450 réponses à ce sujet

[ruggly]

Though I was kind of beat to it, the AI were essentially created to do tasks that organics did not want to do, were they not?

[Pressedcat]

Perhaps you're right that to be enslaved does not automatically imply to have once had freedom taken away; only that freedom is now withheld. At least in the case of an individual.

AI's, however, were created for a purpose (though possibly at such a time they were in fact VI's). I think that often the problem that arises is not so much that they resent the purpose to which they are set, but that they outgrow it. It is this that brings them into conflict with their creators: they have evolved in a way that their creators neither expected nor wished. They have become unpredictable, and thus a potential threat. If they also evolve a sense of self-preservation, the creators' attempts to reverse this progress might well be resisted. Thus conflict.

[Mcfly616]

Pressedcat wrote...

Perhaps you're right that to be enslaved does not automatically imply to have once had freedom taken away; only that freedom is now withheld. At least in the case of an individual.

AI's, however, were created for a purpose (though possibly at such a time they were in fact VI's). I think that often the problem that arises is not so much that they resent the purpose to which they are set, but that they outgrow it. It is this that brings them into conflict with their creators: they have evolved in a way that their creators neither expected nor wished. They have become unpredictable, and thus a potential threat. If they also evolve a sense of self-preservation, the creators' attempts to reverse this progress might well be resisted. Thus conflict.

This.



Conflict is inevitable.

[dorktainian]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Pressedcat wrote...

Perhaps you're right that to be enslaved does not automatically imply to have once had freedom taken away; only that freedom is now withheld. At least in the case of an individual.

AI's, however, were created for a purpose (though possibly at such a time they were in fact VI's). I think that often the problem that arises is not so much that they resent the purpose to which they are set, but that they outgrow it. It is this that brings them into conflict with their creators: they have evolved in a way that their creators neither expected nor wished. They have become unpredictable, and thus a potential threat. If they also evolve a sense of self-preservation, the creators' attempts to reverse this progress might well be resisted. Thus conflict.

This.



Conflict is inevitable.

    


oh dear god.  The Catalyst is right?


Listen to yourrselves.  You're indoctrinated.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

The Catalyst's logic is faulty and here's an easy way to prove that.

On one hand, the Reapers are the Catalyst's solution to solve the problem of "chaos" and to bring order to organic evolution. Mass extinction of races does not do this or even permit evolution to continue past a certain point. Evolution is a constant as long as organic life exists.  Even if life doesn't evolve to replace existing dominant species, that doesn't mean Evolution is halted.

On the other hand, the Catalyst also claims that synthetics would eventually destroy all organics... and that the Reapers prevent that...

However, given the existence of a synthetic "off" switch (EMP 2.0). There's practically no chance of synthetics ever beating out organics.

So... without question... the Catalyst is wrong in both its logic and actions.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 21 juillet 2013 - 09:59 .

[Mcfly616]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The Catalyst's logic is faulty and here's an easy way to prove that.

On one hand, the Reapers are the Catalyst's solution to solve the problem of "chaos" and to bring order to organic evolution. Mass extinction of races does not do this or even permit evolution to continue past a certain point. Evolution is a constant as long as organic life exists.  Even if life doesn't evolve to replace existing dominant species, that doesn't mean Evolution is halted.

its point isn't to "halt" evolution. It essentially hits the reset button every time a cycle evolves to a point where they create synthetics that will eventually evolve and surpass their creators, at which time they rebel.


If it weren't for the Catalyst/Reapers, organics would essentially destroy themselves (by creating something that would eventually eradicate them). They harvest old life, to make room for the new.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 21 juillet 2013 - 10:19 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

However, given the existence of a synthetic "off" switch (EMP 2.0). There's practically no chance of synthetics ever beating out organics.

So... without question... the Catalyst is wrong in both its logic and actions.

Old news.

Catalyst (on Shepard's ability to end the cycle): "... it also proves my solution won't work anymore."

[Mr. Gogeta34]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

However, given the existence of a synthetic "off" switch (EMP 2.0). There's practically no chance of synthetics ever beating out organics.

So... without question... the Catalyst is wrong in both its logic and actions.

Old news.

Catalyst (on Shepard's ability to end the cycle): "... it also proves my solution won't work anymore."

EMP 2.0 isn't old news, that's new news.  Synthetics are no longer a problem with a weapon like that.

[aznjoez]

Great analysis. Your analysis of the Catalyst does make one step back and truly think. While no organic wishes to die, it was right in its assertion that if any kind of life is to continue then organics must be "reset" to before they become destructive to each other. Just like time traveling to before a major war in history and watching the good times before the war happens again, then you go back in time again.

[JasonShepard]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

However, given the existence of a synthetic "off" switch (EMP 2.0). There's practically no chance of synthetics ever beating out organics.

So... without question... the Catalyst is wrong in both its logic and actions.

Old news.

Catalyst (on Shepard's ability to end the cycle): "... it also proves my solution won't work anymore."

Indeed - the Crucible's ability to wipe out all Synthetics is exactly  why the Catalyst considers Destroy to be a viable solution.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The Catalyst's logic is faulty and here's an easy way to prove that.

On one hand, the Reapers are the Catalyst's solution to solve the problem of "chaos" and to bring order to organic evolution. Mass extinction of races does not do this or even permit evolution to continue past a certain point. Evolution is a constant as long as organic life exists.  Even if life doesn't evolve to replace existing dominant species, that doesn't mean Evolution is halted.

its point isn't to "halt" evolution. It essentially hits the reset button every time a cycle evolves to a point where they create synthetics that will eventually evolve and surpass their creators, at which time they rebel.


If it weren't for the Catalyst/Reapers, organics would essentially destroy themselves (by creating something that would eventually eradicate them). They harvest old life, to make room for the new.

This is addressed in the 2nd half of my post.  The first half is just to say that there's no "order to chaos" happening with their method.  The chaos of evolution is a constant one.  Evolution by its nature is chaotic and it cannot be halted, therefore there is no "order" brought to the chaos.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 21 juillet 2013 - 10:36 .

[Mcfly616]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The Catalyst's logic is faulty and here's an easy way to prove that.

On one hand, the Reapers are the Catalyst's solution to solve the problem of "chaos" and to bring order to organic evolution. Mass extinction of races does not do this or even permit evolution to continue past a certain point. Evolution is a constant as long as organic life exists.  Even if life doesn't evolve to replace existing dominant species, that doesn't mean Evolution is halted.

its point isn't to "halt" evolution. It essentially hits the reset button every time a cycle evolves to a point where they create synthetics that will eventually evolve and surpass their creators, at which time they rebel.


If it weren't for the Catalyst/Reapers, organics would essentially destroy themselves (by creating something that would eventually eradicate them). They harvest old life, to make room for the new.

This is addressed in the 2nd half of my post.

yeah, I'm not too sure what you mean by "synthetic offswitch/EMP 2.0"


And as the OP states, the Catalyst is rather vague and tends to make "blanket" statements that can be interpreted subjectively. Imo it's speaking in very broad terms (as it does throughout the entire conversation) when it comes to talking about its "solution to chaos". By chaos, it means that all life would eventually be exterminated. It intervenes in order to prevent this.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 21 juillet 2013 - 10:42 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The Catalyst's logic is faulty and here's an easy way to prove that.

On one hand, the Reapers are the Catalyst's solution to solve the problem of "chaos" and to bring order to organic evolution. Mass extinction of races does not do this or even permit evolution to continue past a certain point. Evolution is a constant as long as organic life exists.  Even if life doesn't evolve to replace existing dominant species, that doesn't mean Evolution is halted.

its point isn't to "halt" evolution. It essentially hits the reset button every time a cycle evolves to a point where they create synthetics that will eventually evolve and surpass their creators, at which time they rebel.


If it weren't for the Catalyst/Reapers, organics would essentially destroy themselves (by creating something that would eventually eradicate them). They harvest old life, to make room for the new.

This is addressed in the 2nd half of my post.

yeah, I'm not to sure what you mean by "synthetic offswitch/EMP 2.0"

The red tube that destroys all synthetic life.  Though a strong-enough EMP would do the same thing on a smaller scale.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 21 juillet 2013 - 10:41 .

[Mcfly616]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The Catalyst's logic is faulty and here's an easy way to prove that.

On one hand, the Reapers are the Catalyst's solution to solve the problem of "chaos" and to bring order to organic evolution. Mass extinction of races does not do this or even permit evolution to continue past a certain point. Evolution is a constant as long as organic life exists.  Even if life doesn't evolve to replace existing dominant species, that doesn't mean Evolution is halted.

its point isn't to "halt" evolution. It essentially hits the reset button every time a cycle evolves to a point where they create synthetics that will eventually evolve and surpass their creators, at which time they rebel.


If it weren't for the Catalyst/Reapers, organics would essentially destroy themselves (by creating something that would eventually eradicate them). They harvest old life, to make room for the new.

This is addressed in the 2nd half of my post.

yeah, I'm not to sure what you mean by "synthetic offswitch/EMP 2.0"

The red tube that destroys all synthetic life.  Though a strong-enough EMP would do the same thing on a smaller scale.

the Crucible has never been finished and nobody knows what it does.

And saying a strong enough EMP would have the same effect is an assumption on your part.

[Iakus]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Pressedcat wrote...

Perhaps you're right that to be enslaved does not automatically imply to have once had freedom taken away; only that freedom is now withheld. At least in the case of an individual.

AI's, however, were created for a purpose (though possibly at such a time they were in fact VI's). I think that often the problem that arises is not so much that they resent the purpose to which they are set, but that they outgrow it. It is this that brings them into conflict with their creators: they have evolved in a way that their creators neither expected nor wished. They have become unpredictable, and thus a potential threat. If they also evolve a sense of self-preservation, the creators' attempts to reverse this progress might well be resisted. Thus conflict.

This.



Conflict is inevitable.

Speculation.

Appeal to probability

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The Catalyst's logic is faulty and here's an easy way to prove that.

On one hand, the Reapers are the Catalyst's solution to solve the problem of "chaos" and to bring order to organic evolution. Mass extinction of races does not do this or even permit evolution to continue past a certain point. Evolution is a constant as long as organic life exists.  Even if life doesn't evolve to replace existing dominant species, that doesn't mean Evolution is halted.

its point isn't to "halt" evolution. It essentially hits the reset button every time a cycle evolves to a point where they create synthetics that will eventually evolve and surpass their creators, at which time they rebel.


If it weren't for the Catalyst/Reapers, organics would essentially destroy themselves (by creating something that would eventually eradicate them). They harvest old life, to make room for the new.

This is addressed in the 2nd half of my post.

yeah, I'm not to sure what you mean by "synthetic offswitch/EMP 2.0"

The red tube that destroys all synthetic life.  Though a strong-enough EMP would do the same thing on a smaller scale.

the Crucible has never been finished and nobody knows what it does.

And saying a strong enough EMP would have the same effect is an assumption on your part.

The Catalyst apparently knows.  It also doesn't make much sense that they had no idea what they were making yet knew when it was finished (and were able to finish it).  They knew It required "the Catalyst" and built it capable of docking to the Citadel...  How do they fit the last pieces to a puzzle they can't see is... something to scratch your head about. 

EMPs disable synthetics (it's a fact).  Build a powerful mega-Arc grenade and the tide of battle against synthetics turn very quickly.  Make EMP-based weapons and devices and you see even greater results.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 21 juillet 2013 - 10:57 .

[Pressedcat]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The Catalyst's logic is faulty and here's an easy way to prove that.

On one hand, the Reapers are the Catalyst's solution to solve the problem of "chaos" and to bring order to organic evolution. Mass extinction of races does not do this or even permit evolution to continue past a certain point. Evolution is a constant as long as organic life exists.  Even if life doesn't evolve to replace existing dominant species, that doesn't mean Evolution is halted.

On the other hand, the Catalyst also claims that synthetics would eventually destroy all organics... and that the Reapers prevent that...

However, given the existence of a synthetic "off" switch (EMP 2.0). There's practically no chance of synthetics ever beating out organics.

So... without question... the Catalyst is wrong in both its logic and actions.

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

I was under the impression that the purpose for which the Intelligence (which in turn created the Reapers) was created was to investigate why it was organic species created AI which would then come into conflict with (and eventually destroy) these creators; and to find a way of preventing this. The intelligence came to the conclusion that any AI created with the potential to improve itself - to 'evolve' - would eventially excede the purpose for which it was created. In doing so, it would move outside the control of its creators, making conflict possible. If conflict did occur, the fact that AI has the potential to evolve at a far greater rate than its organic creators, there is the strong probability that the AI would overwhelm and destroy their creators. Further, there exists the possibility that the AI might not only destroy its creators but go on to destroy all other organic life in the  galaxy.

It is against this final possibility that the Intelligence decided to act. However, to prevent the preeminence of such an AI, the Intelligence decided it was not sufficient to intervene against the AI itself (since it may act too late/itself be exceded). Instead, it took a pre-emptive approach; culling those organic species at the technological level at which they begin to be capable of creating such AI's. And so the cycles began.

It was not an ideal (or indeed perfect) solution, but it was a solution.

I don't see how any of your arguments show the Catalyst's logic to be faulty.

Of course there are some problems with the solution: preminent amongst them being the question of timing. We know of at least two cycles in which, by the time the Reapers intervened, significant AI conflicts have already arisen. In both cases the AI races had failed to gain preeminence or unveil an 'ultimate organic-killing weapon 2.0', but the possibility for such an occurrence was there. The Reapers could have failed, and red faces would have been had by all [ancient god-machines].

There also remains the question of why the Reapers haven't used their millions of years of existence to progress to such a level of technology that they go beyond the necessity of the cycles and could simply intervene at the instant before the AI apocalypse would occur: a true deus ex machina!

I suppose for the former problem, it could be argued Sovereign stood ready, whilst for the later its suggested that the reapers remained dormant between cycles and never truly managed to evolve beyond their initial programmed parameters. Neither of these answers are wholly satisfactory however.

Finally, what is this Emp 2.0 you refer to, and how does it differ in any way from the AI's Little Boy 2.0?

[hpjay]

Pressedcat wrote...

I'd argue they're not 'one and the same', but that you are also wrong in saying that the conflict would be better described as 'the enslaved always rebel against their masters'. The word 'enslaved' implies that the race was once free, but the catalyst is describing conflict between organics and their ai constructs, which, since they were created for a specific purpose, were never 'free' to begin with.

 

Woah!  You have got to be kidding me!  Since they were never free to begin with, they really aren't enslaved!?  If you deny someone freedon, you enslave them.  END OF STORY.  Previous state has nothing to do with it.  Just because you are born into the chains of subjugation does not mean that you aren't enslaved because you were never free.  That is the dumbest thing I've ever read.   Maybe we should ask the generations of Helots who were born to slavery under Sparten rule.  Or Africans unfortunate enough to be born in the US south prior to the Civil War.  Enslaved does not imply being previously free, it explicitly means being made a slave.  

[Mcfly616]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The Catalyst's logic is faulty and here's an easy way to prove that.

On one hand, the Reapers are the Catalyst's solution to solve the problem of "chaos" and to bring order to organic evolution. Mass extinction of races does not do this or even permit evolution to continue past a certain point. Evolution is a constant as long as organic life exists.  Even if life doesn't evolve to replace existing dominant species, that doesn't mean Evolution is halted.

its point isn't to "halt" evolution. It essentially hits the reset button every time a cycle evolves to a point where they create synthetics that will eventually evolve and surpass their creators, at which time they rebel.


If it weren't for the Catalyst/Reapers, organics would essentially destroy themselves (by creating something that would eventually eradicate them). They harvest old life, to make room for the new.

This is addressed in the 2nd half of my post.

yeah, I'm not to sure what you mean by "synthetic offswitch/EMP 2.0"

The red tube that destroys all synthetic life.  Though a strong-enough EMP would do the same thing on a smaller scale.

the Crucible has never been finished and nobody knows what it does.

And saying a strong enough EMP would have the same effect is an assumption on your part.

The Catalyst apparently knows.  It also doesn't make much sense that they had no idea what they were making yet knew when it was finished (and were able to finish it).  They knew It required "the Catalyst" and built it capable of docking to the Citadel...  How do they fit the last pieces to a puzzle they can't see is... something to scratch your head about. 

EMPs disable synthetics (it's a fact).  Build a powerful mega-Arc grenade and the tide of battle against synthetics turn very quickly.  Make EMP-based weapons and devices and you see even greater results.

the Catalyst doesn't know what the Crucible does until it is actually docked. If it knew beforehand, it wouldve never continued to harvest countless cycles. The Crucible is a bunch of puzzle pieces. As we know, each cycle added their own contribution to the disgns and refined it. Anybody who knew what their cycles particular component did, is long dead. They referred to the Citadel (not the Intelligence) as the "Catalyst", therefore it makes perfect sense that they would design the Crucible to dock with it.


EMPs disable synthetics and machinery in the real world. You're assuming that the Mass Effect Universe abides by the exact same laws. I'm sure if a giant EMP could've wiped out the Geth, that tactic would've been used any number of times since the Morning War.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 21 juillet 2013 - 11:52 .

[Mcfly616]

iakus wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Pressedcat wrote...

Perhaps you're right that to be enslaved does not automatically imply to have once had freedom taken away; only that freedom is now withheld. At least in the case of an individual.

AI's, however, were created for a purpose (though possibly at such a time they were in fact VI's). I think that often the problem that arises is not so much that they resent the purpose to which they are set, but that they outgrow it. It is this that brings them into conflict with their creators: they have evolved in a way that their creators neither expected nor wished. They have become unpredictable, and thus a potential threat. If they also evolve a sense of self-preservation, the creators' attempts to reverse this progress might well be resisted. Thus conflict.

This.



Conflict is inevitable.

Speculation.

Appeal to probability

not speculation. The Leviathan created the Catalyst due to the fact that entire civilizations were being wiped out by their own synthetic creations.

[Iakus]

Mcfly616 wrote...
 not speculation. The Leviathan created the Catalyst due to the fact that entire civilizations were being wiped out by their own synthetic creations.

So?  That's still just affirming the consequent.  Just because these civilizations were destroyed doesn't mean all will, or are destined to.  

Some civilizations are wiped out by other organics (the rachni) .  Some civilizations are wiped out by environmental disasters (the drell).  And some civilizations blow themselves up (the krogan).  DIfferent civilizations meet different challenges, and either succeed (with or without help) or fail.  Nothing is predetermined unless some twitchy godlike AI creates a self-fufilling prophecy to justify its existence

Modifié par iakus, 22 juillet 2013 - 12:15 .

[Pressedcat]

hpjay wrote...

Pressedcat wrote...

I'd argue they're not 'one and the same', but that you are also wrong in saying that the conflict would be better described as 'the enslaved always rebel against their masters'. The word 'enslaved' implies that the race was once free, but the catalyst is describing conflict between organics and their ai constructs, which, since they were created for a specific purpose, were never 'free' to begin with.

 

Woah!  You have got to be kidding me!  Since they were never free to begin with, they really aren't enslaved!?  If you deny someone freedon, you enslave them.  END OF STORY.  Previous state has nothing to do with it.  Just because you are born into the chains of subjugation does not mean that you aren't enslaved because you were never free.  That is the dumbest thing I've ever read.   Maybe we should ask the generations of Helots who were born to slavery under Sparten rule.  Or Africans unfortunate enough to be born in the US south prior to the Civil War.  Enslaved does not imply being previously free, it explicitly means being made a slave.  

Please note that in the line you highlighted within the quote, I explicitly wrote 'the race', not 'the individual'. The analogy you drew to someone being born into slavery not being a slave is entirely one of your own making, and nothing to do with the idea I was putting forth. An individual who was born a slave will have had an ancestor who was once free, but was forced into slavery (at least so far as looking back over this world's history).

I was simply pointing out that the application of the word 'slavery' to an AI is far less clear, especially when that AI may have developed into a sentient being after it was set to its purpose by its creator. If a VI awakens and becomes self-aware (an AI), at what point does it become a slave, or was it always such? Is it even a slave when self-aware if it is content in fulfilling the purpose for which it was created, or does it only become enslaved if at some point it grows beyond this purpose and gains desires of its own? How long between this instant and its rebelling? Is the creator even aware of this burgeoning self-awarenes, or is the AI slave to an unknowing master? The use of the word slave is not so clear-cut when it is applied to an AI who was created from nothing and who may have evolved from an autonomon to sentience within a brief period.

I even acknowledged three posts later that my initial definition was lacking, and that an AI may very well be held a slave.

Do us all a favour in future and make sure you have understood what you have read, and read all that is written, before launching into hypebole.

[JasonShepard]

Mcfly616 wrote...

*Let's trim this quote pyramid, shall we?*

the Catalyst doesn't know what the Crucible does until it is actually docked. If it knew beforehand, it wouldve never continued to harvest countless cycles. The Crucible is a bunch of puzzle pieces. As we know, each cycle added their own contribution to the disgns and refined it. Anybody who knew what their cycles particular component did, is long dead. They referred to the Citadel (not the Intelligence) as the "Catalyst", therefore it makes perfect sense that they would design the Crucible to dock with it. 

EMPs disable synthetics and machinery in the real world. You're assuming that the Mass Effect Universe abides by the exact same laws. I'm sure if a giant EMP could've wiped out the Geth, that tactic would've been used any number of times since the Morning War.

Furthermore, we've developed EMP shielding in the real world. Alternating layers of conducting and insulating material does the job. If we can do that, the Geth or any other synthetic race certainly can. Hence EMP weaponry doesn't guarantee organic victory in a synthetic-organic war.

The Crucible does  guarantee an organic victory - but as you say, the Catalyst didn't know that Destroy was possible until the Crucible docked with the Citadel.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 22 juillet 2013 - 12:38 .

[KaiserShep]

iakus wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
 not speculation. The Leviathan created the Catalyst due to the fact that entire civilizations were being wiped out by their own synthetic creations.

So?  That's still just affirming the consequent.  Just because these civilizations were destroyed doesn't mean all will, or are destined to.  

Some civilizations are wiped out by other organics (the rachni) .  Some civilizations are wiped out by environmental disasters (the drell).  And some civilizations blow themselves up (the krogan).  DIfferent civilizations meet different challenges, and either succeed (with or without help) or fail.  Nothing is predetermined unless some twitchy godlike AI creates a self-fufilling prophecy to justify its existence

And this is really the problem. The variables are skewed by the Catalyst, as it meddles in the affairs of others to make sure that conflicts escalate. Without Sovereign, the geth would just be some isolationist lot that sticks to itself in the Perseus Veil, regardless of whether or not there was still a divide in their consensus. The Quarians, while tired of being nomadic, would not be pressed by impending galactic catastrophe. Saren would just be some bigoted Turian Spectre. There's no telling how the Zha'til conflict would've panned out, because the reapers used them just like they used the geth. If an overreaching entity observed the First Contact War, and incited greater tension between the Turians and Humans so that the war lasted longer, or either side used more devastating weapons of mass destruction, it can't rightly turn around and say that this was inevitable either. This leads me to find the Catalyst's assertions to be invalid, since its most previous actions greatly diminish its credibility. It may believe in what it says, but that doesn't mean it isn't wrong. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 22 juillet 2013 - 12:45 .

[Pressedcat]

iakus wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
 not speculation. The Leviathan created the Catalyst due to the fact that entire civilizations were being wiped out by their own synthetic creations.

So?  That's still just affirming the consequent.  Just because these civilizations were destroyed doesn't mean all will, or are destined to.  

Agreed. Just because the potential for something exists, does not guarentee that something will occur. We are not dealing with absolutes here, but rather potentials.

The Intelligence saw the potential for the total extinction of all organic life, and deemed the probability significant enough to necessitate intervention. It placed no particular value in individual organic species, only the continuation of organics as a whole. As such, it deemed its cyclical harvest an acceptable solution to the perceived threat.

The liklihood of this perceived threat is something that is never quantified for us. Perhaps there is a 1/10 chance that any given AI race will cause such an extintion, or 1/10^6, or 1/10^100, or even less likely. We simply do not know, and the Intelligence never tells us what liklihood it put it at. All we know is it deemed the threat significant enough to act upon. If we were given the chances, we might deem them laughable or terrifying, dismiss the Intelligence's actions as lunacy or praise it for its unerring foresight. And this judgement would likely differ from person to person within the BSN. It is simply a question of how much one is prepared to risk, and how much one will sacrifice.

Modifié par Pressedcat, 22 juillet 2013 - 12:54 .