351 réponses à ce sujet

[Dharvy]

I posted this on another thread concerning the catalyst and reapers' motive:
 
"I understand where you're coming from in that WE judge him on OUR standards because we are the victims.

But considereing IIRC that in Synthesis we get all the information from all the cycles or something like that from the Reapers because they were storing all the cycles? So in the catalyst and reapers defense, I see it like they see a conflict between organics and synthetics where synthetics wipe organics completely out because lack of understanding causes all wars it seems. And the reapers are harvesting the cycles, storing the data of all organic beings to prevent a synthetic erase. Its sort of like back up instead of deleting. Now they are doing this in hopes that we can reach a synthesis where all the data can be shared and used. 

In a big picture kind of way it don't seem so evil, but in a small picture executing said plan is quite gruesome and evil.

Just a thought."

Also just to add, if the catalyst likens what the reapers are doing to the burning of fire then the simple saying they're programed or their purpose to fits. And as for controlling the reapers they are fulfilling they're purpose/programing. They are Order to the galaxy's Chaos.

And me personally, being unbiased, I can see from one point of view the catalyst doesn't make sense and from another veiwpoint it does makes sense.

And concerning the organics versus synthetics, IIRC didn't the Geth almost wipe the Quarians but let them live because they couldn't reach a consensus in the Morning War when they kicked them off Rannoch? And could not the Geth still wipe the Quarians in a battle and if they did would that not put fear in the rest of the Organics races against the Geth giving the Geth a strong reason to wipe the rest of the Organics to instill there survival? Wasn't there a law against Species created AI's because of what the Quarians lost do to them creating the Geth? And if its statistically recurring event throughout the cycles than an AI seems more likely to follow the near high probability rather than an Organic who would just hope it never happens.

Shepard as a hero of the galaxy is the anomaly that makes the Catalyst solution invalid. He has done what no other cycle has done. And the reason the Catalyst gives you choices is probably because of the Crucibles affect, sort of like an override chip maybe. He can state his purpose or solution but because of the Crucible he must carry out its programing. Maybe, I don't know, just guessing at the writer's intent.

[dreman9999]

Grimwick wrote...

Any0day wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

He suddenly decides at one point that 1 synthetic/organic conflict means that there will always be synthetic/organic conflict, then he commits an appeal to probability by saying that:

Because a conflict can happen, it will happen. Therefore we must stop it.

This is logically fallacious and undermines his entire following arguments.

The actual fallacy comes in a different form, and right here. The issue is even if an AI did become self aware, all sci-fi seems to depict them turn on humanity either out of anger or some strange desire of self-preservation. The truth is, a real AI would behave more like Data from Star Trek. Self-preservation is a ''life'' characteristic born out of evolution over billions of years, an AI would never express this behaviour on it's own and even it it did it would not be ''geniune.'' This is not to say that a computer would kill a human with any type of remorse, but it wouldn't not kill a human either. It depends on what it's told to do, and ultimately guess who tells it what to do? Since all sci-fi tends to do this though, I sort of look past it.

Well a truly self-aware AI, an unshackled AI, would have the same freedom of mental function as any organic. And synthetics are 'alive'...

^This. Data is a synthetic being made for the sake creating a being that can live it's own life and make it's own desisions.
Data was created as a child.
That is no the same case as any of the AI in the ME universe. They were made to be tools.
Everyone who compares Data's actions to every AI's action misses this point.

Modifié par dreman9999, 10 juillet 2012 - 02:40 .

[Xamufam]

Both the crusible & the catalyst doesn't make any sense
www.youtube.com/watch

[dreman9999]

Troxa wrote...

Both the crusible & the catalyst doesn't make any sense
www.youtube.com/watch

Not know who made it doesn't mean I don't know where it came from.

Shepard is asking who and the guy your linking is asking where makes the comparison of turtles all the way make no sense.
I no there is a last turtle we just don't know which on is the last turtle.

Added, the catalyst does make sense. It a machine that's doing what it's programed to do. In matter not if it's right or wrong, a machine will alway do what it's programed to do. If the machine is programed to destroy it's self by waliking into lava, it will do it.

[Pitznik]

Catalyst's logic is based on repeating pattern in which organics always create synthetics and those synthetics always end up trying to destroy organic life. He seen countless cycles and it was always the same, over and over again. He always intervenes when that pattern reaches certain point, maybe he waited longer before and it was too close for his liking, but he seen enough to see that his appeal to probablity is in fact confirmed in experiment.

That pattern was first presented as created by the Reapers (relays and mass effect as bait, created to make organics progress in a predictable way), but ME3 changes that, as Prothean AI says - Reapers are not a master of this pattern, but its servants. Javik also reflects on that multiple times, that everything in the universe happens in cycles.

That doesn't really answer the question why Reapers let the relays and citadel still exist - if not for those, the technological progress would be much slower, but maybe they wouldn't have enough control over it then. So in a sense Reapers at the same time reinforce and co-create the problem they are trying to solve. I understand why they keep Citadel (they have to, since it's their source), but why for example they don't destroy relays? There is some logic in their work, but there are a lot of inconsistencies and holes left also.

To be honest if Bioware decided to explain Reapers motivations instead of leaving it a secret, they should give us even more information.

Modifié par Pitznik, 10 juillet 2012 - 03:22 .

[Mazebook]

 Reply is work in progress:

Glad you could finish your Project... I will get through you points one by one when i will find time:

Point 1 :

The first thing that I want to address is this talk about the catalyst being an insane AI and thus he will not think like humans. Basically this is people justifying any contradiction the catalyst makes on the basis that it is insane. Insanity, while unhealthy and unstable, does not defy basic motivations. You cannot say that someone or something is insane and then use that to justify whatever action the writer wants the character to make no matter how contradictory it is. Look at some of the greatest “insane” villains such as Hannibal Lector. He had a specific and identifiable personality that allowed the audience to connect his actions with his motivations no matter how horrible they were. If a character lacks this type of grounding then it gives the writer free reign to have the character do anything for any reason which violates an implicit agreement between the writer and the player: that the story will maintain coherence (credit to mrBtongue for fleshing out the idea of narrative coherence for me).

Let me just say the Catalyst is not Insane because to be Insane he would have to be Human or Organic.
But the Catalyst is an A.I. The Catalyst lacks the ability to  value Induviduality. He does not act against his motivations...which is to secure the existance of organic live.

Hannibale is releatable because he is Human and pushed by Human needs. The A.I. is forced by programming to do what it´s suppose to do. His Motivation are not his own....he has no Motivations of his own... The very concept of the reapers is alien to us because we as Humans like to value Induviduality... Like the Borg, it is not appealing to us to life as a giant hive mind.

If a character lacks this type of grounding then it gives the writer free reign to have the character do anything for any reason which violates an implicit agreement between the writer and the player

But he is grounded...we know how Computers work...we know that they have no free will...we know they don´t have morals...The Borg and Skynet are working on the same level...and are accepted as those...the Catalyst no different.

Point 2:

What was the catalyst doing during Mass Effect 1 (ME1)?! We already established that he controls the reapers and that he has at the very minimum a modicum of control over the citadel. In fact, as he later neatly shows us three convenient configurations of the citadel that he explicitly set up for us (and that he lowers an elevator for us) we can assume that he has much control over the citadel. Then why would Sovereign need to take control of the citadel in order to activate its mass relay and bring on the reaper invasion? The catalyst already controls the citadel and the catalyst controls the reapers thus the reapers controlled the citadel the whole time. There was no need for any geth attack and there was no need for Sovereign to do anything. The plot of ME1 has, in one line of dialogue, been rendered absurd. 

It is obvious that the Catalyst would not make a solution that is depending on himself.
He does not take activly part in his own solution.
He controls the reaper like a programmer controls his program.
A good permanent program would not need the programmer to be engaged...the programmer would cover all eventualities...so the programm could run by itself.
But in the end the programme breaks because the Catalyst underestimated the organics ["they are more rescourceful than we realized"] the programmer goes back to the drawing board [new solutions].

Point 3 :

Next line of relevant catalyst dialogue: “The created will always rebel against their creators.” He is saying this in reference to synthetics exterminating organics…What?...How do you know that? Hey transparent pre-adolescent, how do you know that? Did the writers show you something that they did not show the player? Are you able to see into the future to know that all synthetic societies will actively seek out and hunt down organic ones? That seems odd because I just got done showing EDI what it means to be alive. This was after she tried to kill us all on luna when she was still a VI. I also just got done forming a peace between the geth and the quarians. This was only after the minor conflicts of Mass Effect 1 in which the geth tried to kill us all. So in a sense we have already seen exactly what the catalyst is talking about. Then we avoided it. In fact, as he controls the reapers, he witnessed us changing it on Rannoch but still maintains this stance (must be insane count: 6) which we have proven incorrect.  

Well it seems the reapers is right when they said it is beyond your comprehencion. The fact is that we have seen 4 years of the Mass Effect Universe...of course Shepard was there to resolve all this conflicts! There would be no game left if Synthetics truly exterminated all Organics...
But the Catalyst has an Attention span greater than yours...his observation lasts for millions of years...who says that the Geth would not rebel sometime in the future...or the Quarians will fear them again... EDI is the point why the Catalyst makes sense...She says that the mistake the quarians made was to make the Geth unlike themself...that is the same mistake the Creators of the Catalyst did...they did not make it value Individuality. 

[WILL CONTINUE UPDATING LATER...right now none of your points are seem valid to me]

Modifié par maaaze, 10 juillet 2012 - 04:10 .

[LateNightSalami]

maaaze wrote...

[WILL CONTINUE UPDATING LATER...right now none of your points are seem valid to me]

I am really not surprised.

[Mazebook]

LateNightSalami wrote...

maaaze wrote...

[WILL CONTINUE UPDATING LATER...right now none of your points are seem valid to me]

I am really not surprised.

Just in to say...that i am really going in with an open mind...if you bring something up that really makes no sense...i am fully able to admit it...so far all your points aren´t new and have been already discussed and refuted...

[LateNightSalami]

maaaze wrote...

LateNightSalami wrote...

maaaze wrote...

[WILL CONTINUE UPDATING LATER...right now none of your points are seem valid to me]

I am really not surprised.

Just in to say...that i am really going in with an open mind...if you bring something up that really makes no sense...i am fully able to admit it...so far all your points aren´t new and have been already discussed and refuted...

From my experience they have not been refuted in the minds of many Mass Effect players, especially many of the critics of the original ending.

[Peregrin25]

The thing about the starbrat not making any sense is the fact, in the new dialogue options with the Extended Cut, he continually contradicts his own logic.

[LateNightSalami]

Grimwick wrote...

Any0day wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

He suddenly decides at one point that 1 synthetic/organic conflict means that there will always be synthetic/organic conflict, then he commits an appeal to probability by saying that:

Because a conflict can happen, it will happen. Therefore we must stop it.

This is logically fallacious and undermines his entire following arguments.

Now you could argue that under that line of logic he could have easily deemed all Synthetics the problem and went on a crusade to destroy and harvest all Synthetics (instead of the opposite). The reason this wasn't an acceptable solution is because (his words) organics reach an apex of evolution by relying on Synthetics. He's essentially referring to the prophesied Singularity event (which is a real thing that exists in our world) in which all human life and machines are virtually indistinguishable from one another. This is also why he said a conflict would always arise because at some point in order to achieve that, AI's need to become self aware.

No, the fallacy is right there in fact. 

Premise/evidence: Self aware AIs can cause conflict.

Conclusion: Self aware AIs will always create conflict.

This is a fallacious argument and no matter whether one particular AI caused a conflict, he is overextrapolating his data to every single circumstance... and then making a solution based upon that.

If you were to do that in real life, you would look like an idiot and the SC is no different.

It seems that this is a case mis use of induction...maybe. Induction (if I remember correctly) work like this:

1. Prove most basic case.
2. Prove for any generic subsequent case.
3. Extrapolate from basic case to any subsequent case.

The problem lies in step two. We have not one but two counter examples. So the catalyst doesn't have a means of proving any generic case.

[Mazebook]

LateNightSalami wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Any0day wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

He suddenly decides at one point that 1 synthetic/organic conflict means that there will always be synthetic/organic conflict, then he commits an appeal to probability by saying that:

Because a conflict can happen, it will happen. Therefore we must stop it.

This is logically fallacious and undermines his entire following arguments.

Now you could argue that under that line of logic he could have easily deemed all Synthetics the problem and went on a crusade to destroy and harvest all Synthetics (instead of the opposite). The reason this wasn't an acceptable solution is because (his words) organics reach an apex of evolution by relying on Synthetics. He's essentially referring to the prophesied Singularity event (which is a real thing that exists in our world) in which all human life and machines are virtually indistinguishable from one another. This is also why he said a conflict would always arise because at some point in order to achieve that, AI's need to become self aware.

No, the fallacy is right there in fact. 

Premise/evidence: Self aware AIs can cause conflict.

Conclusion: Self aware AIs will always create conflict.

This is a fallacious argument and no matter whether one particular AI caused a conflict, he is overextrapolating his data to every single circumstance... and then making a solution based upon that.

If you were to do that in real life, you would look like an idiot and the SC is no different.

It seems that this is a case mis use of induction...maybe. Induction (if I remember correctly) work like this:

1. Prove most basic case.
2. Prove for any generic subsequent case.
3. Extrapolate from basic case to any subsequent case.

The problem lies in step two. We have not one but two counter examples. So the catalyst doesn't have a means of proving any generic case.

2 points to refute this.

1. It is not his claim, it is the claim of his Creators. "I was created by those who recognised..."
2. If the Catalyst is able to question his programming he had much more time to evaluate this assumption than we do. 

now i will go back to your text...

[LateNightSalami]

maaaze wrote...

LateNightSalami wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Any0day wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

He suddenly decides at one point that 1 synthetic/organic conflict means that there will always be synthetic/organic conflict, then he commits an appeal to probability by saying that:

Because a conflict can happen, it will happen. Therefore we must stop it.

This is logically fallacious and undermines his entire following arguments.

Now you could argue that under that line of logic he could have easily deemed all Synthetics the problem and went on a crusade to destroy and harvest all Synthetics (instead of the opposite). The reason this wasn't an acceptable solution is because (his words) organics reach an apex of evolution by relying on Synthetics. He's essentially referring to the prophesied Singularity event (which is a real thing that exists in our world) in which all human life and machines are virtually indistinguishable from one another. This is also why he said a conflict would always arise because at some point in order to achieve that, AI's need to become self aware.

No, the fallacy is right there in fact. 

Premise/evidence: Self aware AIs can cause conflict.

Conclusion: Self aware AIs will always create conflict.

This is a fallacious argument and no matter whether one particular AI caused a conflict, he is overextrapolating his data to every single circumstance... and then making a solution based upon that.

If you were to do that in real life, you would look like an idiot and the SC is no different.

It seems that this is a case mis use of induction...maybe. Induction (if I remember correctly) work like this:

1. Prove most basic case.
2. Prove for any generic subsequent case.
3. Extrapolate from basic case to any subsequent case.

The problem lies in step two. We have not one but two counter examples. So the catalyst doesn't have a means of proving any generic case.

2 points to refute this.

1. It is not his claim, it is the claim of his Creators. "I was created by those who recognised..."
2. If the Catalyst is able to question his programming he had much more time to evaluate this assumption than we do. 

now i will go back to your text...

Neither of your point refute the refutation of the inductive process. We showed there to be counter examples so this conclusion cannot be arrived at inductively.

[Bill Casey]

Grimwick wrote...

Any0day wrote...
Essentially, at least from a programmers perspective it makes sense. The ''god child'' was tasked with the problem of ''keeping peace'' between Synthetics and Organics and the only solution he could come to was to essentially assimilate (yes, borg style) all organics it could and destroy the rest. You try to throw the argument that killing millions of humans doesn't seem very logical if the idea is to harvest them, but to a machine that literally is just a statistic. As long as it harvests one human before killing off the entire species it probably sees that as acceptable.

And that's exactly where he comes up with a fallacious argument. He was designed to stop a conflict. Not necessarily every conflict.

He suddenly decides at one point that 1 synthetic/organic conflict means that there will always be synthetic/organic conflict, then he commits an appeal to probability by saying that:

Because a conflict can happen, it will happen. Therefore we must stop it.

This is logically fallacious and undermines his entire following arguments.

Therefore his resulting arguments/conclusions don't make sense on any level. It's nothing to do with opinions/perspectives.

It's the same kind of logic that we may think for example:Spain may attack us somewhere really far in the future... so we nuke them now so they can't. Does that make sense? No.

He also claims now that he knows it is possible, it's inevitable we will reach synthesis...
Not sure how that works with the "synthetics will inevitably wipe out all organic life" thing...

[Archereon]

Any0day wrote...

LateNightSalami wrote...

I wrote an article about this over at holdtheline.com Here is the link:

http://www.holdtheli...-it-part-1.266/

It is kind of long so if you do read it thanks in advance. The tone is meant to be satirical/humor but I would also be lying if I didn't say that much of the tone came from my frustration with the game. Anyway, this is part 1 of 3 parts I am writing to clear my head. I find discussing Mass Effect difficult because it always ends up on teh ending and the ending just makes no sense even after the Extended Cut.

Your article is very biased, so it's hard to take very seriously but I did read it. I'm not trying to say I think the ending is the best thing in the world, but it certainly does make sense -- at least from my perspective.

I happen to be a computer programmer who specializes in AI (which is actually a lot more boring than you might imagine), and the problem with your article is that you are assigning ''humanistic'' values to a machine. AI's tend to be strictly logical and that logic tends to come off as absurd to us. (funny but slightly off topic example:  )

Essentially, at least from a programmers perspective it makes sense. The ''god child'' was tasked with the problem of ''keeping peace'' between Synthetics and Organics and the only solution he could come to was to essentially assimilate (yes, borg style) all organics it could and destroy the rest. You try to throw the argument that killing millions of humans doesn't seem very logical if the idea is to harvest them, but to a machine that literally is just a statistic. As long as it harvests one human before killing off the entire species it probably sees that as acceptable.

Pretty much all of your other jabs at the sanity of this AI can be explained that way, including the choices he gives you. You say ''why would he give you these choices if he 'cares' about what they mean?'' Well, in one sense he does ''care,'' but not in the way you or I would. He's not an emotional creature, so when he expresses desire for one or the other it's because it fills a certain level of favorability on a *programming* level.

Finally, you question why reaching the 'god childs' chambers somehow changes things. For that there's a simply but very unsatisfactory answer. He was programmed that way.

You make a good point, but there's a small problem with your argument (besides the blatant Argument By Authority fallacy, though that's not really a big issue since it isn't the only component of your argument); Mass Effect AIs are not like hypothetical real-life Artificial Intelligences or current programs intended to simulate intelligence.

EDI after her software shackles were removed, the geth, the reapers, and all other synthetics in the Mass Effect universe do not seem to follow strict programming like any real AI presumably would, and unless you're asserting the Catalyst is a nonsentient VI (which is plausible I guess, but not an idea I like), I see no reason that wouldn't apply to the Catalyst as well.

[Bill Casey]

maaaze wrote...

2 points to refute this.

1. It is not his claim, it is the claim of his Creators. "I was created by those who recognised..."
2. If the Catalyst is able to question his programming he had much more time to evaluate this assumption than we do. 

now i will go back to your text...

Most serial killers had bad childhoods and some combination of physical, sexual, verbal abuse and head trauma...
They are imprisoned or executed to protect society from their threat...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 10 juillet 2012 - 05:51 .

[Wayning_Star]

the catalyst doesn't have to make sense. It's got it's own priority.

[Mazebook]

 Point 4 :

 
[color=rgb(20, 20, 20)">So next we discover that the reapers are his solution to a problem that we have already fixed no less than two times throughout the series. His solution for keeping organics from being ] wiped out by synthetics is to[/color]systematically[/i] wipe them out (must be insane count: 7). I suppose technically he did succeed but I feel like emphasizing semantics to that degree is cheating. This is apparently the solution you get when you use a synthetic AI to solve a problem of conflict between synthetics and organics…ahhhh I see what they did there…deep irony is deeply deep. 

Very weak points you bring up here:

1. basicly the organics are not wiped out ! fact ! he helps them accend...they are stored...like a back up...so new life can flurish...makes perfect sense for an A.I. that has no value for Individuality.

2. We don´t know enough of the creators..it could be that the creators were themself Synthetics...who did not want to wipe out organics but are forced through irrational behaviore. Or it could be that the creators were a groupe of idealised Organics and Synthetics who wanted to find a way of permenent peace.


Point 5:

Ah yes next is the famous fire analogy. “When fire burns, is it at war? Is it in conflict? Or is it simply doing what it was created to do?” Let us be clear here: he just compared the purposeful, deliberate, systematic extermination of entire civilizations by a semi-sentient (at the very least) race of giant metallic space squids to a random natural disaster. He says himself that he gave the reapers purpose and allowed them to impose that will upon the rest of the galaxy…that seems like war like belligerence to me, not some natural disaster arising out of a natural reaction. Their intent is to attain resources and propagate themselves by “storing” civilizations in reaper form. If that is not militaristically violating the status quo of nations then I must have been fooled by my social studies teachers and I want my online college tuition back. I think Shepard’s description was accurate, they were at war. I think the point the catalyst was trying to get to was that reapers are nothing but a tool. That seems to be a good way of castrating a previously imposing villain. It needs to be emphasized though that the reapers are in any conventional definition, a tool of war. 

The point of this analogy is just to show , that they have no free will...they are doing what they are created to do.
They don´t have their own motivations...Reapers goals are set by the Catalyst. The Catalyst goals are set by the creators. The Creators did not think their programming through. 

Point 6:

Next relevant line: “Reapers harvest all life-organic and synthetic- preserving them before they are forever lost to conflict”. Um…I thought that we learned in ME1 and ME2 that the reapers were only interested in harvesting organics as synthetics were not suitable. In fact, didn’t Sovereign hold the geth in complete contempt hardly worthy of his attention? And wasn’t the whole point of this originally to preserve organics? He presented the problem as though synthetics were never at risk, only organics but now all of a sudden they are at risk too?(All right fine I will start this count finally, writers must be insane count: I am not sure but I think we are at least 4, this is hard to keep track of.)"

The minds of reapers are independent...they are compeled to hold up the cycle...through their programming (or indoctrination)...but their justification for what they do is their own...Soverign had no high opinion of Synthetics...that does not mean that all reapers think alike...it only means all thinking will eventually lead to the same conclusion : "the cycle must continue"...the justification for that is set by each reaper for themself....

just like the illusive man and Saren had different justifications for the same things.

[will continue to update]

Modifié par maaaze, 10 juillet 2012 - 05:59 .

[Hudathan]

Not this again.

[Mazebook]

LateNightSalami wrote...

maaaze wrote...

LateNightSalami wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Any0day wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

He suddenly decides at one point that 1 synthetic/organic conflict means that there will always be synthetic/organic conflict, then he commits an appeal to probability by saying that:

Because a conflict can happen, it will happen. Therefore we must stop it.

This is logically fallacious and undermines his entire following arguments.

Now you could argue that under that line of logic he could have easily deemed all Synthetics the problem and went on a crusade to destroy and harvest all Synthetics (instead of the opposite). The reason this wasn't an acceptable solution is because (his words) organics reach an apex of evolution by relying on Synthetics. He's essentially referring to the prophesied Singularity event (which is a real thing that exists in our world) in which all human life and machines are virtually indistinguishable from one another. This is also why he said a conflict would always arise because at some point in order to achieve that, AI's need to become self aware.

No, the fallacy is right there in fact. 

Premise/evidence: Self aware AIs can cause conflict.

Conclusion: Self aware AIs will always create conflict.

This is a fallacious argument and no matter whether one particular AI caused a conflict, he is overextrapolating his data to every single circumstance... and then making a solution based upon that.

If you were to do that in real life, you would look like an idiot and the SC is no different.

It seems that this is a case mis use of induction...maybe. Induction (if I remember correctly) work like this:

1. Prove most basic case.
2. Prove for any generic subsequent case.
3. Extrapolate from basic case to any subsequent case.

The problem lies in step two. We have not one but two counter examples. So the catalyst doesn't have a means of proving any generic case.

2 points to refute this.

1. It is not his claim, it is the claim of his Creators. "I was created by those who recognised..."
2. If the Catalyst is able to question his programming he had much more time to evaluate this assumption than we do. 

now i will go back to your text...

Neither of your point refute the refutation of the inductive process. We showed there to be counter examples so this conclusion cannot be arrived at inductively.

so if you watch an animal for one day...you can make the same valid assumptions on how its behaves as watching it for a year...really?

1. This assumption is not his own...so he is not responisble for it being part of his programming.
2. If it were his own assumption he has a much larger case study to prove this than you have.

really you are reaching...and being downright ignorant.

[Mazebook]

Bill Casey wrote...

maaaze wrote...

2 points to refute this.

1. It is not his claim, it is the claim of his Creators. "I was created by those who recognised..."
2. If the Catalyst is able to question his programming he had much more time to evaluate this assumption than we do. 

now i will go back to your text...

Most serial killers had bad childhoods and some combination of physical, sexual, verbal abuse and head trauma...
They are imprisoned or executed to protect society from their threat...

most serials killers have free will but have mental health issues...The Catalyst  does not have mental health or free will...

[Grimwick]

maaaze wrote...

LateNightSalami wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Any0day wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

He suddenly decides at one point that 1 synthetic/organic conflict means that there will always be synthetic/organic conflict, then he commits an appeal to probability by saying that:

Because a conflict can happen, it will happen. Therefore we must stop it.

This is logically fallacious and undermines his entire following arguments.

Now you could argue that under that line of logic he could have easily deemed all Synthetics the problem and went on a crusade to destroy and harvest all Synthetics (instead of the opposite). The reason this wasn't an acceptable solution is because (his words) organics reach an apex of evolution by relying on Synthetics. He's essentially referring to the prophesied Singularity event (which is a real thing that exists in our world) in which all human life and machines are virtually indistinguishable from one another. This is also why he said a conflict would always arise because at some point in order to achieve that, AI's need to become self aware.

No, the fallacy is right there in fact. 

Premise/evidence: Self aware AIs can cause conflict.

Conclusion: Self aware AIs will always create conflict.

This is a fallacious argument and no matter whether one particular AI caused a conflict, he is overextrapolating his data to every single circumstance... and then making a solution based upon that.

If you were to do that in real life, you would look like an idiot and the SC is no different.

It seems that this is a case mis use of induction...maybe. Induction (if I remember correctly) work like this:

1. Prove most basic case.
2. Prove for any generic subsequent case.
3. Extrapolate from basic case to any subsequent case.

The problem lies in step two. We have not one but two counter examples. So the catalyst doesn't have a means of proving any generic case.

2 points to refute this.

1. It is not his claim, it is the claim of his Creators. "I was created by those who recognised..."
2. If the Catalyst is able to question his programming he had much more time to evaluate this assumption than we do. 

now i will go back to your text...

@LateNightSalami.

Yes, it is some form of induction. It's not exactly the method you have given but it is close enough to prove the point.

@Maaaze.

1) It doesn't matter if it is the creator's claim at all. It's still invalid and therefore the SC still remains invalid. I don't see how this helps your case at all.
2) So? No matter how much evaluation given to this the initial logic is still wrong.  Argument from authority isn't a justification.

Also, according to many here he can't even question his programming. So whom do I believe?

[Tazzmission]

catalyst does make sence

think the terminator scenario guys

oganics create synthetics to do w/e,

over time with improvments and upgrades synthetics start to become more advanced to where they are dead even with organic thought and mind

geth quarian conflict shows just this

best way to eliminate the chaos is by harvesting everything organics carry like personality, thoughts, ideas

without creators there wont be creations

[Grimwick]

Tazzmission wrote...

catalyst does make sence

think the terminator scenario guys

oganics create synthetics to do w/e,

over time with improvments and upgrades synthetics start to become more advanced to where they are dead even with organic thought and mind

geth quarian conflict shows just this

best way to eliminate the chaos is by harvesting everything organics carry like personality, thoughts, ideas

without creators there wont be creations

This doesn't prove anything in the slightest.

[Memnon]

Tazzmission wrote...

catalyst does make sence

think the terminator scenario guys

oganics create synthetics to do w/e,

over time with improvments and upgrades synthetics start to become more advanced to where they are dead even with organic thought and mind

geth quarian conflict shows just this

best way to eliminate the chaos is by harvesting everything organics carry like personality, thoughts, ideas

without creators there wont be creations

Why don't we harvest the damn AI instead of organics?