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

This is an in-game fact: There is no synthetic threat to be found.

This is a poor argument — and rather irrelevant to this conversation, as odd as it seems. Probability dictates that the Catalyst is more likely to be correct than you. It needs to only be correct once about a hostile singularity. You need to be correct every single time.

This does not mean that it will happen, just that you can’t claim that it won’t based on a sample size of 2.

I will go one step further, you cannot expect it to happen on a sample size of 0. There is only a theory. Even in our time, Gordon Moore, the guy who was responsible for Moore's Law, which is often cited in support for the technological singularity, disputes it is a plausible concept.

There is no evidence of a synthetic threat to be found anywhere. There are only claims. And all the "hostilities" of synthetics are either caused by organic attacks or are caused by the reapers. Even in Javik's cycle the reapers caused the synthetics to become hostile. That makes it hard to believe the brat, if he previously thought that the best way to protect organics from this hypothetical threat is to destroy those same organics. Over and over again. That is stuff I don't make up. Those are in-game facts.

If BW wanted me to believe them, that's not hard because I usually hang on their lips, they should have done a better job. But don't expect me to believe the word of a cyclical maniacal genocidal brat who's only interest so far seems to be to feed those races to the reapers. All their harvesting is doing is allow them to reproduce and stay on top of the food chain. Sorry, but the brat makes a bad case and all it deserves is to be grounded for the next 100 billion years.

U see, the reapers probably just observed a few cycles and then was like nah too tired, lets just kill them all without observing further, I mean they are not scientists and are not interested in making conclusions about anything, everything pretty much falls under their mercy.

So even if the trend shows some surprising event they would not know cos they killed the organics too early

[lillitheris]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

This is an in-game fact: There is no synthetic threat to be found.

This is a poor argument — and rather irrelevant to this conversation, as odd as it seems. Probability dictates that the Catalyst is more likely to be correct than you. It needs to only be correct once about a hostile singularity. You need to be correct every single time.

This does not mean that it will happen, just that you can’t claim that it won’t based on a sample size of 2.

I will go one step further, you cannot expect it to happen on a sample size of 0.

I don’t understand what this means.

There is only a theory. Even in our time, Gordon Moore, the guy who was responsible for Moore's Law, which is often cited in support for the technological singularity, disputes it is a plausible concept.

Singularity ≠ synthetic threat.

There is no evidence of a synthetic threat to be found anywhere. There are only claims. And all the "hostilities" of synthetics are either caused by organic attacks or are caused by the reapers. Even in Javik's cycle the reapers caused the synthetics to become hostile. That makes it hard to believe the brat, if he previously thought that the best way to protect organics from this hypothetical threat is to destroy those same organics. Over and over again. That is stuff I don't make up. Those are in-game facts.

First of all, the motivation for the synthetic threat doesn’t matter. Secondly, you’re ignoring that the Reapers have been culling the organics — and thereby the synthetics — every 50,000 years. Who‘s to say what would have happened on the 60,000th year?

And the fact remains that even if we limit to the rebellions initiated by the AIs themselves (a rather moot point when everybody’s dead, but let’s go with it) you must be correct every single time that none of the billions and trillions of AIs will rebel. No number of N occurrences of it not happening will remove the possibility in the future.

This is why you can’t dismiss the claim by saying ‘but the geth didn’t rebel’. It’s a poor argument, and you can find better ones that can’t be shot down so easily.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Vigilant111 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

This is an in-game fact: There is no synthetic threat to be found.

This is a poor argument — and rather irrelevant to this conversation, as odd as it seems. Probability dictates that the Catalyst is more likely to be correct than you. It needs to only be correct once about a hostile singularity. You need to be correct every single time.

This does not mean that it will happen, just that you can’t claim that it won’t based on a sample size of 2.

I will go one step further, you cannot expect it to happen on a sample size of 0. There is only a theory. Even in our time, Gordon Moore, the guy who was responsible for Moore's Law, which is often cited in support for the technological singularity, disputes it is a plausible concept.

There is no evidence of a synthetic threat to be found anywhere. There are only claims. And all the "hostilities" of synthetics are either caused by organic attacks or are caused by the reapers. Even in Javik's cycle the reapers caused the synthetics to become hostile. That makes it hard to believe the brat, if he previously thought that the best way to protect organics from this hypothetical threat is to destroy those same organics. Over and over again. That is stuff I don't make up. Those are in-game facts.

If BW wanted me to believe them, that's not hard because I usually hang on their lips, they should have done a better job. But don't expect me to believe the word of a cyclical maniacal genocidal brat who's only interest so far seems to be to feed those races to the reapers. All their harvesting is doing is allow them to reproduce and stay on top of the food chain. Sorry, but the brat makes a bad case and all it deserves is to be grounded for the next 100 billion years.

U see, the reapers probably just observed a few cycles and then was like nah too tired, lets just kill them all without observing further, I mean they are not scientists and are not interested in making conclusions about anything, everything pretty much falls under their mercy.

So even if the trend shows some surprising event they would not know cos they killed the organics too early

The reapers are not scientists? They eat tech for breakfast. They are not only harvesting races they also harvest tech. The game is very clear about that.

Well, exterminating organics too early is the idea, because they exterminate the synthetics at the same time.

I am fine with the game presenting me with "the created always rebel against their created" and present that as a deadly threat, but then there has to be evidence of that. And BW did a poor job. Everything points in the opposite direction.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 17 juin 2012 - 03:05 .

[Vigilant111]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The reapers are not scientists? They eat tech for breakfast. They are not only harvesting races they also harvest tech. The game is very clear about that.

Well, exterminating organics too early is the idea, because they exterminate the synthetics at the same time.

I am fine with the game presenting me with "the created always rebel against their created" and present that as a deadly threat, but then there has to be evidence of that. And BW did a poor job. Everything points in the opposite direction.

Hmm, exactly when are organics qualified to be killed again? the first sign of AI emergence? or just a calculated assumption that the organic race is CAPABLE of developing AIs?

Maybe some races don't need AIs and therefore wouldn't make any, they prefer not to be lazy and do things on their own, or just have a society that does not rely on technology

[AngryFrozenWater]

lillitheris wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

This is an in-game fact: There is no synthetic threat to be found.

This is a poor argument — and rather irrelevant to this conversation, as odd as it seems. Probability dictates that the Catalyst is more likely to be correct than you. It needs to only be correct once about a hostile singularity. You need to be correct every single time.

This does not mean that it will happen, just that you can’t claim that it won’t based on a sample size of 2.

I will go one step further, you cannot expect it to happen on a sample size of 0.

I don’t understand what this means.

There is only a theory. Even in our time, Gordon Moore, the guy who was responsible for Moore's Law, which is often cited in support for the technological singularity, disputes it is a plausible concept.

Singularity ≠ synthetic threat.

There is no evidence of a synthetic threat to be found anywhere. There are only claims. And all the "hostilities" of synthetics are either caused by organic attacks or are caused by the reapers. Even in Javik's cycle the reapers caused the synthetics to become hostile. That makes it hard to believe the brat, if he previously thought that the best way to protect organics from this hypothetical threat is to destroy those same organics. Over and over again. That is stuff I don't make up. Those are in-game facts.

First of all, the motivation for the synthetic threat doesn’t matter. Secondly, you’re ignoring that the Reapers have been culling the organics — and thereby the synthetics — every 50,000 years. Who‘s to say what would have happened on the 60,000th year?

And the fact remains that even if we limit to the rebellions initiated by the AIs themselves (a rather moot point when everybody’s dead, but let’s go with it) you must be correct every single time that none of the billions and trillions of AIs will rebel. No number of N occurrences of it not happening will remove the possibility in the future.

This is why you can’t dismiss the claim by saying ‘but the geth didn’t rebel’. It’s a poor argument, and you can find better ones that can’t be shot down so easily.

There is no sample of an event that the brat is warning us about. The sample size is 0. He never showed us. If it was that serious, I am sure he could present his case. We only saw that synthetics became hostile with a reason. They either defended themselves or were turned hostile by the reapers. On the other hand, the reapers were always hostile. And they seem to be proud of it and advertize it everywhere they go. "Ascension through destruction" is a registered reaper trademark. And if I have to choose between believing the geth and reapers then I rather believe in a trustworthy ally than a reaper who just killed half the galaxy for my own good and turned synthetics hostile to help the reapers a bit.

I agree about that a singularity is not a requirement for synthetic hostilities, but there is no evidence of both.

I am not worried about the motivation of the threat either. A threat is a threat, as long as the threat is not something that only exists in someone's mind.

Yeah, what would happen in 60,000 years? Good question. Let's find out. We would have at least a delay of the galactic genocide. And if the reapers are really concerned then they should help us when a horrible threat occurs, instead of wiping us out.

You see, exterminating organics every 50,000 years is in the best interest of the reapers. It allows them to reproduce and stay on top of the food chain. It is not in the interest of the organics, because they are being wiped out. They cannot determine their future, because they are eaten like a frog eats flies. Of course there is always the chance that the fly is killed by a flyswatter, but, as a fly, I think that this superior frog can go to hell when it tells me that he eats flies to save me from the dangerous flyswatters.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 17 juin 2012 - 04:06 .

[lillitheris]

Let me be very clear, AngryFrozenWater: you don’t need to convince me that Synthesis is the worst option. It is. I’m only trying to help you argue better.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There is no sample of an event that the brat is warning us about. The sample size is 0. He never showed us. If it was that serious, I am sure he could present his case.

…If the synthetics had been successful in causing extinction, there wouldn’t be anyone to present a case to. This is an invalid argument.

We only saw that synthetics became hostile with a reason.

Even if we take this at face value (you’re glossing over Overlord, only to mention one case), it’s irrelevant.

I agree about that a singularity is not a requirement for synthetic hostilities, but there is no evidence of both.

Yes there is. You’re confusing ‘hostile’ with ‘aggressor’. They’re not the same thing.

Yeah, what would happen in 60,000 years? Good question. Let's find out. We would have at least a delay of the galactic genocide. And if the reapers are really concerned then they should help us when a horrible threat occurs, instead of wiping us out.

Again, this is not an argument. The Reapers have explicitly wiped civilizations before they reach the critical level (premised in this argument). A bronze age civilization is not going to create an advanced synthetic lifeform.

You cannot argue that there will be no emergent synthetics that pose an existential threat on the grounds that it has not happened yet. You could not argue this even if the Reapers hadn’t culled the civilizations before reaching this point, because probability is against you.

Let’s say we go with Destroy. Every single synthetic life form from there onwards must not cause an existential threat. If we say that the probability of each to do so is 0.01, then the probability of avoiding it is 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99…

Or, shorter: the geth not rebelling does not disprove eventual problems. In any way.

Modifié par lillitheris, 17 juin 2012 - 04:42 .

[Vigilant111]

lillitheris wrote...
Or, shorter: the geth not rebelling does not disprove eventual problems. In any way.

That is not your problem, that is Ieldra2's problem, u do not need to keep on stressing the possible validity of the Catalyst's estimations

and no, the Geth rebelled, it is a fact, they ARE a threat from its creation, hell anything is a threat these days, it is irrelevant

[lillitheris]

Vigilant111 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
Or, shorter: the geth not rebelling does not disprove eventual problems. In any way.

That is not your problem, that is Ieldra2's problem, u do not need to keep on stressing the possible validity of the Catalyst's estimations

Why needn’t I? I’m no more tolerant of poor logic from those who are ‘on my side’ than anyone else.

[AngryFrozenWater]

lillitheris wrote...

Let me be very clear, AngryFrozenWater: you don’t need to convince me that Synthesis is the worst option. It is. I’m only trying to help you argue better.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There is no sample of an event that the brat is warning us about. The sample size is 0. He never showed us. If it was that serious, I am sure he could present his case.

…If the synthetics had been successful in causing extinction, there wouldn’t be anyone to present a case to. This is an invalid argument.

We only saw that synthetics became hostile with a reason.

Even if we take this at face value (you’re glossing over Overlord, only to mention one case), it’s irrelevant.

I agree about that a singularity is not a requirement for synthetic hostilities, but there is no evidence of both.

Yes there is. You’re confusing ‘hostile’ with ‘aggressor’. They’re not the same thing.

Yeah, what would happen in 60,000 years? Good question. Let's find out. We would have at least a delay of the galactic genocide. And if the reapers are really concerned then they should help us when a horrible threat occurs, instead of wiping us out.

Again, this is not an argument. The Reapers have explicitly wiped civilizations before they reach the critical level (premised in this argument). A bronze age civilization is not going to create an advanced synthetic lifeform.

You cannot argue that there will be no emergent synthetics that pose an existential threat on the grounds that it has not happened yet. You could not argue this even if the Reapers hadn’t culled the civilizations before reaching this point, because probability is against you.

Let’s say we go with Destroy. Every single synthetic life form from there onwards must not cause an existential threat. If we say that the probability of each to do so is 0.01, then the probability of avoiding it is 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99…

Or, shorter: the geth not rebelling does not disprove eventual problems. In any way.

If someone tells me that X exists then the burden of prove is on that person. I do not have to prove it doesn't exist, just because of the claim that X exist.

If there is a chance that a god, heaven and hell exist then it makes sense to believe in that god because living forever in heaven is more convenient than forever in hell. Forever is a damn long time.

Sorry. I am an atheist. I don't buy that.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 17 juin 2012 - 05:13 .

[lillitheris]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

If someone tells me that X exists then the burden of prove is on that person. I do not have to prove it doesn't exist, just because of the claim that X exist.

WJW. Typically I expect fellow free thinkers to exhibit a slightly higher capacity for reflection.

Catalyst says that synthetics will eventually cause extinction of organics. The assertion is inherently unprovable (to an organic being, anyway). This isn’t the issue.

The issue is the counterargument that is made: the geth/EDI/whoever not rebelling disproves the Catalyst’s assertion. As I have shown, it doesn’t. And as you point out, you don’t need to use it.

So, it’s a stupid argument to make because it’s so easy to counter. There are so many other things wrong with Synthesis that clutching to this one is silly.

[AngryFrozenWater]

lillitheris wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

If someone tells me that X exists then the burden of prove is on that person. I do not have to prove it doesn't exist, just because of the claim that X exist.

WJW. Typically I expect fellow free thinkers to exhibit a slightly higher capacity for reflection.

Catalyst says that synthetics will eventually cause extinction of organics. The assertion is inherently unprovable (to an organic being, anyway). This isn’t the issue.

The issue is the counterargument that is made: the geth/EDI/whoever not rebelling disproves the Catalyst’s assertion. As I have shown, it doesn’t. And as you point out, you don’t need to use it.

So, it’s a stupid argument to make because it’s so easy to counter. There are so many other things wrong with Synthesis that clutching to this one is silly.

Let me be honest to you... People already do not understand that because there is no threat, synthesis is a solution to a non-existent problem. Scroll back and look at why I had to come up with silly examples. That's what sticks in peoples mind. It seems to work in two recent cases. Call me pragmatic.

[lillitheris]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

If someone tells me that X exists then the burden of prove is on that person. I do not have to prove it doesn't exist, just because of the claim that X exist.

WJW. Typically I expect fellow free thinkers to exhibit a slightly higher capacity for reflection.

Catalyst says that synthetics will eventually cause extinction of organics. The assertion is inherently unprovable (to an organic being, anyway). This isn’t the issue.

The issue is the counterargument that is made: the geth/EDI/whoever not rebelling disproves the Catalyst’s assertion. As I have shown, it doesn’t. And as you point out, you don’t need to use it.

So, it’s a stupid argument to make because it’s so easy to counter. There are so many other things wrong with Synthesis that clutching to this one is silly.

Let me be honest to you... People already do not understand that because there is no threat, synthesis is a solution to a non-existent problem. Scroll back and look at why I had to come up with silly examples. That's what sticks in peoples mind. It seems to work in two recent cases. Call me pragmatic.

The funny thing is that I can imagine that being said by the wise old guys who wrote the bible…

[Taboo]

lillitheris wrote...

The funny thing is that I can imagine that being said by the wise old guys who wrote the bible…

LOL

The Catalyst does remind me of that logic sometimes though, as does his presentation.

God WILL smite you if you touch yourself.

Unlikely.

[frylock23]

lillitheris wrote...

Catalyst says that synthetics will eventually cause extinction of organics. The assertion is inherently unprovable (to an organic being, anyway). This isn’t the issue.

The issue is the counterargument that is made: the geth/EDI/whoever not rebelling disproves the Catalyst’s assertion. As I have shown, it doesn’t. And as you point out, you don’t need to use it.

No, the issue is that the Catalyst makes an assertion about synthetics that is simply unprovable, and there is no evidence existing in the story as written to back up his assertions. That's the issue with the geth and EDI. They neither prove nor disprove his assertions, and they are our only real independent experience of synthetics in the game.

If the writers intended for us to be convinced that the Catalyst has a real threat to worry about, they needed to give the player actual evidence that could be drawn on from the player's in-game experiences beyond merely the Reapers and other synthetics as influenced by the Reapers. This was not done, and this is why EDI and the geth are brought up - When each is an independent entity in the story, they show no evidence of becoming what the Catalyst suggests that they will. This makes it hard for the player to buy into the Catalyst's assertion when no other proof is offered by the Catalyst.

This is evidence of a huge writing flaw, or at least evidence that the endings were at least written on the fly, at the 11th hour with little to no peer review and tacked on. When that happens there is no real recourse to logic.

[frylock23]

Taboo-XX wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

The funny thing is that I can imagine that being said by the wise old guys who wrote the bible…

LOL

The Catalyst does remind me of that logic sometimes though, as does his presentation.

God WILL smite you if you touch yourself.

Unlikely.

Feh, a lot of those Old Testament laws were actually sensible public health regulations for the sanitary conditions of the time when you think about them and sort out the silly. The prohibition on pork for example. If you didn't cook your pork thoroughly, you risked all sorts of bad things like trichinosis and pigs are one of the animals most likely to catch and transmit diseases to people (Swine Flu anyone?). However, I seriously doubt that God was dictating most of those laws directly to the temple priests as most of these things could have been observed over time by astute people much like the Maya and Aztecs learned about the stars.

[Taboo]

It was a joke. The same thing applies to tomatoes in the Middle Ages. They used lead plates and the tomatoes absorbed the lead. That obviously made people sick. Tomatoes were thought to toxic for that reason.

The Catalyst sees it in a similar fashion. They COULD kill organics. Yes, they could, but he has no logical steps to prove it.

He has a tomato on a nonexistent plate.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 17 juin 2012 - 06:22 .

[frylock23]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It was a joke. The same thing applies to tomatoes in the Middle Ages. They used lead plates and the tomatoes absorbed the lead. That obviously made people sick. Tomatoes were thought to toxic for that reason.

The Catalyst sees it in a similar fashion. They COULD kill organics. Yes, they could, but he has no logical steps to prove it.

He has a tomato on a nonexistent plate.

Well with the Catalyst, when we sort out the silly, we're left with ... hmmm ... let's see ... uh

I got nothing.

[MisterJB]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
You think that synthetics want to dominate organics. But there is no evidence that this is an in-game fact. There are, however, many examples that the geth were provoked by the quarians and that the reapers turned some of the geth hostile. The reapers even turned the synthetics in Javik's cycle hostile.

I think that it is in the nature of sentient life to wish to improve their lots and that synthetic, like anyone else, are willing to step over others to achieve this. The Heretics chose to attack organics to better themselves, they were not controlled by Sovereign. And the "true" Geth, despite being provoked, forced the quarians to flee their worlds before they were even true AIs and then can commit genocide in ME3. This goes well beyond the right of self preservation.

I am not talking about whips and chains and slavery. Synthetics advance at a rate organics can't hope to match. In time, the difference between our civilizations can be just as obvious as the difference between a human and a rabbit. If that time comes, they will not take our well being into account when expanding.

Because of your false assumption that synthetics want to dominate organics you want to invoke synthesis because *you* believe it is better than their current state, change the racial identity and violate the right of self-determination of those involved. You even feel it is a good idea to keep the reapers alive. Those are the same reapers who were using a cyclical maniacal genocidal "ascension through destruction" method in the most horrific ways imaginable to reproduce and stay on top of the food chain. Shepard's allies all agreed, for obvious reasons, that it was agood idea to get rid of them. But no, you think your opinion is to be more valued than any of your allies.

If all of the above are not elitist then what is?

First of all, racial identity is created by so many things that the idea Synthesis can destroy it is ridiculous. In fact, Legion giving the Reaper Code to all Geth did a better job at this.

Now, you speak of elitism as if it is a bad, selfish thing when, ultimately, it is simply the belief those who are better informed can make the decisions that are better for society as a whole. Even if I am an elitist, that doesn't mean the well being of my fellow sentients does not drive my choices. I don't choose synthesis out of fear of synthetics, I choose it out of hope and a belief that this technology can be used to improve the life of all sentient beings and not just those who can afford it.

Previously to meeting the Catalyst, it appeared destroying the Reapers was the only viable solution. Now Shepard knows this not to be true, there are other options. Maybe if Shepard's allies knew that using the Crucible will destroy the Relays 2 out of 3 times, they would not want to use it. Maybe some would want Synthesis or Control.
In all endings, Shepard believes his opinion supercedes that of anyone else.

Also, what you spoke of the Reapers goes completely against what was extrablished in the game. The Cycle was meant to preserve organic species because the Catalyst believes synthetics will cause our extinction. Whether it is right or not is irrelevant to this point.
I choose to make peace with the Reapers because there is a lot galactic civilization can learn from then and because there is a possibility that they were controlled by the Catalyst and forced to continue the Cycle against their will.

[AngryFrozenWater]

@MisterJB: I am glad you like this option.

[lillitheris]

MisterJB wrote...

Now, you speak of elitism as if it is a bad, selfish thing when, ultimately, it is simply the belief those who are better informed can make the decisions that are better for society as a whole. Even if I am an elitist, that doesn't mean the well being of my fellow sentients does not drive my choices. I don't choose synthesis out of fear of synthetics, I choose it out of hope and a belief that this technology can be used to improve the life of all sentient beings and not just those who can afford it.

Dunning-Kruger.

[Taboo]

lillitheris wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Now, you speak of elitism as if it is a bad, selfish thing when, ultimately, it is simply the belief those who are better informed can make the decisions that are better for society as a whole. Even if I am an elitist, that doesn't mean the well being of my fellow sentients does not drive my choices. I don't choose synthesis out of fear of synthetics, I choose it out of hope and a belief that this technology can be used to improve the life of all sentient beings and not just those who can afford it.

Dunning-Kruger.

I <3  you for this.

[MisterJB]

lillitheris wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Now, you speak of elitism as if it is a bad, selfish thing when, ultimately, it is simply the belief those who are better informed can make the decisions that are better for society as a whole. Even if I am an elitist, that doesn't mean the well being of my fellow sentients does not drive my choices. I don't choose synthesis out of fear of synthetics, I choose it out of hope and a belief that this technology can be used to improve the life of all sentient beings and not just those who can afford it.

Dunning-Kruger.

Should I take this personally or is it meant as an attack to elitism as a whole?

[PsyrenY]

lillitheris wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Now, you speak of elitism as if it is a bad, selfish thing when, ultimately, it is simply the belief those who are better informed can make the decisions that are better for society as a whole. Even if I am an elitist, that doesn't mean the well being of my fellow sentients does not drive my choices. I don't choose synthesis out of fear of synthetics, I choose it out of hope and a belief that this technology can be used to improve the life of all sentient beings and not just those who can afford it.

Dunning-Kruger.

Ironically, that applies far more to anti-synthesists (who see humanity as being fine) than to synthesists (who are willing to face our flaws head-on.)

"This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes."

[Vigilant111]

Optimystic_X wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Now, you speak of elitism as if it is a bad, selfish thing when, ultimately, it is simply the belief those who are better informed can make the decisions that are better for society as a whole. Even if I am an elitist, that doesn't mean the well being of my fellow sentients does not drive my choices. I don't choose synthesis out of fear of synthetics, I choose it out of hope and a belief that this technology can be used to improve the life of all sentient beings and not just those who can afford it.

Dunning-Kruger.

Ironically, that applies far more to anti-synthesists (who see humanity as being fine) than to synthesists (who are willing to face our flaws head-on.)

"This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes."

Willing to face your flaws with jumping into a green beam? try again

Again, subjective as to who actually made the mistakes, and what actually are "flaws"