364 réponses à ce sujet

[Cpl_Facehugger]

brummyuk19 wrote...

AI do not think along the same lines we do. They do not like or dislike, love or hate. If AI see no need for us, see us as violent and brutal, what's not to say they will not try and bring order to chaos by wiping us out? Seeing us as primitive.

The only solution to this problem is synthisis, so that synthetic life cannot over take organic life and vice versa. There will be understanding.

But to do that the catalyst needed the crucible.

AIs in this setting are not ruthless paperclip manufacturing engines driven by alien logic to turn the universe into paperclips like a "realistic" seed AI could be. They're significantly more anthropomorphic than that - see EDI and the Geth, both of which have comprehensible "likes" and "dislikes," understand ethics, and broadly have human-comprehensible motivations.

The Catalyst's logic is bunk because it thinks it's in a hard SF setting where AIs are more alien than most aliens, instead of a space opera where AIs can actually fall in love with humans, express embarassment, and generally act in ways that humans can readily identify with.

In short, the Catalyst's justification for the murder of uncountable numbers of people is rooted in a mistake in its understanding of how AI works in his reality.

[brummyuk19]

The Revolut wrote...

brummyuk19 wrote...

AI do not think along the same lines we do. They do not like or dislike, love or hate.

Did you fall asleep making those choices with EDI?

If AI see no need for us, see us as violent and brutal, what's not to say they will not try and bring order to chaos by wiping us out? Seeing us as primitive.

Who is to say they will? Appealing to the probability that they will wipe us out as absolute fact is logically fallacious. There is no debating this.

The only solution to this problem is synthisis, so that synthetic life cannot over take organic life and vice versa. There will be understanding.

But to do that the catalyst needed the crucible.

Glad to see you support eugenics.

No I did not, because a machine cannot love. They can program themselves to mimic the emotionial responses, but they cannot love. Same goes for hate. No matter which way you look at it. If you want to believe that synthetics can love that is your choice, but if my laptop was self aware it would hardly care to see me as something it loved. It would see me as usefull, or not usefull.

And what do machines do with useless things? They delete them.

[The Revolut]

brummyuk19 wrote...

No I did not, because a machine cannot love. They can program themselves to mimic the emotionial responses, but they cannot love. Same goes for hate. No matter which way you look at it. If you want to believe that synthetics can love that is your choice, but if my laptop was self aware it would hardly care to see me as something it loved. It would see me as usefull, or not usefull.

And what do machines do with useless things? They delete them.

Wow. How ignorant.

Okay then. I see you're not open to reason, especially reason as pointed out in the lore.

[Grimwick]

The Angry One wrote...

Appeals to probability and to one's own authority are not sound logic and never will be no matter how "beyond our comprehension" a being gets.

QFT /thread.

[Mazebook]

The Revolut wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Mathematics and Probability would like to have a word with you

Appealing to probability as absolute fact is not what mathematics and probability dictate.

The Catalyst ran the numbers...he says it is inevitable that at one point the singularity will accoure.

Logic is depends on facts...the way of logic is dictated by what you accept as a fact...

Modifié par maaaze, 24 juin 2012 - 09:45 .

[Erixxxx]

The Revolut wrote...

How in God's name are they preserving history in our grey goo?

Highly advanced technology? They go into our minds and extract and insert feelings and memories as well. How do they do that?

[brummyuk19]

Cpl_Facehugger wrote...

brummyuk19 wrote...

AI do not think along the same lines we do. They do not like or dislike, love or hate. If AI see no need for us, see us as violent and brutal, what's not to say they will not try and bring order to chaos by wiping us out? Seeing us as primitive.

The only solution to this problem is synthisis, so that synthetic life cannot over take organic life and vice versa. There will be understanding.

But to do that the catalyst needed the crucible.

AIs in this setting are not ruthless paperclip manufacturing engines driven by alien logic to turn the universe into paperclips like a "realistic" seed AI could be. They're significantly more anthropomorphic than that - see EDI and the Geth, both of which have comprehensible "likes" and "dislikes," understand ethics, and broadly have human-comprehensible motivations.

The Catalyst's logic is bunk because it thinks it's in a hard SF setting where AIs are more alien than most aliens, instead of a space opera where AIs can actually fall in love with humans, express embarassment, and generally act in ways that humans can readily identify with.

In short, the Catalyst's justification for the murder of uncountable numbers of people is rooted in a mistake in its understanding of how AI works in his reality.

That could be another reason for the star childs logic. In simple terms, it's logic is sound because of what it knows... for what it does not know is why it has not been able to create any alternate path rather than harvesting.

[Dracotamer]

I disagree with the OP.

[Grimwick]

brummyuk19 wrote...

No I did not, because a machine cannot love. They can program themselves to mimic the emotionial responses, but they cannot love. Same goes for hate. 

And what do machines do with useless things? They delete them.

Think about how humans feel 'love'. Then realise we might as well be computers in that respect.

Ergo they can develop emotions.

That is a statement coming from somebody who doesn't understand what composes consciousness and 'human' emotion. It's an ignorant comment to make.

[Barict78]

Erixxxx wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

Did you fall asleep making those choices with EDI?

Just as much as humans can be devoid of feelings, so can AIs if feelings were never programmed into them.

At this point to defend the fact that u all somehow see this as logical u are just nitpicking his arguments. It was proven in game that AIs CAN feel and CAN cooperate (EDI , GETH) Which totally blows starbabys "Logic" out of the water. And again so by that logic u think all people whom dont have the "proper" amount of emotion shoudl be "Stored away in grey goo" to preserve you know their humanity we have to turn them into machine fuel.

[brummyuk19]

The Revolut wrote...

brummyuk19 wrote...

No I did not, because a machine cannot love. They can program themselves to mimic the emotionial responses, but they cannot love. Same goes for hate. No matter which way you look at it. If you want to believe that synthetics can love that is your choice, but if my laptop was self aware it would hardly care to see me as something it loved. It would see me as usefull, or not usefull.

And what do machines do with useless things? They delete them.

Wow. How ignorant.

Okay then. I see you're not open to reason, especially reason as pointed out in the lore.

I am open to reason, but just as much as you have an opinion, so do I.

[dorktainian]

anyone who defends the old'' we're saving organics by killing organics to save them from synthetics'' garbage needs a serious lie down.

Now if you give Shep a massive weapon and tell him that one of his choices will kill the reapers, then he's gonna kill them. not merge with them, or turn us all into half man half plants.

It might mean sacrificing the Geth, but some must be sacrificed if all are to be saved. (oooh snuck a B5 reference in.......brilliant)

[Barict78]

maaaze wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Mathematics and Probability would like to have a word with you

Appealing to probability as absolute fact is not what mathematics and probability dictate.

The Catalyst ran the numbers...he says it is inevitable that at one point the singularity will accoure.

Logic is depends on facts...the way of logic is dictated by what you accept as a fact...

Where does he say " well shep ole buddy ive run these figures like a million times and everytime it comes out the same buddy AIs revolt" If the StarBaby was infallable and always correct then SHepard never wouldve made it as far as he did

[Barict78]

brummyuk19 wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

brummyuk19 wrote...

No I did not, because a machine cannot love. They can program themselves to mimic the emotionial responses, but they cannot love. Same goes for hate. No matter which way you look at it. If you want to believe that synthetics can love that is your choice, but if my laptop was self aware it would hardly care to see me as something it loved. It would see me as usefull, or not usefull.

And what do machines do with useless things? They delete them.

Wow. How ignorant.

Okay then. I see you're not open to reason, especially reason as pointed out in the lore.

I am open to reason, but just as much as you have an opinion, so do I.

EXACTLY ITS UR OPINION AND U CANNOT BASE A LOGICAL ARGUMENT ON UR OPINON sheesh

[Udalango]

Lol "Machines cant love" LOL LOLOLOLOL
Machinces cant have souls. Legion says he has a soul on Rannoch. So he is a liar?

[The Revolut]

Hudathan wrote...

How was it proven wrong? Making peace with one particular race of synthetic beings in no way diminishes the rift that exists between synthetic and organic life. It does not eliminate the inherent fear organics have regarding synthetics who do not share their weakness and possess strengths they could only dream of.

The Catalyst spoke in absolutes. The created will always rebel; the created will always wipe out the creators.

This was proven wrong in the Geth/Quarian conflict. While this was only one case study, it certainly points to how one should treat a fellow sapient intelligence.

The fear that we organics may be potentially supplanted and replaced by these superior synthetic beings is exactly what leads to the synthetic vs organic conflict as we know it in the Mass Effect series and is no mere theory on the part of the Catalyst. In fact it introduces a layer of irony as it is often organics who force the hand of synthetics out of fear in the case of the Quarians.

Okay, great. The central theme of Mass Effect, however, has never been "synthetic versus organic" until the very bitter end; beforehand, it was "synthetic and organic" and how the two coexisted. Simply because they were at war does not point to the theme itself as "versus."

The fact that the Quarian/Geth conflict had been taking place for hundreds of years and was only resolved in the face of impending doom at the hands of a common enemy only goes to prove how real this conflict is. And even if a player succeeded in making peace which is only one of three possible outcomes of that particular scenario, there is no guarantee that the same peace would last or that another conflict won't simply arise elsewhere at another time.

So basically, we should all be ruthlessly and mercilessly slaughtered because we might do it again, right?

The problem with the Geth/Quarian conflict is that the Quarians did not believe the Geth were equal to them--they were organic, superior; the synthetic was inferior and should be controlled. That is the reason the Geth rebelled, as I'm sure you know. Once the Geth were treated as equals, the conflict was over. There was nothing more to fight about.

The difference between that conflict and any in the future cannot be definitively stated, thus appealing to the probability of such as absolute fact, one way or another, is fallacious.

[Barict78]

Grimwick wrote...

brummyuk19 wrote...

No I did not, because a machine cannot love. They can program themselves to mimic the emotionial responses, but they cannot love. Same goes for hate. 

And what do machines do with useless things? They delete them.

Think about how humans feel 'love'. Then realise we might as well be computers in that respect.

Ergo they can develop emotions.

That is a statement coming from somebody who doesn't understand what composes consciousness and 'human' emotion. It's an ignorant comment to make.

QFT

[brummyuk19]

Barict78 wrote...

brummyuk19 wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

brummyuk19 wrote...

No I did not, because a machine cannot love. They can program themselves to mimic the emotionial responses, but they cannot love. Same goes for hate. No matter which way you look at it. If you want to believe that synthetics can love that is your choice, but if my laptop was self aware it would hardly care to see me as something it loved. It would see me as usefull, or not usefull.

And what do machines do with useless things? They delete them.

Wow. How ignorant.

Okay then. I see you're not open to reason, especially reason as pointed out in the lore.

I am open to reason, but just as much as you have an opinion, so do I.

EXACTLY ITS UR OPINION AND U CANNOT BASE A LOGICAL ARGUMENT ON UR OPINON sheesh

I wasn't planning on any arguement TBH, I was giving my thoughts on something and asking others for their thoughts. Whether they agree or not, that is their choice but I am going to defend why I think it makes sense. So calm down.

[The Revolut]

brummyuk19 wrote...

I am open to reason, but just as much as you have an opinion, so do I.

The difference between you and I being I've reinforced everything I've stated on this thread with something that the Catalyst has actually said, as well as rules of logic and debate.

You? You've based a logical argument off of your opinion.

[brummyuk19]

So what happens when the geth become superior to the quarians? If the pattern can form the other way, surely it can work both ways.

[The Revolut]

maaaze wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Mathematics and Probability would like to have a word with you

Appealing to probability as absolute fact is not what mathematics and probability dictate.

The Catalyst ran the numbers...he says it is inevitable that at one point the singularity will accoure.

Logic is depends on facts...the way of logic is dictated by what you accept as a fact...

Where does the Catalyst say he ran the numbers?

Furthermore, off of what exactly does the Catalyst predicate his "inevitable" statement?

[Mazebook]

dorktainian wrote...

anyone who defends the old'' we're saving organics by killing organics to save them from synthetics'' garbage needs a serious lie down.

No,
this is not the arguement of the catalyst.

Please get you facts straight... the magic word is ascending...

[The Revolut]

brummyuk19 wrote...

So what happens when the geth become superior to the quarians? If the pattern can form the other way, surely it can work both ways.

It is not a certitude, ergo appealing to probability as absolute fact is fallacious.

Shall I keep repeating this?

[brummyuk19]

The Revolut wrote...

brummyuk19 wrote...

I am open to reason, but just as much as you have an opinion, so do I.

The difference between you and I being I've reinforced everything I've stated on this thread with something that the Catalyst has actually said, as well as rules of logic and debate.

You? You've based a logical argument off of your opinion.

Well if you have based everything you have said from the catalyst, then the catalysts logic would make sense to you. I am not going into detail about what the catalyst says, I have been there and there is NOT enough infomation to form a real concusion. You either accept/understand the logic or you don't.

Modifié par brummyuk19, 24 juin 2012 - 09:55 .

[Barict78]

brummyuk19 wrote...

So what happens when the geth become superior to the quarians? If the pattern can form the other way, surely it can work both ways.

Thats kinda the point... We do not know what will happen and neither does the StarBrat. there are too many Variables and possiblities to make a sweeping statement like " the Created will always rebel against the Creator" no just no unless ur actually GOD u cannot hope to know what any living organism will do at any given time.