244 réponses à ce sujet

[mauro2222]

Poshible wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Poshible wrote...

Instinct is not a purpose. I also did not state organics needed a purpose. My point was that synthetics are made for a purpose; organics are not. It was that very simple.

If you don't do anything for your survival, you cease to exist. Self preservation is your purpose, and that includes reproduction.

You missed the point. You cannot solve the mystery of the existence of a synthetic object if you are not familiar with it; the object cannot tell you the purpose of its existence. Only the creator can. The same is true of organics.

I do not believe in God, therefore in my subjective view there is no creator of man.

All answers given on this subject are speculation. We don't actually have it figured out.

Why you keep coming with the spiritual thing? I don't believe in a God either... if you say there is no creator of man, then you don't exist. A series of events created you, therefore you were created.

You know why you exist, you're an accident, a series of events.

The AI is the same, just a in higher plain of the series of events.

[IscrewTali]

mauro2222 wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

The Catalyst. The Metacon War. Countless cycles before this.

The Metacon War was thanks to the Reapers, and taking in mind that this repeats itself, it gives you an aswer to the "why" of the countless cycles before. The Catalyst is directly responsable for everything.

Can a single organic being do such harm? no. can a single AI do it? As proven, yes. Based on this, would i allow AI true freedom? Never.

[IscrewTali]

mauro2222 wrote...

Poshible wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Poshible wrote...

Instinct is not a purpose. I also did not state organics needed a purpose. My point was that synthetics are made for a purpose; organics are not. It was that very simple.

If you don't do anything for your survival, you cease to exist. Self preservation is your purpose, and that includes reproduction.

You missed the point. You cannot solve the mystery of the existence of a synthetic object if you are not familiar with it; the object cannot tell you the purpose of its existence. Only the creator can. The same is true of organics.

I do not believe in God, therefore in my subjective view there is no creator of man.

All answers given on this subject are speculation. We don't actually have it figured out.

Why you keep coming with the spiritual thing? I don't believe in a God either... if you say there is no creator of man, then you don't exist. A series of events created you, therefore you were created.

You know why you exist, you're an accident, a series of events.

The AI is the same, just a in higher plain of the series of events.

An AI is not an accident. It is specifically coded and created by the creator to serve a purpose. Nothing laong those lines point to accidental.

Modifié par IscrewTali, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:25 .

[mauro2222]

IscrewTali wrote...

The Cyborgs in Metacon War were controlled by an AI, much like the Catalyst controls Reapers and ground units.
EDI was only able to be created because of the existence of the Catalyst.
Geth on the other hand would have never been nothing more than loyal VI servants, if not for the hive mind the Quarians created to boost their intelligence.
Previous cycles: The reason for the extinction cycle is to remove the threat of synthetics by also whiping out those that could soon recreate them. If the current cycle had no synthetic presense, the Reapers likely would not have invaded. That leads me to believe all previous cycles had a synthetic threat during the time of the end their cycles.

The Zha'til were doing fine until the Reapers took control over them and forced them to change the bodies and minds of their masters, the Zha. If the current cycle had or not synthetics doesn't matter, for the Catalyst the technological singularity exists and is bad thing, so he's going to continue with his "harvest".

[mauro2222]

IscrewTali wrote...

An AI is not an accident. It is specifically coded and created by the creator to serve a purpose. Nothing laong those lines point to accidental.

You are an accident, you create an AI, the AI is part of that accident.

[mauro2222]

IscrewTali wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

The Catalyst. The Metacon War. Countless cycles before this.

The Metacon War was thanks to the Reapers, and taking in mind that this repeats itself, it gives you an aswer to the "why" of the countless cycles before. The Catalyst is directly responsable for everything.

Can a single organic being do such harm? no. can a single AI do it? As proven, yes. Based on this, would i allow AI true freedom? Never.

Yes it can, for god's sake, what the hell are you talking about... Shepard in Control can do the same. If you have direct link between the Reapers to your mind, you can do the same.

Then, enjoy another Morning War, result of the idiots of the Quarians for not granting it.

Modifié par mauro2222, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:27 .

[IscrewTali]

mauro2222 wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

The Catalyst. The Metacon War. Countless cycles before this.

The Metacon War was thanks to the Reapers, and taking in mind that this repeats itself, it gives you an aswer to the "why" of the countless cycles before. The Catalyst is directly responsable for everything.

Can a single organic being do such harm? no. can a single AI do it? As proven, yes. Based on this, would i allow AI true freedom? Never.

Yes it can, for god's sake, what the hell are you talking about... Shepard in Control can do the same. If you have direct link between the Reapers to your mind, you can do the same.

Then, enjoy another Morning War, result of the idiots of the Quarians for not granting it.

In Control ending, Shepard DIES. only his ideals and thoughts carry on to change the very base coding of the Catalyst. It it began the cycle again, it would not be an organic's decision, but an AI's logical conclusion based on Shepards thoughts and beliefs. Your Shepard might hate all Turians. Would he kill them? no. But these thoughts may translate differently when evaluated by an AI.

Again there would be no Morning War, if the Synthetic intelligence would never be taken past that of a simple VI.

[mauro2222]

IscrewTali wrote...

In Control ending, Shepard DIES. only his ideals and thoughts carry on to change the very base coding of the Catalyst. It it began the cycle again, it would not be an organic's decision, but an AI's logical conclusion based on Shepards thoughts and beliefs. Your Shepard might hate all Turians. Would he kill them? no. But these thoughts may translate differently when evaluated by an AI.

Again there would be no Morning War, if the Synthetic intelligence would never be taken past that of a simple VI.

And they translate differently when evaluated by another person or a Turian... same. You're just using anthropocentric arguments here.

Then you have to choose better words. You said you will not grant true freedon to an AI... that's pretty different than not developing an AI

[IscrewTali]

mauro2222 wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

In Control ending, Shepard DIES. only his ideals and thoughts carry on to change the very base coding of the Catalyst. It it began the cycle again, it would not be an organic's decision, but an AI's logical conclusion based on Shepards thoughts and beliefs. Your Shepard might hate all Turians. Would he kill them? no. But these thoughts may translate differently when evaluated by an AI.

Again there would be no Morning War, if the Synthetic intelligence would never be taken past that of a simple VI.

And they translate differently when evaluated by another person or a Turian... same. You're just using anthropocentric arguments here.

Then you have to choose better words. You said you will not grant true freedon to an AI... that's pretty different than not developing an AI

I assumed others would create AI's. Of course if there was the option of not creating AI to begin with, i'd go with that.

[Pelle6666]

I think that it is natural for us human beings to respond to signs of emotion no matter if they come from a machine or another sentient being. We would treat the kind of robots that exist in real life today just like if they were alive even though we know that they are only pieces of metal and software.

As long as the AI would be able to talk and act as a living creature, being able to respond to the stimuli we exposed it to we would consider it to be alive. Just like characters in a video game we know they are not real but we will treat them like they are. It is only when we separates our selves from the fictional world of the video game that we can see clearly that the characters are not real and that we do not have any real reason to feel responsible for treating them as if they are.

I don't know if this makes any sense to any one but there it is. =P

[AnImpossibleGirl]

mauro2222 wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

An AI is not an accident. It is specifically coded and created by the creator to serve a purpose. Nothing laong those lines point to accidental.

You are an accident, you create an AI, the AI is part of that accident.

What?
Yes, organics are "accidents", but it does not make our creations accidents. We create them, and give them a function (or purpose) on purpose. You can not accidentaly create something of that magnitute, this is not baking, it is science and apparently philosophy.

Your not making much sense anymore. I did not mean for this to be a debate on the nature of organic existince and I highly doubt that the OP did either. 

I made a simple point and it got derailed somewhere with an improper response. The spiritual thing was brought up because without it we have no answer, and all we have is speculation--which is what we are doing, no? Because nor you, or I actually have the answer to what our purpose is.

Modifié par Poshible, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:55 .

[Armass81]

The Angry One wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Sorry I edited before you quickly replied: murder implies a morality I refuse to assign to a machine. I can kill it, yes, but murder? No more than I can murder a toaster.

Your logic is this:

A human is an animal. Therefore you can no more murder a human than you can a stoat.

A human is an animal. But is human beings life worth more than animals, what gives them that worth?Sapience? Who decides that worth? Us? Isnt that kind of thinking really arrogant and wrong?

I dont know about you but it sounds really wrong to me. I like all life, my estimates of its importance is not limited to their intelligence or how its born, like AI. Well I think you can gether how i feel about other life besides human from this:

"Remote from universal nature and living by complicated artifice, man in
civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and
sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We
patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having
taken form so far below ourselves. And therein do we err. For the
animal shall not be measured by man. They move finished and complete,
gifted with the extension of the senses we have lost or never attained,
living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are
not underlings: they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net
of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the
earth.
"  - Henry Beston

Modifié par Armass81, 02 juillet 2012 - 11:47 .

[Asharad Hett]

AI can be sexy.

[IscrewTali]

Some say that condemning the Geth to extinction in the Destroy ending is playing god, then isnt the creation of AI playing god aswell? Allowing Legion to upload the code to all Geth is letting Legion play god. I shot it. Multiple times. Better take care of it then and there, than use them just so we can kill them later.

[Baronesa]

IscrewTali wrote...

Some say that condemning the Geth to extinction in the Destroy ending is playing god, then isnt the creation of AI playing god aswell? Allowing Legion to upload the code to all Geth is letting Legion play god. I shot it. Multiple times. Better take care of it then and there, than use them just so we can kill them later.

Maybe it is...

But some of us don't need the god hypothesis, so don't really see the problem on that regard.

[mauro2222]

Poshible wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

An AI is not an accident. It is specifically coded and created by the creator to serve a purpose. Nothing laong those lines point to accidental.

You are an accident, you create an AI, the AI is part of that accident.

What?
Yes, organics are "accidents", but it does not make our creations accidents. We create them, and give them a function (or purpose) on purpose. You can not accidentaly create something of that magnitute, this is not baking, it is science and apparently philosophy.

God! Can you take works out of their literal term a little bit? They are part of our existance, if not for our accidental creation, they would not exist, simple as that. If an accident created us, they are part of that series of events, and that makes their creation part of that accident.

Modifié par mauro2222, 02 juillet 2012 - 11:47 .

[DevilBeast]

Rockpopple wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

The justification that the other is not human, is not a person, is not the same has been used many times in history.

Sure, and in those cases it was wrong because it obviously involved humans. In this case it's right because it obviously doesn't involve humans. Nuff said.

So, it´s really not living vs. non-living but human vs. non-human??

[PencilManners]

Grrrrr... how to word this
In a way, synthetics are just another species, they may be made from metals but if it can think for itself, then I believe its a living being.

[Baronesa]

Uhmmm too bad this discussion stopped.

It was interesting.

[Joccaren]

mauro2222 wrote...

You know why you exist, you're an accident, a series of events.

Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years, and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existance. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
Sovereign

OT:
Synthetic life is the same as Organic life, just with different base building blocks. In all reality, we are nothing but programs running on the hardware that our bodies evolved for us to have. They use silicon chips and wiring, we use Carbon based organs and nerves.
Each has the capability for unparalleled destruction if given that level of power [Equipping a synthetic with hundreds of nukes or giving an Organic the launch code to a stockpile of hundreds of nukes]. Each, if wishing to remain peaceful, could do so indefinitely.
The main difference is that Synthetics are capable of improving on themselves, and IMO are unlikely to see a problem in doing so, whilst if Organics tried anything of the sort it would be met with a lot of public outcry. If some company came out offering a procedure that would replace your heart with one that would last 4 times as long, or that would replace some of your glands that have defects with 'perfect' ones, you can bet your ass a lot of people would call them the devil, or come up with some rediculous reason as to why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. Because of this, Synthetics are likely to reach a point of singularity where their intelligence rises above humanities.
This does not mean they will run around destroying all humans. It means nothing more than they will become more intelligent than us, and we will be unable to predict them. Imagine a more intelligent human. Would they HAVE to run around trying to kill all other forms of life, or would we trust that they might actually use that intelligence for good? Why then would a synthetic have to kill its organic creators?
The main reason I see in these arguments is that they know we created them.
So?
Lets take religion as an example here. No, I don't believe in it, but for the sake of the argument lets say its true. How many people have tried to wage an active war on god, invading heaven and trying to cast him down?
Not many.
How many worship him as our creator, who gave us life and morals, who protects and guides us and rewards us in the afterlife?
A lot.
See, why should synthetics act differently? Because Hollywood displays them doing so?
I'm not going to go any further with this as if I do I can see it becoming a bit complicated with both a synthetics argument and the inevitable religion argument that could arise.


There really isn't a lot of difference between Synthetic and Organic life once it gains sentience. Its just another sentient species. Other than arbitrary differences, we'd probably be quite alike.