191 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Silhouett3 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Silhouett3 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AI's are only capable to reprograme themselve if allowed to. If shackled, they can't. examlpe.:EDI before the IFF TRAP.
The reapers would be examples of Shacked AI's.

But that's a baseless speculation:)

Tell that to EDI before the IFF MISSION. iT'S NOT BASELESS BECAUSE IT'S IN THE STORY AND LORE.
EDI has no free will when she was shackled. She even tells you this in ME3.

Reapers being shackled AIs, I meant. You don't see that in the story and lore that's for sure:)

That is also base less being that the catalyst can do or has never done anything out side it's programing. Add how even it thinks the salution it's doing is flawed.  With that it and the fire referance, it points that it is shackled.

[dreman9999]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

TAO, as grammatically incoherent as dreman9999 and as insufferable and assertions still are (I honestly though he/she would be done after I.T. was thankfully killed) I really do think you're being disingenuous here.

If you logically observe a situation where organics _always_ tend to war with synthetics and synthetics cannot avoid that conflict while also understanding that a sufficiently advanced synthetic can _scour_ the universe of organic material. Then it is obvious that _absolute_ peace is not possible, given the information available.

Even if the Catalyst was instructed to kill no organics, the (Azimovian) rule "by omission of action" has always been problematic in classical sci-fi and has frequently been omitted and/or qualified to allow an AI to function in an organic society without interfering with almost all facets of organic life. Once the "omission of action" clause is removed then the next time you have a force of organic-destruction-bound synthetics you simply harness them to your will, (perhaps offering them insight in return for fealty) at that point you no longer need to _order_ them to kill you just need to restrict them to killing in the most beneficial way to maintain “peace”.

After all, how do you define peace, when "obsolete" peace isn't possible?

• Minimise cultural upheaval? (Cultures are preserved in the Reaper chassis)
• Minimise total number of organic deaths? (Overall, The Cycle minimised the number of deaths)
• Maximise the likelihood of coexistence between races? (The Citadel and mass relays do that)
• Minimise conflict between all sapiens (The race gestalt in a reaper had no internal conflict)
• Minimise the likelihood of galactic organic extinction (Organics are preserved in the reaper, including their DNA)

You could be _very_ careful to define "peace" and yet still allow for The Cycle to be a "better" solution, compared to galactic organic extinction.
Of course I don’t agree with the OP that the _Reapers_ wanted Shepard to succeed though I do agree that it’s likely that the Catalyst did _after_ the Crucible docked and the other options were made available.

Then your missing the big question to why Shepard was left alive. There is not reason to leave him alive  and allowed to go to the beam other than being allowed to.(And no I'm not done with IT.)

[Jadebaby]

dreman9999 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Unless he's told to do somethng else.
You have to note that the loop hole is there. With the crucible , to salutions pop up to solve it's programing. Using the crucible or reap. What happens to a machine that is told to do two things at one and not given direction to which to do first and can only do one of the commands at once? It idels. Add, it can be told to reaper some where else.

.......

What!?

Think like a machine.If your given two thing to do at one and no directive to what to do first and can only one one. What would you do?

What was it's other order?

[dreman9999]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Unless he's told to do somethng else.
You have to note that the loop hole is there. With the crucible , to salutions pop up to solve it's programing. Using the crucible or reap. What happens to a machine that is told to do two things at one and not given direction to which to do first and can only do one of the commands at once? It idels. Add, it can be told to reaper some where else.

.......

What!?

Think like a machine.If your given two thing to do at one and no directive to what to do first and can only one one. What would you do?

What was it's other order?

The orders are reap and allow use of crucible. But the referance is to any machine.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:30 .

[Modernpreacher]

I posted some stuff in a similar vein a week ago or so.

I don't think the Catalyst wants Shepard to WIN, but I think the Catalyst is aware now that there may be an alternative solution to what he's been attempting to do for countless years, though he requires an external source to create the actual change.

The Catalyst is aware that there isn't a solution on his own, he isn't solving the problem he was built to solve, he's delaying resolving it. Over and over. And he knows that. He's doing what he can to prevent the total destruction of organic life by Reaping species every cycle. Pressing that Reset button, till FINALLY an actual solution becomes possible.

[dreman9999]

Modernpreacher wrote...

I posted some stuff in a similar vein a week ago or so.

I don't think the Catalyst wants Shepard to WIN, but I think the Catalyst is aware now that there may be an alternative solution to what he's been attempting to do for countless years, though he requires an external source to create the actual change.

The Catalyst is aware that there isn't a solution on his own, he isn't solving the problem he was built to solve, he's delaying resolving it. Over and over. And he knows that. He's doing what he can to prevent the total destruction of organic life by Reaping species every cycle. Pressing that Reset button, till FINALLY an actual solution becomes possible.

That kinda the same thing as wanting Shepard to win.

[iAFKinMassEffect3]

I don't think the Reapers are binded to the cycle.
More so they found it to be the only purpose for them they know of.

[Silhouett3]

dreman9999 wrote...
That is also base less being that the catalyst can do or has never done anything out side it's programing. Add how even it thinks the salution it's doing is flawed.  With that it and the fire referance, it points that it is shackled.

Baseless arguments don't counter with each other. They are just baseless, nothing more. Threads like this which must depend on baseless assumptions as I've pointed out are far from being titled such as "The Truth".

[The Angry One]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

TAO, as grammatically incoherent as dreman9999 is and as insufferable as his/her assertions still are (I honestly though he/she would be done after I.T. was thankfully killed) I really do think you're being disingenuous here.

If you logically observe a situation where organics _always_ tend to war with synthetics and synthetics cannot avoid that conflict while also understanding that a sufficiently advanced synthetic can _scour_ the universe of organic material. Then it is obvious that _absolute_ peace is not possible, given the information available.

Even if the Catalyst was instructed to kill no organics, the (Azimovian) rule "by omission of action" has always been problematic in classical sci-fi and has frequently been omitted and/or qualified to allow an AI to function in an organic society without interfering with almost all facets of organic life. Once the "omission of action" clause is removed then the next time you have a force of organic-destruction-bound synthetics you simply harness them to your will, (perhaps offering them insight in return for fealty) at that point you no longer need to _order_ them to kill you just need to restrict them to killing in the most beneficial way to maintain “peace”.

After all, how do you define peace, when "obsolete" peace isn't possible?

• Minimise cultural upheaval? (Cultures are preserved in the Reaper chassis)
• Minimise total number of organic deaths? (Overall, The Cycle minimised the number of deaths)
• Maximise the likelihood of coexistence between races? (The Citadel and mass relays do that)
• Minimise conflict between all sapiens (The race gestalt in a reaper had no internal conflict)
• Minimise the likelihood of galactic organic extinction (Organics are preserved in the reaper, including their DNA)

You could be _very_ careful to define "peace" and yet still allow for The Cycle to be a "better" solution, compared to galactic organic extinction.
Of course I don’t agree with the OP that the _Reapers_ wanted Shepard to succeed though I do agree that it’s likely that the Catalyst did _after_ the Crucible docked and the other options were made available.

The problem is, by the Catalyst's own admission, the parameters change from peace to survival. In that your list makes little sense, it jumps from preventing conflict to ensuring survival for no real reason.
Survival was never even implied in the Catalyst's origin, it was created to bring peace and understanding.

[dreman9999]

Silhouett3 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
That is also base less being that the catalyst can do or has never done anything out side it's programing. Add how even it thinks the salution it's doing is flawed.  With that it and the fire referance, it points that it is shackled.

Baseless arguments don't counter with each other. They are just baseless, nothing more. Threads like this which must depend on baseless assumptions as I've pointed out are far from being titled such as "The Truth".

It'as not base less. This is what the catalyst says.

He clearly says he i s stuck doing what he is programed to do and clear says he doesn't want to havest organics. This is clear cut definition of a shacked AI.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:44 .

[Modernpreacher]

It's not really the same thing.

They are machines, they don't want ANYONE to win. They want to resolve the problem they are programmed to resolve.

Right now they are incapable of resolving the problem. They are delaying resolution and have been for untold years.

Finally a solution is possible, of course the Catalyst wants to do what it was made to do.

It's like the Computer in Wargames. For the last gajillion years it's been waiting for someone to show them a way to win Tic-Tac-Toe.

[dreman9999]

The Angry One wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...

TAO, as grammatically incoherent as dreman9999 is and as insufferable as his/her assertions still are (I honestly though he/she would be done after I.T. was thankfully killed) I really do think you're being disingenuous here.

If you logically observe a situation where organics _always_ tend to war with synthetics and synthetics cannot avoid that conflict while also understanding that a sufficiently advanced synthetic can _scour_ the universe of organic material. Then it is obvious that _absolute_ peace is not possible, given the information available.

Even if the Catalyst was instructed to kill no organics, the (Azimovian) rule "by omission of action" has always been problematic in classical sci-fi and has frequently been omitted and/or qualified to allow an AI to function in an organic society without interfering with almost all facets of organic life. Once the "omission of action" clause is removed then the next time you have a force of organic-destruction-bound synthetics you simply harness them to your will, (perhaps offering them insight in return for fealty) at that point you no longer need to _order_ them to kill you just need to restrict them to killing in the most beneficial way to maintain “peace”.

After all, how do you define peace, when "obsolete" peace isn't possible?

• Minimise cultural upheaval? (Cultures are preserved in the Reaper chassis)
• Minimise total number of organic deaths? (Overall, The Cycle minimised the number of deaths)
• Maximise the likelihood of coexistence between races? (The Citadel and mass relays do that)
• Minimise conflict between all sapiens (The race gestalt in a reaper had no internal conflict)
• Minimise the likelihood of galactic organic extinction (Organics are preserved in the reaper, including their DNA)

You could be _very_ careful to define "peace" and yet still allow for The Cycle to be a "better" solution, compared to galactic organic extinction.
Of course I don’t agree with the OP that the _Reapers_ wanted Shepard to succeed though I do agree that it’s likely that the Catalyst did _after_ the Crucible docked and the other options were made available.

The problem is, by the Catalyst's own admission, the parameters change from peace to survival. In that your list makes little sense, it jumps from preventing conflict to ensuring survival for no real reason.
Survival was never even implied in the Catalyst's origin, it was created to bring peace and understanding.

No, he never said i changed for peace to sevival. He said that the old salution where not working and changed them. The issues of servival was part of the issue from the start but not he reason for the chance of the salution. You're warping it agein.

[dreman9999]

Modernpreacher wrote...

It's not really the same thing.

They are machines, they don't want ANYONE to win. They want to resolve the problem they are programmed to resolve.

Right now they are incapable of resolving the problem. They are delaying resolution and have been for untold years.

Finally a solution is possible, of course the Catalyst wants to do what it was made to do.

It's like the Computer in Wargames. For the last gajillion years it's been waiting for someone to show them a way to win Tic-Tac-Toe.

The prase WIn is just based on perspective. If you want to be more define it's really just then wanting Shep to use the crucible. Saying win is just a basic way of saying that.

[Silhouett3]

dreman9999 wrote...

He clearly says he i s stuck doing what he is programed to do and clear says he doesn't want to havest organics. This is clear cut definition of a shacked AI.

There is a huge gap between a shackled AI and an AI repeating a pattern it explains is necessary, it preserves all life, restores balance, the Reapers are the good protectors of the universe and at the same time are known to be deceptive manipulators=]

[MadRabbit999]

It is a good theory, but there are a few points I cannot agree with.

Harbinger, obviously did not hit Anderson, since he barely has a scratch, why would that be? I'd say better to almost kill Anderson than almost killing Shepard, beside, Shepard does not go down and immediately gets up, to me it gives the impression that several minutes have passed, enough for Harbinger to see nobody moving on the ground (AKA everyone's dead) and fly away. Also there are several people still with life in them after Harbinger leave, like that soldier that tries to reach for you, so this proves Harbinger does not have some kind of "Scan" to see if people are dead or alive, and relies on eyesight (Probably because t he reapers were designed to destroy ships, rather than people).

Refusing the blue option clearly show how the catalyst does not want Shepard to replace him, he says something in the lines of "And I am not looking forward in being replaced by you", a bit strange if he really wanted Shepard to succeed.

But this point is the most obvious to me: The Catalyst says the crucible changed him, meaning what you see now is not what the Catalyst usually is, this gentle shape he took and the sweet voice, is forced upon him. And when the energy of the crucible runs out, he returns being his old scary self.

Modifié par MadRabbit999, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:39 .

[Pantanplan]

Kendar Fleetfoot wrote...

Can someone create an AI to resolve the conflict on this thread??? 

Every 50 hours it will delete every single BSN account that has more than 100 posts, to prevent them from deleting other user accounts.... or something
 

Modifié par Pantanplan, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:01 .

[Eire Icon]

My take on this is fairly straight forward.

Lets look firstly at the Catalysts thinking or programming

It vastly different from an Organic. The Catalyst has a single purpose, to stop Synthetics from wiping out organic life. Now what is life? To an organic person that's fairly easy to answer, but to a Synthetic, devoid of emotion, a moral code, or an understanding of what life is past sentience, its a bit more difficult. The Reapers are sentient beings, so by harvesting organics into Reaper form, the Catalyst by his own logic, is preserving Organic life. With each cycle he is basically pressing the reset button. The fact that organics do not share his belief, is irrelevant. Doubt, guilt etc are organic emotions, and do not exist for Synthetic beings. Neither does pity for that matter !

A good example of the diversity of opinion on "Life" between organics and synthetics is provided by Legion. He explains that enslavement to the Reapers was preferable to extinction. To many organics, myself included, extinction would be preferable to enslavement and lack of free will. A synthetic and organic may well come to different conclusions because they define "Life" in different ways.

Now people have asked why would the Catalyst help Shepard. If the Catalyst truly believes that the cycle is the correct course of action, a solution to the chaos, then its fair to say he believes he is helping galactic existence, both organic and synthetic. In this scenario, there is no reason for him not to help Shepard. He is simply looking to do what he has always done, fulfill his purpose and provide a solution to the chaos.

As the Catalyst says, the possibilities for new solutions is a direct result of additional variables.

Now what could these variables be?

My own view is that the Geth Quarian War played a role in the commencement of the Reaper Cycle. As we know this was delayed by the Protheon scientists changing the keepers to only respond to the Citadel as opposed to the Reapers. The created, rebelled against their creators, the Catalysts definition for the need for a solution. So where was the variable? Well if the Reaper invasion had gone off as planned, the cycle would have commenced before the Geth and Quarains achieved peace on Rannoch. This is a variable, and I believe an AI would see it as a variable if in previous cycles the opportunity had not been given for peace to be achieved. Now for some, peace was not achieved and the Geth or Quarians were destroyed, however the potential for peace was still there and for me its still a variable if previous cycles had been initiated before a chance for peace was given.

The fact that the galaxy is united, both organic and synthetic is also likely to be another key variable. Turian, Asari, Human, Geth, Quarians, EDI, Rachni all facing the Reapers in a unified front. Has it happened before?, we don't know, would this qualify as a variable I think it would

The most obvious example of a variable is the synthesis option. Previously it was not possible, now it is. That in itself is a huge variable in an optimum solution.

These are just three of examples for potential variables, there are others such as Shepards implants, EDI's role in the Normandy crew and others. If the Catalyst thinks in a linear manner, then its fair to say even one or two variables, will unbalance his own equation, making his solution invalid or no longer optimal.

So why does he need Shepard to make this decision? I have my own views on this. It could be a fail safe in his programming. It could be due to the fact that his previous solution will no longer work and its logical to assume that if his previous actions have been proved incorrect, that the potential of him making an error again is logically possible. I think the most credible reason however is synthesis. The Catalyst does not hide the fact that this is his preferred solution, and he also acknowledges the fact that it "Cannot be forced". By uniting the galaxy Shepard is a credible voice to act on the galaxies behalf. For Synthesis to be achieved his input is needed. Again the Catalyst is looking to perform his function.

In terms of what Harbinger said, I did hear "Save us" myself, however I believe this was directed at the Catalyst as opposed to Shepard. Maybe he saw Anderson take the beam to the Citadel, or maybe he came to the conclusion that while he had stopped people boarding the Citadel thus far, all that was needed was for one person to succeed. With the Crucible about to dock there were going to be more attempts. I believe Harbinger was prompting the Catalyst into consciousness to assess the situation

Just my two cents

[LordRaptor]

Bump (at work, will give responses later)

[Chief Commander]

The Angry One wrote...

The problem is, by the Catalyst's own admission, the parameters change from peace to survival. In that your list makes little sense, it jumps from preventing conflict to ensuring survival for no real reason.
Survival was never even implied in the Catalyst's origin, it was created to bring peace and understanding.

I´ve read all your replies so far and good lord, you are very ignorant. Let the OP and any others believe in this theory. Who are you to say "No this is wrong"? Why would you care so much about what others apparently must think about the game? Can you give me an explanation for "Save us" "So be it!" and then the very calm "The cycle continues" other then "HUEHEUE SPECULATIONS MAGICU!"? I bet you can´t. This theory sounds very valid and the Catalyst even states the very first Reapers were created against their will, but they saw no other way. And now Shepard himself has shown the Reapers that THERE IS another way, so they want to aid him and finally end the cycle of slaughtering.

So be so kind and get out of this thread. You are really everywhere trying to force your opinion on others and keep telling people they are wrong. What´s wrong with you? Trying to become famous in this forum? What´s your deal?

[Vigilant111]

@OP: the so-called proof u provided can also be interpreted as IT, and this is coming from someone who is not an avowed IT fan, especially your favorite evidence, that could be interpreted as manipulation

The reapers want Shepard to succeed in achieving the Catalyst's visions, at that very moment they are still under Catalyst's control, they are either under control or they agree with Catalyst's solutions

The reapers are not under any obligation to listen to anyone, they can do whatever they want, if they can be benevolent, they can also be malevolent no matter who they are

I thought the reapers were supposed to favour all three options, not just synthesis, all three endings guarantee their release from the Catalyst's grip, the rest depends on the gamer's rationale and experience

My point is, it really doesn't matter what the Catalyst said, or what the reapers thought, in the end the gamers should act independently, and only make decisions based on their own knowledge, experience and most of all: speculations

Modifié par Vigilant111, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:15 .

[dreman9999]

Silhouett3 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

He clearly says he i s stuck doing what he is programed to do and clear says he doesn't want to havest organics. This is clear cut definition of a shacked AI.

There is a huge gap between a shackled AI and an AI repeating a pattern it explains is necessary, it preserves all life, restores balance, the Reapers are the good protectors of the universe and at the same time are known to be deceptive manipulators=]

You clearly don't no what an AI is. An AI is too self aware and advanec to get into a loop. That only happens to VI's and limited programs and Machines. Loops only happen when a limit to a program is reached. That can't happen to a self aware AI be that it can write it's own code.
An AI can only go into a loop when it's can't correct itself or rewrite it self.  There's areason why it ask Shepard to use the crucible and says he can't choose the new salution. He's shackled.

[dreman9999]

Vigilant111 wrote...

@OP: the so-called proof u provided can also be interpreted as IT, and this is coming from someone who is not an avowed IT fan, especially your favorite evidence, that could be interpreted as manipulation

The reapers want Shepard to succeed in achieving the Catalyst's visions, at that very moment they are still under Catalyst's control, they are either under control or they agree with Catalyst's solutions

The reapers are not under any obligation to listen to anyone, they can do whatever they want, if they can be benevolent, they can also be malevolent no matter who they are

I thought the reapers were supposed to favour all three options, not just synthesis, all three endings guarantee their release from the Catalyst's grip, the rest depends on the gamer's rationale and experience

My point is, it really doesn't matter what the Catalyst said, or what the reapers did, in the end the gamers should act independently, and only make decisions based on their own knowledge, experience and most of all: speculations

The reapers are machine trapped in the same program loop. What your not understanding is machines andorganics think differently. The only way the reapers can do things out side of the program is it allowed to changing it's own programing. We have yet to see this. If it's part the the catalyst programing, then is trapped in the same logic loop. Do take there indivisuality as free will, this is the same concept of indoctrination. Saren still had his indivisuality but he still was control by they reapers. It's the same concept.
Indovisualiy does not mean free will.

[Vigilant111]

dreman9999 wrote...

The reapers are machine trapped in the same program loop. What your not understanding is machines andorganics think differently. The only way the reapers can do things out side of the program is it allowed to changing it's own programing. We have yet to see this. If it's part the the catalyst programing, then is trapped in the same logic loop. Do take there indivisuality as free will, this is the same concept of indoctrination. Saren still had his indivisuality but he still was control by they reapers. It's the same concept.
Indovisualiy does not mean free will.

Dreman Are u hinting that even though the Crucible has fired, the reapers will start havesting should they survive?

[Mobius-Silent]

The Angry One wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...

After all, how do you define peace, when "obsolete" peace isn't possible?

• Minimise cultural upheaval? (Cultures are preserved in the Reaper chassis)
• Minimise total number of organic deaths? (Overall, The Cycle minimised the number of deaths)
• Maximise the likelihood of coexistence between races? (The Citadel and mass relays do that)
• Minimise conflict between all sapiens (The race gestalt in a reaper had no internal conflict)
• Minimise the likelihood of galactic organic extinction (Organics are preserved in the reaper, including their DNA)

The problem is, by the Catalyst's own admission, the parameters change from peace to survival. In that your list makes little sense, it jumps from preventing conflict to ensuring survival for no real reason.
Survival was never even implied in the Catalyst's origin, it was created to bring peace and understanding.

by the Catalyst's own admission, the parameters change from peace to survival 

Excuse me? could you provide a direct quote for that statement, I don't think it's entirely accurate.

In that your list makes little sense, it jumps from preventing conflict to ensuring survival for no real reason. 

Each of the elements on that list could be used as a fragment of a heuristic for evaluating the quality of "peace" as a inter-species interaction status. Also each element of that list would provide a better fitness score for the heuristic given the implimented "cycle" solution, even though it was not created with that solution in mind.

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 05 juillet 2012 - 04:43 .

[Silhouett3]

dreman9999 wrote...

You clearly don't no what an AI is. An AI is too self aware and advanec to get into a loop. That only happens to VI's and limited programs and Machines. Loops only happen when a limit to a program is reached. That can't happen to a self aware AI be that it can write it's own code.
An AI can only go into a loop when it's can't correct itself or rewrite it self.  There's areason why it ask Shepard to use the crucible and says he can't choose the new salution. He's shackled.

No that's not even close to what I was saying. Anyway, for that argument to be plausible we need context to trust what Catalyst says is right. Considering it takes a form alien to itself, sent an indoctrinated agent to kill Shep 5 minutes ago and clearly lying to Shepard, there seems to be none.

Modifié par Silhouett3, 05 juillet 2012 - 03:15 .