351 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

CraniumBeavers wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The more time given the larger th chance of it hitting increaes. You  seem to not understand we are not talking about an absolute but the chances of an event happening increasing.

You seem to say you're talking about the other when talking about the exact other.

I understand that the chance increases. The cruncher here is that the Catalyst the chance is 100%, and thus things demand action.

All he said that it was an eventuality and it's not even his logic, it's his creators. He is still just doing what he is programed to do.

[CraniumBeavers]

I just want to see his calculations first.

Modifié par CraniumBeavers, 10 juillet 2012 - 08:07 .

[dreman9999]

CraniumBeavers wrote...

I just want to see his calculations first.

Again, this is his creator calculation, he never decided organics and synthectic will destroy each other on his own. His creator programed him this way.

[Mazebook]

Taboo-XX wrote...

maaaze wrote...

CraniumBeavers wrote...

maaaze wrote...

mathematics dictate that when something is likly it will in given time occur.

What mathematics are we talking about here...?

Probebility Theory 

He promotes an appeal to probability.

A is possible/ therefore A is absolute

He provides no data. He is fallacious.

Him not providing the evidence...(would kinda ruin the pacing)..does not mean he has none...and yes all A.I. we know of has rebelled at one point in time...future Synthethics will too...perhaps without Shepard to save the day.

Just accept that:
Our attention span is just to short,
and a larger attention span would see a pattern and make conclusions.

[CronoDragoon]

dreman9999 wrote...

The more time given the larger th chance of it hitting increaes. You  seem to not understand we are not talking about an absolute but the chances of an event happening increasing.

Maybe I am not understanding you, but this sounds like Gambler's fallacy to me. If there is a probability that synthetics will destroy all organics, the probability is the same given a sample size of 2 or infinity unless variables change.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 10 juillet 2012 - 08:07 .

[Joeybsmooth4]

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 say he does not have emotions.. if you don't do what he asked you to do he yells at you.

[pacientK]

Good read. Also what i dont understand... why have those stupid choices at the end. Trilogy should be ended depending on choices made through all three games.

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The more time given the larger th chance of it hitting increaes. You  seem to not understand we are not talking about an absolute but the chances of an event happening increasing.

Maybe I am not understanding you, but this sounds like Gambler's fallacy to me. If there is a probability that synthetics will destroy all organics, the probability is the same given a sample size of 2 or infinity unless variables change.

I understand you point but this is not the reason why the catalyst think this. He didn't come to this conclousion, his creators did. He is just programed to beleive it. We can sit he and are if this is true or not till we are blue in the face. It would not matter, he is a machine and , if he has no way to change his own program, will do what it's programe tells it to do.

[dreman9999]

pacientK wrote...

Good read. Also what i dont understand... why have those stupid choices at the end. Trilogy should be ended depending on choices made through all three games.

1. The chaoce were all made moraly grey to put the player in moral conflict. That been the concept of ME since the first game.
2. The ending is based on everything you didn in all the games. What you did determine how well the crucible is made and what options you hae in the end.

[CraniumBeavers]

dreman9999 wrote...

I understand you point but this is not the reason why the catalyst think this. He didn't come to this conclousion, his creators did. He is just programed to beleive it. We can sit he and are if this is true or not till we are blue in the face. It would not matter, he is a machine and , if he has no way to change his own program, will do what it's programe tells it to do.

So we are agreed that he is being fallacious. And that we are left with being told what to do by a shackled AI with faulty logic.

[ArchLord James]

CronoDragoon wrote...

ArchLord James wrote...

Any0day wrote...

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.

Wrong. The reason why reaching the god-childs chamber changes things, is it doesnt. The crucible changed things. The catalyst says, "the crucible changed me, created new variables". Essentially, the crucible was designed to defeat the reapers, by reprogramming the source (the catalyst) of the reapers. And it worked. No other explanation is needed if you understand this point.

The Crucible is clearly described as "just" a power source. As the Catalyst says, it's only when it combined with the Citadel and mass relay network that the new possibilities were created, but they weren't programmed into the Crucible or anything.

I disagree with that. How does increasing the power of something (i.e. attaching a large power source) suddenly cause it to abandon its prime directive and submit itself to its own destruction? How does it make the source (catalyst) surrender control to an organic when it is not sure that the organic who takes control will even carry out it's prime directive. In other words how does the power source cause the catalyst to go against it's programming. If it were just a power source the catalyst would never find Red or Blue options acceptable. The catalyst even says;

RED: "your children will build synthetics. . ." and the reapers/catalyst will be destroyed and unable to stop it, so it is abandoning its programming.

BLUE: "and I am not looking forward to being replaced by you but I have no choice" The catalyst says he is quote "not looking forward to being replaced by [shepard] you". The catalyst has no guarantee that shepard will fulfill the catalysts current prime directive, so it would never allow this be an option if it wasn't being forced upon it.

The reason why the catalyst presents synthesis (green) as the most favorable is because this option actually does fulfill its prime directive. Your argument makes sense here, ok its just a power source that allows to catalyst to come up with a better solution than the harvesting 50k years cycle. However, this argument makes no sense for RED and BLUE as those do no fulfil the reapers goals at all. Blue = quitting which AI doesn't do, RED = quitting and committing suicide which AI also does not do.

TLDR: It is pretty clear that red and blue are contradicting the catalysts prime directive, and it would never willingly submit to these options without force. The crucible is more than a power source.

Modifié par ArchLord James, 10 juillet 2012 - 08:17 .

[LateNightSalami]

pacientK wrote...

Good read. Also what i dont understand... why have those stupid choices at the end. Trilogy should be ended depending on choices made through all three games.

Could not agree with you more. Not sure why there was a "final choice". We were both implicitly and explicitly promised wildly differring endings that were based on our choices throughout the series. This "final choice" in it's own non-sense renders those choices almost completely meaningless. There is no culmination of what we accomplished. All is thrown out the window in favor of the final scenario that seems to have little bearing on what we had expereinced for the last 100 hours.

[Taboo]

maaaze wrote...



Him not providing the evidence...(would kinda ruin the pacing)..does not mean he has none...and yes all A.I. we know of has rebelled at one point in time...future Synthethics will too...perhaps without Shepard to save the day.

Just accept that:
Our attention span is just to short,
and a larger attention span would see a pattern and make conclusions.

I have.

The Star Gazer scene takes place ten thousand years in the future.

Fallacies. Fallacies everywhere.

[memorysquid]

Grimwick wrote...

ZajoE38 wrote...

Coming up with the Catalyst was VERY bad idea. He makes sense, but that doesn't mean I like that idea. There shouldn't have been anything above the Reapers. He just complicated things and made them look like stupid pawns.

No he doesn't.

I don't think people realise the extent to which his appeal to probability invalidates the entire logic of his arguments.

I don't because it doesn't.  If something is 99% probable, that warrants action, which is fine enough.  Who knows however this fictional character is supposed to tabulate probability, but there is little in the game to suggest that he might not simply be correct, that organic eradication simply is inevitable or close enough to it to warrant drastic action.

The ME universe is one in which the Catalyst can reliably predict with close to certain accuracy that organics will be wiped out.  Now let's discuss the ethics of the decisions therein, rather than carping over which fallacies of logic the writers may have indulged.

[dreman9999]

CraniumBeavers wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I understand you point but this is not the reason why the catalyst think this. He didn't come to this conclousion, his creators did. He is just programed to beleive it. We can sit he and are if this is true or not till we are blue in the face. It would not matter, he is a machine and , if he has no way to change his own program, will do what it's programe tells it to do.

So we are agreed that he is being fallacious. And that we are left with being told what to do by a shackled AI with faulty logic.

No, I'm saying there is no point is try to see if his logic is faulty or not. We are here to stop him. Understanding him will give us clearity of his action but no way to stop him. The simple fact that he doing this because of his programing is all was need to know. Knowing if he is right or not is not going to change the fact that we need to stop him.

[dreman9999]

memorysquid wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

ZajoE38 wrote...

Coming up with the Catalyst was VERY bad idea. He makes sense, but that doesn't mean I like that idea. There shouldn't have been anything above the Reapers. He just complicated things and made them look like stupid pawns.

No he doesn't.

I don't think people realise the extent to which his appeal to probability invalidates the entire logic of his arguments.

I don't because it doesn't.  If something is 99% probable, that warrants action, which is fine enough.  Who knows however this fictional character is supposed to tabulate probability, but there is little in the game to suggest that he might not simply be correct, that organic eradication simply is inevitable or close enough to it to warrant drastic action.

The ME universe is one in which the Catalyst can reliably predict with close to certain accuracy that organics will be wiped out.  Now let's discuss the ethics of the decisions therein, rather than carping over which fallacies of logic the writers may have indulged.

It was not he who dicided that the synthetic /organic conflict need to be stopped. Why demand that he prove it?

[memorysquid]

LateNightSalami wrote...

pacientK wrote...

Good read. Also what i dont understand... why have those stupid choices at the end. Trilogy should be ended depending on choices made through all three games.

Could not agree with you more. Not sure why there was a "final choice". We were both implicitly and explicitly promised wildly differring endings that were based on our choices throughout the series. This "final choice" in it's own non-sense renders those choices almost completely meaningless. There is no culmination of what we accomplished. All is thrown out the window in favor of the final scenario that seems to have little bearing on what we had expereinced for the last 100 hours.

Because it is a video game and they wanted a final dilemma that would be applicable to new players?  Ever read the Road to Ithaca?

[CronoDragoon]

ArchLord James wrote...

TLDR: It is pretty clear that red and blue are contradicting the catalysts prime directive, and it would never willingly submit to these options without force. The crucible is more than a power source.

Hard to say, since we are never told what his prime directive is. We know the original action the directive spurred was mediating peace between organics and synthetics, which then become Reaper-izing them.

If the prime directive is "prevent war between synthetics and organics at all costs" then this fits mediation, Reapers, Destroy/Control/Synthesis. He clearly does not believe Destroy and Control will work like he believes Synthesis will work, but that's the same as getting three options to solve a computer problem with one of them having (Recommended) next to it.

[dreman9999]

Taboo-XX wrote...

maaaze wrote...



Him not providing the evidence...(would kinda ruin the pacing)..does not mean he has none...and yes all A.I. we know of has rebelled at one point in time...future Synthethics will too...perhaps without Shepard to save the day.

Just accept that:
Our attention span is just to short,
and a larger attention span would see a pattern and make conclusions.

I have.

The Star Gazer scene takes place ten thousand years in the future.

Fallacies. Fallacies everywhere.

You do know that the scene happen well after we figured out what the problem is. It's a case of having it solved.

[Mazebook]

Taboo-XX wrote...

maaaze wrote...



Him not providing the evidence...(would kinda ruin the pacing)..does not mean he has none...and yes all A.I. we know of has rebelled at one point in time...future Synthethics will too...perhaps without Shepard to save the day.

Just accept that:
Our attention span is just to short,
and a larger attention span would see a pattern and make conclusions.

I have.

The Star Gazer scene takes place ten thousand years in the future.

Fallacies. Fallacies everywhere.

Well if you think ten thousand years is a long time span than you just proven my point...it is not even half of one cycle.

[dreman9999]

memorysquid wrote...

LateNightSalami wrote...

pacientK wrote...

Good read. Also what i dont understand... why have those stupid choices at the end. Trilogy should be ended depending on choices made through all three games.

Could not agree with you more. Not sure why there was a "final choice". We were both implicitly and explicitly promised wildly differring endings that were based on our choices throughout the series. This "final choice" in it's own non-sense renders those choices almost completely meaningless. There is no culmination of what we accomplished. All is thrown out the window in favor of the final scenario that seems to have little bearing on what we had expereinced for the last 100 hours.

Because it is a video game and they wanted a final dilemma that would be applicable to new players?  Ever read the Road to Ithaca?

How is a game with no straight happy ending appealing to new players?

[Taboo]

maaaze wrote...

Well if you think ten thousand years is a long time span than you just proven my point...it is not even half of one cycle.

It isn't my right to interfere past stopping the opposing force.

We also have TEN THOUSAND years to work towards Synthesis, which the Catalyst states WILL happen.

[memorysquid]

dreman9999 wrote...

It was not he who dicided that the synthetic /organic conflict need to be stopped. Why demand that he prove it?

You could wonder why he decided such immediate and drastic action was warranted.  Something would have to happen that convinced him further attempts at mediation were pointless - that's where the proof would come in.  He didn't simply immediately decide to go the Reaper route.

[dreman9999]

Taboo-XX wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Well if you think ten thousand years is a long time span than you just proven my point...it is not even half of one cycle.

It isn't my right to interfere past stopping the opposing force.

We also have TEN THOUSAND years to work towards Synthesis, which the Catalyst states WILL happen.

How do you know that is didn't happen with out the crucible?

[Uncle Jo]

Grimwick wrote...


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.

The Starbrat has literally just his own words to support what he said. And the three games show exactly the contrary of what he claims.

We could think that the brat's reasoning is not a "conjunctive" one (it happened---> it could happen again or not) but rather an "unitary" one (it happened---> it will always happen). That's why he chose the pre-emptive genocide strike.

He attacked the problem at "its core", but his solution was worse than the given problem. Even with a good outcome for the Rannoch Arc, he still doesn't believe in the viability of a peaceful coexistence between synths and orgs and want ot change them to his image, hence his pleading for synthesis (Reapers 2.0).

It's an AI, so I can (with a lot of efforts) understand his logical loop.  However, his own experience has lead to his conclusions. It's valid just in his case. Ours showed that it can be otherwise.

Conclusion : Kill the brat and nuke the Reapers. A big issue fewer.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 10 juillet 2012 - 08:25 .