463 réponses à ce sujet

[Rft552]

I personally like the analogy.

[NM_Che56]

Argable wrote...

Dusen wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

The thing is, the metaphor just doesn't work for Reapers. At all. The Catalyst simply ignores the fact that the Reaper fleet sustained large casualties in this cycle and so whole cycles of life were lost in the process of this extinction. The conflict between the Reapers and Organics is an actual war, not a simple cleaning operation, because it has taken a toll on both sides. Therefore, the Catalyst has failed to do what it was designed to do - again - and is simply dodging the facts.

Don't get what you're saying here....

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean either, at least in the context of the metaphor. The metaphor is to show the idiocy of the catalyst's own metaphor. It isn't claiming that the fire is cleaning your house. The point is that even when the fire is out (ie the reapers have been stopped) you will still hate that fire (reapers), you won't magically come around to loving it and its destruction of your house (the reapers destruction and genocide throughout the galaxy is to be forgiven according to the catalyst).

What Rasofe was getting at was that the catalyst's entire argument is that he's "saving" or "uplifting" civilizations by reaperizing them, but that means that if we kill a single reaper, he's lost an entire "uplifted" civilization by throwing it into conflict. He's trading several ENTIRE CIVILIZATIONS by his own reasoning just to subdue ours.

Yep.  He's making sacrifices to force his conclusion.

WE (Shepard) make sacrifices trying to stop it (geth, EDI, ourselves, etc).

[Rasofe]

dreman9999 wrote...

@Rasofe


Organics and synthetic have different concept on exsistance. What you thing is diffent from a maachine.
When you talk to the catalyst , it make it clear that he is trap doing it programing. It only havesting becasue it program is making him do it, he has no choice in the matter.
Take the time to think like a machine. A machine only does what it's programed to do unless it allowed to change what it's doing. If it can't change it will keep doing what it's doing till something stops it. it's told to do something else, or finishes what it's programed to do. This is destroy, control and synthesis in the catalyst case. The fire reference is just saying it has no choice in the matter, he is just doing what it is programed to do.

But you have to keep in mind the context. The statement is made specifically when Shepard argues against the Catalyst's claim that it is preventing war between synthetics and organics.

It is not preventing war. It is causing war that is Reapers versus Organics. Fire burning is not an appropriate metaphor in this context. Both sides took casualties, whole cycles of life were destroyed in the war, as Reaper form and as organic.

[TMA LIVE]

It's saying the bomb isn't at war. It's not in conflict. Same with a gun. It's simply doing what it was made to do. If anyone is at war, it's the person that uses fire for war. Uses a gun for war. Uses a bomb for war.

[Naugi]

Rasofe wrote...

Then the Reapers have failed English class, I'm afraid. A war is not a conceptual experience. It's a real world process that involves the above things that I claimed. It's really not about perspective, it's about ground-base definitions, like atomic theory and 1 = 1. If the Reapers do not acknowledge that this is war, then they are illogical, and the fact that the Catalysts claims that they are only a fire is illogical.  This AI is incredibly FLAWED.

That is the only point I'm trying to make. The others don't even need to be made, because they're not relevant., really. The Reapers do not operate on logic.

It's dancing around the term 'war' a little bit and obviously its debatable how much it matters if the Reapers consider themselves at war or not. I would see them considering themselves failing to perform their function efficiently if they are taking losses, but still not expect them to have our human concept of war - a fight between 2 enemies that hate each other. Mostly because I dont think the Reapers hate us. Again back to them performing a function.

They are in a war whether they percieve it as such or not, of course. The organics fight back hard this cycle, but I see the AI reacting in an 'Organics not dying, does not compute, solution not working, need new solution' kinda way with the Reapers either thinking the same or just not thinking and continuing to perform their function until given a new one.

I dont seem them crying 'Right, this is war!'

It's all a matter of how much humanity you want to believe the Reapers possess I suppose, how much they think about what they are doing, how much they care and to what degree they will react independantly. The answer to all of these to me is none or not at all.

I dont see a fire deciding its in a war because the firefighters arrive and start spraying water on it. The firefighters might think theyre at war. The fire is just burning ...

Thats how I like my Reapers anyway, and the fire analogy holds up with Reapers like that.

[TMA LIVE]

If anything, the Reapers are not at war. It's organics and the Geth that are at war with the Reapers. The Reapers are doing what they were made to do, and you're making war to resist them.

[dreman9999]

sth128 wrote...

Gogzilla wrote...

Its called perspective.
From the reaper POV its not war, its simply what they do.
Not everything has to use the same reference point or adhere to the same interpretations or abide by similar concepts.

Except Catalyst was trying to make Shepard understand. If the Reapers are so much beyond us, they should be able to understand our perspective. Catalyst should have said "when you purge an infection from your body, is it war". Catalyst claims itself as a fire without intent, yet he clearly says his purpose is to reach an understanding between organics and synthetics.

Rasofe wrote...

Nope.
In a way that I can't explain because I'm not as Flawless as HAL.
Please don't ruin one of the worst (best) villains in movie history for me...

HAL wasn't flawless. I always thought Clarke was using HAL as a warning for intelligence without compassion. HAL saw himself as the next logical step, a machine-born superiority complex. HAL was willing to rob humans the chance to meet something greater (creators of the monoliths) by murdering the crew one by one.

Master Che wrote...

Then why are the producers (Mike Gamble) and others (Tully Ackland) supplementing things via posts and twitter? Obviously the creators have something in mind.

Because they realized their product is illogical and can be interpreted in conflicting ways? So they rushed to come up with excuses to try and cover the glaring errors? And to give us some "free" content hoping that fans would just ignore said errors and be happy about the situation?

@ DinoSteve:

LOL wut? That pix is awesome.

RiouHotaru wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Your the one the set it on fire so yes you are at war.
2. The fire has no choice in the matter, that's what he means.

This. Fire is a tool. The person USING it makes the choice.

Same as the bomb. Sorry OP, your logic is flawed.

So the Reapers set fires to our cities - therefore they declared war against us.

Catalyst described all Reapers and himself as the fire. Except that's a faulty comparison. They aren't unthinking beings. They have a choice. They chose to not burn the infant species. They chose to continue the cycle instead of searching for new solutions.

Catalyst is using the fire. He is setting fire to civilizations while deceiving itself it can do nothing but burn. Catalyst said "I control the Reapers". That means he controls the fire. And like you said, the person using it makes the choice. He cannot shrug off his crimes.

A michine only does what it's programed to do if it can't change it. If it's programed to set our cities of fire, it will do it because it's bounded by it programing. It has not the free will to go ageints its programing. Using an comparison to   a person fails because a person has free will. A machine if bounded enough does not have free will. Calling the catalyst a genocidal murder is like calling a car that killed some on in a hit and run a murder.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:07 .

[kyleshuey]

 This line reminded me of the line from the avengers "does an ant have a quarrel with a boot?"

[sth128]

Rasofe wrote...

That's where you're wrong. I declare war on my lawn every week!

Then you should burn it to the ground. It's the only solution to the man-grass conflict.

Rudimentary plants of fiber and cells, you touch my feet, swaying in ignorance.

Grass is chaos. Organic plants are chaos. We must bring order to the lawn. We are so far beyond their existence that they can never hope to understand us.

We impose order on the chaos of plant growth. They exist because we allow it, and they will end because we demand it.

[Rasofe]

Naugi wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Then the Reapers have failed English class, I'm afraid. A war is not a conceptual experience. It's a real world process that involves the above things that I claimed. It's really not about perspective, it's about ground-base definitions, like atomic theory and 1 = 1. If the Reapers do not acknowledge that this is war, then they are illogical, and the fact that the Catalysts claims that they are only a fire is illogical.  This AI is incredibly FLAWED.

That is the only point I'm trying to make. The others don't even need to be made, because they're not relevant., really. The Reapers do not operate on logic.

It's dancing around the term 'war' a little bit and obviously its debatable how much it matters if the Reapers consider themselves at war or not. I would see them considering themselves failing to perform their function efficiently if they are taking losses, but still not expect them to have our human concept of war - a fight between 2 enemies that hate each other. Mostly because I dont think the Reapers hate us. Again back to them performing a function.

They are in a war whether they percieve it as such or not, of course. The organics fight back hard this cycle, but I see the AI reacting in an 'Organics not dying, does not compute, solution not working, need new solution' kinda way with the Reapers either thinking the same or just not thinking and continuing to perform their function until given a new one.

I dont seem them crying 'Right, this is war!'

It's all a matter of how much humanity you want to believe the Reapers possess I suppose, how much they think about what they are doing, how much they care and to what degree they will react independantly. The answer to all of these to me is none or not at all.

I dont see a fire deciding its in a war because the firefighters arrive and start spraying water on it. The firefighters might think theyre at war. The fire is just burning ...

Thats how I like my Reapers anyway, and the fire analogy holds up with Reapers like that.

No no no, it's a lot more simple. In the context of the situation, Shepard asks the Catalyst - if you were trying to prevent war from synthetics with organics, why did you make the synthetic reapers have war with us organics.

It's answer is basically - this isn't a war, they're just cleansing the universe of life.

And war doesn't factor into hate directly. The first world war and the American Revolution War, even the Napoleonic wars had very little to do with actual hate. I believe at this point you are overhumanising nations, which usually have as much sympathy and value for human life as the Reapers do. War is a means to an end through armed conflict, and the Catalyst refuses to acknowledge this. It is therefore WRONG.

[dreman9999]

Rasofe wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

@Rasofe


Organics and synthetic have different concept on exsistance. What you thing is diffent from a maachine.
When you talk to the catalyst , it make it clear that he is trap doing it programing. It only havesting becasue it program is making him do it, he has no choice in the matter.
Take the time to think like a machine. A machine only does what it's programed to do unless it allowed to change what it's doing. If it can't change it will keep doing what it's doing till something stops it. it's told to do something else, or finishes what it's programed to do. This is destroy, control and synthesis in the catalyst case. The fire reference is just saying it has no choice in the matter, he is just doing what it is programed to do.

But you have to keep in mind the context. The statement is made specifically when Shepard argues against the Catalyst's claim that it is preventing war between synthetics and organics.

It is not preventing war. It is causing war that is Reapers versus Organics. Fire burning is not an appropriate metaphor in this context. Both sides took casualties, whole cycles of life were destroyed in the war, as Reaper form and as organic.

But it the catalyst program the forces it to.  Even the catalyst know what it's doing it wrong but it can't do anything about untill some one turns him off, changes his program or opens a new way for him to do his programing.
Machine think in absoults, any programer will tell you this. It will do want it's told no matter how much it doesn't make sense.

[Rasofe]

dreman9999 wrote...

sth128 wrote...

Gogzilla wrote...

Its called perspective.
From the reaper POV its not war, its simply what they do.
Not everything has to use the same reference point or adhere to the same interpretations or abide by similar concepts.

Except Catalyst was trying to make Shepard understand. If the Reapers are so much beyond us, they should be able to understand our perspective. Catalyst should have said "when you purge an infection from your body, is it war". Catalyst claims itself as a fire without intent, yet he clearly says his purpose is to reach an understanding between organics and synthetics.

Rasofe wrote...

Nope.
In a way that I can't explain because I'm not as Flawless as HAL.
Please don't ruin one of the worst (best) villains in movie history for me...

HAL wasn't flawless. I always thought Clarke was using HAL as a warning for intelligence without compassion. HAL saw himself as the next logical step, a machine-born superiority complex. HAL was willing to rob humans the chance to meet something greater (creators of the monoliths) by murdering the crew one by one.

Master Che wrote...

Then why are the producers (Mike Gamble) and others (Tully Ackland) supplementing things via posts and twitter? Obviously the creators have something in mind.

Because they realized their product is illogical and can be interpreted in conflicting ways? So they rushed to come up with excuses to try and cover the glaring errors? And to give us some "free" content hoping that fans would just ignore said errors and be happy about the situation?

@ DinoSteve:

LOL wut? That pix is awesome.

RiouHotaru wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Your the one the set it on fire so yes you are at war.
2. The fire has no choice in the matter, that's what he means.

This. Fire is a tool. The person USING it makes the choice.

Same as the bomb. Sorry OP, your logic is flawed.

So the Reapers set fires to our cities - therefore they declared war against us.

Catalyst described all Reapers and himself as the fire. Except that's a faulty comparison. They aren't unthinking beings. They have a choice. They chose to not burn the infant species. They chose to continue the cycle instead of searching for new solutions.

Catalyst is using the fire. He is setting fire to civilizations while deceiving itself it can do nothing but burn. Catalyst said "I control the Reapers". That means he controls the fire. And like you said, the person using it makes the choice. He cannot shrug off his crimes.

A michine only does what it's programed to do if it can't change it. If it's programed to set our cities of fire, it will do it because it's bounded by it programing. It has not the free will to go ageints its programing. Using an analy with a person fails because a person has free will a machine if bounded enough does not have free will. Calling the catalyst a genocidal murder is like calling a car that killed some on in a hit and run a murder.

Being mechanical doesn't excempt it from not having the good sense not to use inappropriate analogies that lack reason or applicability.

[dreman9999]

Rasofe wrote...

Naugi wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Then the Reapers have failed English class, I'm afraid. A war is not a conceptual experience. It's a real world process that involves the above things that I claimed. It's really not about perspective, it's about ground-base definitions, like atomic theory and 1 = 1. If the Reapers do not acknowledge that this is war, then they are illogical, and the fact that the Catalysts claims that they are only a fire is illogical.  This AI is incredibly FLAWED.

That is the only point I'm trying to make. The others don't even need to be made, because they're not relevant., really. The Reapers do not operate on logic.

It's dancing around the term 'war' a little bit and obviously its debatable how much it matters if the Reapers consider themselves at war or not. I would see them considering themselves failing to perform their function efficiently if they are taking losses, but still not expect them to have our human concept of war - a fight between 2 enemies that hate each other. Mostly because I dont think the Reapers hate us. Again back to them performing a function.

They are in a war whether they percieve it as such or not, of course. The organics fight back hard this cycle, but I see the AI reacting in an 'Organics not dying, does not compute, solution not working, need new solution' kinda way with the Reapers either thinking the same or just not thinking and continuing to perform their function until given a new one.

I dont seem them crying 'Right, this is war!'

It's all a matter of how much humanity you want to believe the Reapers possess I suppose, how much they think about what they are doing, how much they care and to what degree they will react independantly. The answer to all of these to me is none or not at all.

I dont see a fire deciding its in a war because the firefighters arrive and start spraying water on it. The firefighters might think theyre at war. The fire is just burning ...

Thats how I like my Reapers anyway, and the fire analogy holds up with Reapers like that.

No no no, it's a lot more simple. In the context of the situation, Shepard asks the Catalyst - if you were trying to prevent war from synthetics with organics, why did you make the synthetic reapers have war with us organics.

It's answer is basically - this isn't a war, they're just cleansing the universe of life.

And war doesn't factor into hate directly. The first world war and the American Revolution War, even the Napoleonic wars had very little to do with actual hate. I believe at this point you are overhumanising nations, which usually have as much sympathy and value for human life as the Reapers do. War is a means to an end through armed conflict, and the Catalyst refuses to acknowledge this. It is therefore WRONG.

Then you miss understood the awnser. It's basicly saying it's doing what it's told. The fire refecnce is an anology to that. Fire burns and heats, that's what it's made to do.

[macrocarl]

dreman9999 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

macrocarl wrote...

The best part about that analogy for me is it explains why Harby didn't laser eyeball the Normandy when Joker lands right near the beam in the EC at the end. His job was to protect the beam from people coming at the beam. Normandy was leaving. Since Harby is a tool for the Starkid it didn't even register to Harby as a threat. Kind of cool.

Maybe. It also makes Harbinger's obsession with Shepard in ME2 more confusing, though.

My when he screams "Serve us" at you before shooting a beam at you maybe at hint.

Yup. Maybe for sure. But it kind of *does* explain Harby in ME2 if you think about it this way: Harby's job was build a human Reaper so of course he'd be obsessed with it since it's his job and Shep is trying to make him fail. Then when his job changes in ME3 to laser elevator goalie he doesn't care about people leaving. New job, new parameters of obsession.

[NM_Che56]

dreman9999 wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Then why are the producers (Mike Gamble) and others (Tully Ackland) supplementing things via posts and twitter? Obviously the creators have something in mind.

Because they realized their product is illogical and can be interpreted in conflicting ways? So they rushed to come up with excuses to try and cover the glaring errors? And to give us some "free" content hoping that fans would just ignore said errors and be happy about the situation?

Prior to EC, I would agree with you.  However, people are still wanting explanations for what should now be obvious.  This is the source of much great personal butt hurt.

[Rasofe]

dreman9999 wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

@Rasofe


Organics and synthetic have different concept on exsistance. What you thing is diffent from a maachine.
When you talk to the catalyst , it make it clear that he is trap doing it programing. It only havesting becasue it program is making him do it, he has no choice in the matter.
Take the time to think like a machine. A machine only does what it's programed to do unless it allowed to change what it's doing. If it can't change it will keep doing what it's doing till something stops it. it's told to do something else, or finishes what it's programed to do. This is destroy, control and synthesis in the catalyst case. The fire reference is just saying it has no choice in the matter, he is just doing what it is programed to do.

But you have to keep in mind the context. The statement is made specifically when Shepard argues against the Catalyst's claim that it is preventing war between synthetics and organics.

It is not preventing war. It is causing war that is Reapers versus Organics. Fire burning is not an appropriate metaphor in this context. Both sides took casualties, whole cycles of life were destroyed in the war, as Reaper form and as organic.

But it the catalyst program the forces it to.  Even the catalyst know what it's doing it wrong but it can't do anything about untill some one turns him off, changes his program or opens a new way for him to do his programing.
Machine think in absoults, any programer will tell you this. It will do want it's told no matter how much it doesn't make sense.

Its use of the "Fire burns is not a war" analogy is still wrong. And it seems to directly fail at one of its derectives, to prevent war between synthetics and organics.  It is in fact accomplishing this by... having a war with organics using synthetics.

Basically, it should've just gone completely insane and decided that the only way to prevent war between organics and synthetics is to destroy the galaxy they inhabit. But if they did, Mass Effect wouldn't exist.

[Argable]

sth128 wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

That's where you're wrong. I declare war on my lawn every week!

Then you should burn it to the ground. It's the only solution to the man-grass conflict.

Rudimentary plants of fiber and cells, you touch my feet, swaying in ignorance.

Grass is chaos. Organic plants are chaos. We must bring order to the lawn. We are so far beyond their existence that they can never hope to understand us.

We impose order on the chaos of plant growth. They exist because we allow it, and they will end because we demand it.

No! We must preserve the legacy of the cycle of grass! Mow it all down, pulp it and turn it into paper, then make a lawnlower out of the paper so that the cycle may continue. That is true order!

[dreman9999]

Rasofe wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

sth128 wrote...

Gogzilla wrote...

Its called perspective.
From the reaper POV its not war, its simply what they do.
Not everything has to use the same reference point or adhere to the same interpretations or abide by similar concepts.

Except Catalyst was trying to make Shepard understand. If the Reapers are so much beyond us, they should be able to understand our perspective. Catalyst should have said "when you purge an infection from your body, is it war". Catalyst claims itself as a fire without intent, yet he clearly says his purpose is to reach an understanding between organics and synthetics.

Rasofe wrote...

Nope.
In a way that I can't explain because I'm not as Flawless as HAL.
Please don't ruin one of the worst (best) villains in movie history for me...

HAL wasn't flawless. I always thought Clarke was using HAL as a warning for intelligence without compassion. HAL saw himself as the next logical step, a machine-born superiority complex. HAL was willing to rob humans the chance to meet something greater (creators of the monoliths) by murdering the crew one by one.

Master Che wrote...

Then why are the producers (Mike Gamble) and others (Tully Ackland) supplementing things via posts and twitter? Obviously the creators have something in mind.

Because they realized their product is illogical and can be interpreted in conflicting ways? So they rushed to come up with excuses to try and cover the glaring errors? And to give us some "free" content hoping that fans would just ignore said errors and be happy about the situation?

@ DinoSteve:

LOL wut? That pix is awesome.

RiouHotaru wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Your the one the set it on fire so yes you are at war.
2. The fire has no choice in the matter, that's what he means.

This. Fire is a tool. The person USING it makes the choice.

Same as the bomb. Sorry OP, your logic is flawed.

So the Reapers set fires to our cities - therefore they declared war against us.

Catalyst described all Reapers and himself as the fire. Except that's a faulty comparison. They aren't unthinking beings. They have a choice. They chose to not burn the infant species. They chose to continue the cycle instead of searching for new solutions.

Catalyst is using the fire. He is setting fire to civilizations while deceiving itself it can do nothing but burn. Catalyst said "I control the Reapers". That means he controls the fire. And like you said, the person using it makes the choice. He cannot shrug off his crimes.

A michine only does what it's programed to do if it can't change it. If it's programed to set our cities of fire, it will do it because it's bounded by it programing. It has not the free will to go ageints its programing. Using an analy with a person fails because a person has free will a machine if bounded enough does not have free will. Calling the catalyst a genocidal murder is like calling a car that killed some on in a hit and run a murder.

Being mechanical doesn't excempt it from not having the good sense not to use inappropriate analogies that lack reason or applicability.

Then you clearly don't understand how a machine thinks. They don't have a choice if the program tell it to do something. If you command  computer your to turn off , does it ever tell you"No, I don't want to"?

[sth128]

Rasofe wrote...

Being mechanical doesn't excempt it from not having the good sense not to use inappropriate analogies that lack reason or applicability.

Also the Reapers aren't just machines. They are sapient AIs that surpass in ability to any AI we have seen.

If Geth and EDI don't think in absolutes, why should the Reapers?

Besides, whoever said "any programmer will tell you machine only deal with absolutes" knows nothing about AI programming. The whole point of emergent intelligence is that it doesn't only do what we tell it to do. The goal of AI research is to create an intelligence capable of passing the Turing Test, to actually BE intelligent, something more than "just a machine".

[Rasofe]

dreman9999 wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Naugi wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Then the Reapers have failed English class, I'm afraid. A war is not a conceptual experience. It's a real world process that involves the above things that I claimed. It's really not about perspective, it's about ground-base definitions, like atomic theory and 1 = 1. If the Reapers do not acknowledge that this is war, then they are illogical, and the fact that the Catalysts claims that they are only a fire is illogical.  This AI is incredibly FLAWED.

That is the only point I'm trying to make. The others don't even need to be made, because they're not relevant., really. The Reapers do not operate on logic.

It's dancing around the term 'war' a little bit and obviously its debatable how much it matters if the Reapers consider themselves at war or not. I would see them considering themselves failing to perform their function efficiently if they are taking losses, but still not expect them to have our human concept of war - a fight between 2 enemies that hate each other. Mostly because I dont think the Reapers hate us. Again back to them performing a function.

They are in a war whether they percieve it as such or not, of course. The organics fight back hard this cycle, but I see the AI reacting in an 'Organics not dying, does not compute, solution not working, need new solution' kinda way with the Reapers either thinking the same or just not thinking and continuing to perform their function until given a new one.

I dont seem them crying 'Right, this is war!'

It's all a matter of how much humanity you want to believe the Reapers possess I suppose, how much they think about what they are doing, how much they care and to what degree they will react independantly. The answer to all of these to me is none or not at all.

I dont see a fire deciding its in a war because the firefighters arrive and start spraying water on it. The firefighters might think theyre at war. The fire is just burning ...

Thats how I like my Reapers anyway, and the fire analogy holds up with Reapers like that.

No no no, it's a lot more simple. In the context of the situation, Shepard asks the Catalyst - if you were trying to prevent war from synthetics with organics, why did you make the synthetic reapers have war with us organics.

It's answer is basically - this isn't a war, they're just cleansing the universe of life.

And war doesn't factor into hate directly. The first world war and the American Revolution War, even the Napoleonic wars had very little to do with actual hate. I believe at this point you are overhumanising nations, which usually have as much sympathy and value for human life as the Reapers do. War is a means to an end through armed conflict, and the Catalyst refuses to acknowledge this. It is therefore WRONG.

Then you miss understood the awnser. It's basicly saying it's doing what it's told. The fire refecnce is an anology to that. Fire burns and heats, that's what it's made to do.

If we take a line of out of context that way, why not say that when TIM was talking about control is the means to survival he was actually talking about his own respiratory system? Remember, the guy was a smoker!

[Carlthestrange]

"Only a Reaper deals in absolutes."

"...Wait."

[sth128]

dreman9999 wrote...

Then you clearly don't understand how a machine thinks. They don't have a choice if the program tell it to do something. If you command  computer your to turn off , does it ever tell you"No, I don't want to"?

No, it is you who does not understand how AI works. Equating the Reapers and the Catalyst to your Windows Vista?

Really? All your intelligence and that's the best you can come up with?

TIM told EDI to shut down, guess what she did?

That's right, she uploaded porn. That's the testament of a true AI right there: the ability to enjoy porn.

[Rasofe]

sth128 wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Being mechanical doesn't excempt it from not having the good sense not to use inappropriate analogies that lack reason or applicability.

Also the Reapers aren't just machines. They are sapient AIs that surpass in ability to any AI we have seen.

If Geth and EDI don't think in absolutes, why should the Reapers?

Besides, whoever said "any programmer will tell you machine only deal with absolutes" knows nothing about AI programming. The whole point of emergent intelligence is that it doesn't only do what we tell it to do. The goal of AI research is to create an intelligence capable of passing the Turing Test, to actually BE intelligent, something more than "just a machine".

That too.
Seriously, though, it would make sense that the Reapers are inferior in brain power to the Geth and EDI because they are based of an AI design millenia old. So they just might be simple gigantic machines rather than AI at all.

But that's speculation. Regardless if it is an AI or Machine, it shouldn't say analogies that make no sense and expect itself to be taken seriously. Whatever option you pick in the ending... good riddance, Catalyst!

[Rasofe]

sth128 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Then you clearly don't understand how a machine thinks. They don't have a choice if the program tell it to do something. If you command  computer your to turn off , does it ever tell you"No, I don't want to"?

No, it is you who does not understand how AI works. Equating the Reapers and the Catalyst to your Windows Vista?

Really? All your intelligence and that's the best you can come up with?

TIM told EDI to shut down, guess what she did?

That's right, she uploaded porn. That's the testament of a true AI right there: the ability to enjoy porn.

The testament of a living AI -after synthesiss- would then be to want to look like a porn model.
Honestly, only beings of true intelligence are capable of utter stupidity.

[Carlthestrange]

When fire burns, do we not blame the one who lit the fire?