351 réponses à ce sujet

[Vigilant111]

maaaze wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

@Grimwick I think you are in serious denial if you don´t think every Synthetic we have encountered that has evolved rebelled against their Creators...

Why do you think there was a ban on A.I. in the first place?

I really don´t understand how you can fight this point so eagerly when there are so many examples to the contrary....

An Asteroid has to hit earth only one time...and everything is over... it does not matter that the probability that this happens this month is low...what matters is that the probability of this happening is considerably higher that this will happen in the next 1000 years.

So we should find a solution to this problem...because ones we are gone we are gone.

Only against the creators, the creators of the Geth are the Quarians, not humans, Geth does not necessarily harm other organics, if the Geth do wipe the Quarians out, then this serves to be an effective warning to other organics who are about develop AIs of their own

so the premise is true...good...lets say a big organic force creates powerful synthetics and forces them to rebel. And now every other organic force perishes as collateral damage...

it only has to happen once.

That is in your imagination, nothing is that black and white

What do u mean happen once? the rebellion has already happened, and no, people are not completely wiped out, the Catalyst only said REBEL, NOT wiped out, there is a difference

Every other organic force perished? you mean as in synthesis? Synthetics are not some machines that blindly follows orders, if they are sentient enough, there would be factions, whoever is causing trouble will be counter acted, there must be a balance

[KingZayd]

maaaze wrote...

@Grimwick I think you are in serious denial if you don´t think every Synthetic we have encountered that has evolved rebelled against their Creators...

Why do you think there was a ban on A.I. in the first place?

I really don´t understand how you can fight this point so eagerly when there are so many examples to the contrary....

An Asteroid has to hit earth only one time...and everything is over... it does not matter that the probability that this happens this month is low...what matters is that the probability of this happening is considerably higher that this will happen in the next 1000 years.

So we should find a solution to this problem...because ones we are gone we are gone.

The same reason we have so many films about robots trying to kill us. Our imagination.

[Mazebook]

Vigilant111 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

@Grimwick I think you are in serious denial if you don´t think every Synthetic we have encountered that has evolved rebelled against their Creators...

Why do you think there was a ban on A.I. in the first place?

I really don´t understand how you can fight this point so eagerly when there are so many examples to the contrary....

An Asteroid has to hit earth only one time...and everything is over... it does not matter that the probability that this happens this month is low...what matters is that the probability of this happening is considerably higher that this will happen in the next 1000 years.

So we should find a solution to this problem...because ones we are gone we are gone.

Only against the creators, the creators of the Geth are the Quarians, not humans, Geth does not necessarily harm other organics, if the Geth do wipe the Quarians out, then this serves to be an effective warning to other organics who are about develop AIs of their own

so the premise is true...good...lets say a big organic force creates powerful synthetics and forces them to rebel. And now every other organic force perishes as collateral damage...

it only has to happen once.

That is in your imagination, nothing is that black and white

What do u mean happen once? the rebellion has already happened, and no, people are not completely wiped out, the Catalyst only said REBEL, NOT wiped out, there is a difference

Every other organic force perished? you mean as in synthesis? Synthetics are not some machines that blindly follows orders, if they are sentient enough, there would be factions, whoever is causing trouble will be counter acted, there must be a balance

In a binary logic conclusion everything has to be black and white...The catalyst is an Computer...

I mean that the created rebelling against the creator will probably lead someday to the extinction of organics...

that was the arguement here...

So the basic assumptions and therefore the logic of the Catalyst make sense. (at least when you put yourself in the shoes of the Catalyst).

[George Costanza]

I think it's more like...

1: Organic life must be saved.
2: Organics will always eventually create Synthetics.
3: Synthetics will eventually rebel against Organics.
4: If Synthetics are allowed to surpass Organics, when they rebel, Organics will be unable to stop them, and Organic life will be wiped out.
Solution: Cull Organic life before it gets to the point where it can create Synthetic life capable of surpassing it. To ensure 1, as long as 2 and 3 are true, 4 must not be allowed to happen.

[Mazebook]

KingZayd wrote...

maaaze wrote...

@Grimwick I think you are in serious denial if you don´t think every Synthetic we have encountered that has evolved rebelled against their Creators...

Why do you think there was a ban on A.I. in the first place?

I really don´t understand how you can fight this point so eagerly when there are so many examples to the contrary....

An Asteroid has to hit earth only one time...and everything is over... it does not matter that the probability that this happens this month is low...what matters is that the probability of this happening is considerably higher that this will happen in the next 1000 years.

So we should find a solution to this problem...because ones we are gone we are gone.

The same reason we have so many films about robots trying to kill us. Our imagination.

Exactly. FEAR.

fear of being surpassed...of not being the master anymore...which creates conflict.

[Vigilant111]

maaaze wrote...

In a binary logic conclusion everything has to be black and white...The catalyst is an Computer...

I mean that the created rebelling against the creator will probably lead someday to the extinction of organics...

that was the arguement here...

So the basic assumptions and therefore the logic of the Catalyst make sense. (at least when you put yourself in the shoes of the Catalyst).

No, the Catalyst has its logic inside its own head, to itself, its opinions are correct but we have our own logic, and we are way more resourceful and dynamic than the "computer" that you have described.

The Catalyst's logic does not make sense, because it negates our own logic, and our logic is not affected by some programming, we look at our lives more closely, we experience our lives, the Catalyst doesn't, the Catalyst ASSUMES

[Mazebook]

Vigilant111 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

In a binary logic conclusion everything has to be black and white...The catalyst is an Computer...

I mean that the created rebelling against the creator will probably lead someday to the extinction of organics...

that was the arguement here...

So the basic assumptions and therefore the logic of the Catalyst make sense. (at least when you put yourself in the shoes of the Catalyst).

No, the Catalyst has its logic inside its own head, to itself, its opinions are correct but we have our own logic, and we are way more resourceful and dynamic than the "computer" that you have described.

The Catalyst's logic does not make sense, because it negates our own logic, and our logic is not affected by some programming, we look at our lives more closely, we experience our lives, the Catalyst doesn't, the Catalyst ASSUMES

It makes  no sense for us because we value Individuallity and see every person as equaly valuable...
The Catalyst only sees Organics as a whole as well as Synthetics...He does not distinguish between Individuals.

Modifié par maaaze, 12 juillet 2012 - 12:08 .

[Vigilant111]

maaaze wrote...

It makes  no sense for us because we value Individuallity and see every person as equaly valuable...
The Catalyst only sees Organics as a whole as well as Synthetics...He does not distinguish between Individuals.

Are u saying that the Catalyst categorises life into two lump sum groups and look at things at the galatic level, therefore it somehow invalidates our own logic? Last time I checked ME has sufficient communication gear for the travel of information, we too look at things on a galactic scale

Unforturnately for the Catalyst, the person of whom it is trying to appeal to happened to be an individual

I am sorry but experience triumphs over generalisation

[Memnon]

The reason the Catalyst makes no sense is because his creators were morons ... it's really that simple

[Dharvy]

Vigilant111 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

In a binary logic conclusion everything has to be black and white...The catalyst is an Computer...

I mean that the created rebelling against the creator will probably lead someday to the extinction of organics...

that was the arguement here...

So the basic assumptions and therefore the logic of the Catalyst make sense. (at least when you put yourself in the shoes of the Catalyst).

No, the Catalyst has its logic inside its own head, to itself, its opinions are correct but we have our own logic, and we are way more resourceful and dynamic than the "computer" that you have described.

The Catalyst's logic does not make sense, because it negates our own logic, and our logic is not affected by some programming, we look at our lives more closely, we experience our lives, the Catalyst doesn't, the Catalyst ASSUMES

No, we take chances. We value individual life so we take chances. Our logic dictates if there's a chance for a better outcome we take it and hope for the best. Only when the chance is to narrow and the results are catastrophic do we try to find another way. We take chances because to live in fear and try to prevent every probability is not considered living.

The catalyst have experience over our limited experience. Its like having a pair dice and rolling a few times and not getting double 1s and using that logic to battle someone that's been rolling the dice for a billions years and them telling you that you'll always eventually role double 1s.

And the SC claims the Reapers are preserving through harvesting. We as an individual experiencing the lost and see it as genocide, extermination, our very lives get ripped away, so we feel a greater justification is needed to do such atrocities. A percieved synthetic conflict that would end in true organic extermination is what the SC is trying to prevent so they reap, harvest, preserve the organics in Reaper form until a time when they can truly end the cycle and a Synthetic conflict resulting in a organic extermination is no longer viable or likely.

Makes sense to me.

[Vigilant111]

Dharvy wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

In a binary logic conclusion everything has to be black and white...The catalyst is an Computer...

I mean that the created rebelling against the creator will probably lead someday to the extinction of organics...

that was the arguement here...

So the basic assumptions and therefore the logic of the Catalyst make sense. (at least when you put yourself in the shoes of the Catalyst).

No, the Catalyst has its logic inside its own head, to itself, its opinions are correct but we have our own logic, and we are way more resourceful and dynamic than the "computer" that you have described.

The Catalyst's logic does not make sense, because it negates our own logic, and our logic is not affected by some programming, we look at our lives more closely, we experience our lives, the Catalyst doesn't, the Catalyst ASSUMES

No, we take chances. We value individual life so we take chances. Our logic dictates if there's a chance for a better outcome we take it and hope for the best. Only when the chance is to narrow and the results are catastrophic do we try to find another way. We take chances because to live in fear and try to prevent every probability is not considered living.

The catalyst have experience over our limited experience. Its like having a pair dice and rolling a few times and not getting double 1s and using that logic to battle someone that's been rolling the dice for a billions years and them telling you that you'll always eventually role double 1s.

And the SC claims the Reapers are preserving through harvesting. We as an individual experiencing the lost and see it as genocide, extermination, our very lives get ripped away, so we feel a greater justification is needed to do such atrocities. A percieved synthetic conflict that would end in true organic extermination is what the SC is trying to prevent so they reap, harvest, preserve the organics in Reaper form until a time when they can truly end the cycle and a Synthetic conflict resulting in a organic extermination is no longer viable or likely.

Makes sense to me.

The Catalyst didn't EXPERIENCE anything, it experiemented in a controlled way, full length of synthetic/organic affairs has not been explored, simulations only, reaping cycles only, not "synthetic wiped out organics" cycles

The talk about statistics, you should know, the law of average works both ways, u can be convinced that the current result follows the past pattern, or u can be convinced of the result being a surprise that negates the pattern, the longer the history is, the more likely the surprising event will happen, and I am convinced of the latter

But the reapers did exterminate the organics in the past cycles, they just killed the organics first before anyone did, something that the reapers had alleged what synthetics were going to do

Peace in a vacuum where everybody is dead is pointless

Modifié par Vigilant111, 12 juillet 2012 - 01:26 .

[Grimwick]

maaaze wrote...

@Grimwick I think you are in serious denial if you don´t think every Synthetic we have encountered that has evolved rebelled against their Creators...

Evidence, please. Show me that every single synthetic in the history of the universe has rebelled and I will believe you then.

Why do you think there was a ban on A.I. in the first place?

One example does not prove it always happens.

I really don´t understand how you can fight this point so eagerly when there are so many examples to the contrary....

Those 'many' examples are infinitely smaller than the infinity of examples that are required to justify your claim. We only need 1 counterexample to completely nullify your argument.

So again, where are these infinite examples?

An Asteroid has to hit earth only one time...and everything is over... it does not matter that the probability that this happens this month is low...what matters is that the probability of this happening is considerably higher that this will happen in the next 1000 years.

This line of thinking doesn't make sense when the solution is genocide. Nor does it justify an absolute statement. The logic of his arguments is still wrong.

"Oh, what's the worst that can happen? Genocide? Then let's kill everyone to stop it!"

So we should find a solution to this problem...because ones we are gone we are gone.

And once we are gone we are dead. We are no longer alive to care about what happens next. I really don't see how genocide is solving this problem.

If you are talking about organics in general that is pure speculation. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that a rebelling synthetic will kill all organic life forever. Absolutely none.

[Grimwick]

George Costanza wrote...

I think it's more like...

1: Organic life must be saved.
2: Organics will always eventually create Synthetics.
3: Synthetics will eventually rebel against Organics.
4: If Synthetics are allowed to surpass Organics, when they rebel, Organics will be unable to stop them, and Organic life will be wiped out.
Solution: Cull Organic life before it gets to the point where it can create Synthetic life capable of surpassing it. To ensure 1, as long as 2 and 3 are true, 4 must not be allowed to happen.

The fallacy is made in 3 and 4 where it makes unsupported assumptions that:

1) Synthetics will always rebel.
2) Organic life will be wiped out.

[elitehunter34]

I don't see why anyone's still arguing about the Catalyst's conclusion that synthetics will always rebel. Yes it is based on limited data. It's a crazy AI. It can reach whatever conclusion it wants from whatever data it wants. I don't see a problem with a crazy AI. There's really no reason to argue this point anymore. We all agree that the Catalyst made an insane solution to problem.

However, saying that, the Catalyst as a character still does not make sense because he does things that contradict his motives. This was mentioned in the OP's article.

[Any0day]

Grimwick wrote...

The fallacy is made in 3 and 4 where it makes unsupported assumptions that:

1) Synthetics will always rebel.
2) Organic life will be wiped out.

It's not necessarily a fallacy as much as it is an extrapolation and really at this point you are arguing semantics; and it's definitely not ''unsupported.''

Let me ask you a question: when your car is running and you hit the gas pedal, how sure are you that it will accelerate? Are you 100% sure? If you are, that's a fallacy. If we're seriously arguing the semantics of words that are definite like... 'always','is','are', etc... then in reality these words are always incorrect.

 
This is IBM Watson playing and destroying jeopardy champions. When Watson says ''Object X is Object Y," what he really means is "Object X is more than likely Object Y with respect to my correlating data passing a certain threshold."

[KingZayd]

maaaze wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

maaaze wrote...

@Grimwick I think you are in serious denial if you don´t think every Synthetic we have encountered that has evolved rebelled against their Creators...

Why do you think there was a ban on A.I. in the first place?

I really don´t understand how you can fight this point so eagerly when there are so many examples to the contrary....

An Asteroid has to hit earth only one time...and everything is over... it does not matter that the probability that this happens this month is low...what matters is that the probability of this happening is considerably higher that this will happen in the next 1000 years.

So we should find a solution to this problem...because ones we are gone we are gone.

The same reason we have so many films about robots trying to kill us. Our imagination.

Exactly. FEAR.

fear of being surpassed...of not being the master anymore...which creates conflict.

No.

Fear of being killed.

[George Costanza]

Grimwick wrote...

George Costanza wrote...

I think it's more like...

1: Organic life must be saved.
2: Organics will always eventually create Synthetics.
3: Synthetics will eventually rebel against Organics.
4: If Synthetics are allowed to surpass Organics, when they rebel, Organics will be unable to stop them, and Organic life will be wiped out.
Solution: Cull Organic life before it gets to the point where it can create Synthetic life capable of surpassing it. To ensure 1, as long as 2 and 3 are true, 4 must not be allowed to happen.

The fallacy is made in 3 and 4 where it makes unsupported assumptions that:

1) Synthetics will always rebel.
2) Organic life will be wiped out.

It's not a fallacy though. You've got to understand, the Catalyst is a program, and he's working on the logic set by his programming, and simple probability.

Example. How likely is it I'm going to have pizza for dinner? Well, if the timeline is today, then I know it isn't happening. I'm having pasta. But there's a pizza in the freezer. Tomorrow? Well, I could, or there's also chicken in there. Saturday? I could order takeout. I could go out. I could go shopping. I might not eat. But the pizza is still in there. It's easy to say it's not definite that I'm going to have pizza again. It's not. But as the timeline increases so do the number of dinners I have, and since there's a chance that I could have pizza, as the timeline stretches the probability of me having pizza again rises.

On a long enough timeline, the probability of anything that can happen rises towards certain. It will never actually be certain. But the probability will rise high enough to the point that it becomes more likely than not.

The Catalyst is faced with a problem. And we know that Synthetics have turned on Organics before. Both in our cycle, and the Protheans cycle. It's possible they will again. And the timeline we're operating on is from now until the end of the universe. It's a huge timeline. And because of that, the chances of it happening again, while not certain, have risen to as close to certain as can be.

People point to the Geth and Quarian peace as a flaw in the logic of the Catalyst but it isn't. War isn't happening now. And it might not happen tomorrow. It might not happen for the next century. But given that it's possible, and the enormity of the timeline, it's given lifes tendancy towards conflict, it's fair to say that logically, it's entirely likely that Synthetics will rebel again.

The more advanced that organic life gets, the more advanced their technology will become. But organic lifes evolution levels out. We don't need to evolve to survive anymore because the same troubles we had in the past to get to this point don't exist. Look at us. Fundamentally, we're barely different to the humans of 100 years ago. But in that time technology has evolved greatly.

We continue to develop more advanced technology on a yearly basis. And should the time come where our creations, our AIs, are as advanced as we are, then so too will come the point where they don't need us to help them evolve. They'll be able to do it themselves. At that point, synthetic evolution gets faster as ours stays the same.

In that scenario, should Synthetics rebel, we wouldn't have a chance.

That's the logic of the Catalyst. Without culling Organics before they can reach the point of creating Synthetics at the same level as themselves, and assuming the likelihood that eventually those Synthetics will rebel, Organic life will be wiped out.

I'm not saying I agree with the Catalysts methods, or even that I think it's a good plot device, or that I like it. I think the ending stands out like a sore thumb and the introduction of the Catalyst was a bad decision on Biowares part, but I think to shoot down everything he says as illogical is illogical itself. He's a program created to solve a problem, and while his solution might be heartless, and frankly, abhorrent, he's reached that solution logically, I think.

[Grimwick]

Any0day wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

The fallacy is made in 3 and 4 where it makes unsupported assumptions that:

1) Synthetics will always rebel.
2) Organic life will be wiped out.

It's not necessarily a fallacy as much as it is an extrapolation and really at this point you are arguing semantics; and it's definitely not ''unsupported.''

Let me ask you a question: when your car is running and you hit the gas pedal, how sure are you that it will accelerate? Are you 100% sure? If you are, that's a fallacy. If we're seriously arguing the semantics of words that are definite like... 'always','is','are', etc... then in reality these words are always incorrect.

But he isn't justified in the slightest. His logic is based purely around the fact that he is 100% certain when he isn't. And an overextrapolation - and then coming to a conclusion based upon that overextrapolation is a fallacy.

When he claims the created will always rebel he means it and he justifies his logic upon that. If what he meant to say is, the created nearly always rebels then two things:

1) He should have said that.
2) It doesn't justify his solution.

If you want to take it to a semantic level I can start arguing about the necessity of saving any form of organic life if you want. I think you'll find the level of nitpicking used to justify the SC is greater than not.

[The Night Mammoth]

Hey there, I'm an average joe human-being that you've never met, so you should trust me despite the bloody knife in my hand.

Because our species has created nuclear weapons we will use them and eradicate all life on Earth. Proof? We've had so much conflict in our past that it's inevitable. Actual proof? You don't need that, so I won't give you any. I know you've spent years experiencing things that are contradictory to everything I'm saying, but frankly: I don't care. I am right just because. 

So yeah, I've sat here on wikipedia for like, ages, and the only way to stop the eradication of all life on our planet is to kill all humans. Oh wait, I almost forgot; we write down some stuff about the people we capture, before we kill them. I genetically engineered a new species of horse to do the deed. 

Eh..... so I have three solutions, thanks to that massive mystery machine you've built. Want to know how it works? Too bad, I don't know either. Just trust me. 

Kill all nations that currently have the ability to manufacture nuclear weaponary, which is most first-world countries. Take control of my horse army to guide the future of huamity. Or, you can make everyone into nuclear powered centaurs, which will somehow stop my problem from coming about but I'm not sure how, and I won't elaborate further. 

The paths are open, but you should choose the third one. 

Go.

This, essentially, is the same situation as the standing before the Catalyst at the end. Same dilemma.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 12 juillet 2012 - 06:37 .

[Grimwick]

George Costanza wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

George Costanza wrote...

I think it's more like...

1: Organic life must be saved.
2: Organics will always eventually create Synthetics.
3: Synthetics will eventually rebel against Organics.
4: If Synthetics are allowed to surpass Organics, when they rebel, Organics will be unable to stop them, and Organic life will be wiped out.
Solution: Cull Organic life before it gets to the point where it can create Synthetic life capable of surpassing it. To ensure 1, as long as 2 and 3 are true, 4 must not be allowed to happen.

The fallacy is made in 3 and 4 where it makes unsupported assumptions that:

1) Synthetics will always rebel.
2) Organic life will be wiped out.

Example. How likely is it I'm going to have pizza for dinner? Well, if the timeline is today, then I know it isn't happening. I'm having pasta. But there's a pizza in the freezer. Tomorrow? Well, I could, or there's also chicken in there. Saturday? I could order takeout. I could go out. I could go shopping. I might not eat. But the pizza is still in there. It's easy to say it's not definite that I'm going to have pizza again. It's not. But as the timeline increases so do the number of dinners I have, and since there's a chance that I could have pizza, as the timeline stretches the probability of me having pizza again rises.

Invalid argument. Anyone can argue that if something is possible, it will/could happen. In fact, it's a mathematical certainty that any event with a non-zero probability will occur during an infinite period of time.

This is funnily enough the exact fallacy the SC is making right here. It's called an appeal to probability.

He's stating that event x is possible/has been observed once. Then he concludes that it therefore must happen/will happen again. His entire logical argument is based around an absolute argument. This absolute argument is based upon probabilities - that's a fallacious argument.

Let me give you an example of the exact logic the SC is using:

Premise: Germany will invade Europe sometime in the future (unspecified).
Evidence: Germany has invaded Europe before.
Premise: Europe being invaded is bad.
Therefore: We stop Germany invading Europe.
Conclusion: We nuke Germany to stop them invading.

It's not a direct example but this is exactly the line of reasoning the SC is using and it is just as fallacious.

It's possible they will again. And the timeline we're operating on is from now until the end of the universe. It's a huge timeline. And because of that, the chances of it happening again, while not certain, have risen to as close to certain as can be.

See my Germany example. Should we nuke germany because they could invade us?

People point to the Geth and Quarian peace as a flaw in the logic of the Catalyst but it isn't. War isn't happening now. And it might not happen tomorrow. It might not happen for the next century. But given that it's possible, and the enormity of the timeline, it's given lifes tendancy towards conflict, it's fair to say that logically, it's entirely likely that Synthetics will rebel again.

For a start, I didn't point to them so it is ridiculous to bring them into the discussion. The SC assumes that peace is impossible and saying things such as 'the geth could start a war later' is absolutely ludicrous as a justification.

Spain could invade Portugal.
The human race could die out.
France could win the world cup.
Walmart could takeover the world.

Stating possibilites and then pointing to an enormous timescale as a justification is a logical fallacy. Again you are trying to argue that an appeal to probability is reasonable logic.

The more advanced that organic life gets, the more advanced their technology will become. But organic lifes evolution levels out. We don't need to evolve to survive anymore because the same troubles we had in the past to get to this point don't exist.

That doesn't mean we stop evolving at all. evolution cannot be stopped - by the very nature of the concept it happens whether the selection pressure is increased or decreased to near zero. 

Look at us. Fundamentally, we're barely different to the humans of 100 years ago. But in that time technology has evolved greatly.

That's because evolution isn't measurable every 100 years. It requires millions (or hundred sof thousands) of years to have a noticeable effect. This is simply a poor understanding of evolution, nor is it helping your argument.

We continue to develop more advanced technology on a yearly basis. And should the time come where our creations, our AIs, are as advanced as we are, then so too will come the point where they don't need us to help them evolve. They'll be able to do it themselves. At that point, synthetic evolution gets faster as ours stays the same.

Speculation.

In that scenario, should Synthetics rebel, we wouldn't have a chance.

That's the logic of the Catalyst. Without culling Organics before they can reach the point of creating Synthetics at the same level as themselves, and assuming the likelihood that eventually those Synthetics will rebel, Organic life will be wiped out.

You're still assuming that when the synthetics rebel they will wipe out all organics. That's an unfounded belief. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. Again, this reasoning also assumes that in 100% of cases they will rebel.

I'm not saying I agree with the Catalysts methods, or even that I think it's a good plot device, or that I like it. I think the ending stands out like a sore thumb and the introduction of the Catalyst was a bad decision on Biowares part, but I think to shoot down everything he says as illogical is illogical itself. He's a program created to solve a problem, and while his solution might be heartless, and frankly, abhorrent, he's reached that solution logically, I think.

It's not illogical to shoot down poor logic. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Mazebook]

KingZayd wrote...

maaaze wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

maaaze wrote...

@Grimwick I think you are in serious denial if you don´t think every Synthetic we have encountered that has evolved rebelled against their Creators...

Why do you think there was a ban on A.I. in the first place?

I really don´t understand how you can fight this point so eagerly when there are so many examples to the contrary....

An Asteroid has to hit earth only one time...and everything is over... it does not matter that the probability that this happens this month is low...what matters is that the probability of this happening is considerably higher that this will happen in the next 1000 years.

So we should find a solution to this problem...because ones we are gone we are gone.

The same reason we have so many films about robots trying to kill us. Our imagination.

Exactly. FEAR.

fear of being surpassed...of not being the master anymore...which creates conflict.

No.

Fear of being killed.

because you are not in control anymore...losing control brings panic and leads to irrational behavior leads to conflict...

as seen in the morning war...

[Grimwick]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Hey there, I'm an average joe human-being that you've never met, so you should trust me despite the bloody knife in my hand.

Because our species has created nuclear weapons we will use them and eradicate all life on Earth. Proof? We've had so much conflict in our past that it's inevitable. Actual proof? You don't need that, so I won't give you any.

So yeah, I've sat here on wikipedia for like, ages, and the only way to stop the eradication of all life on our planet is to kill all humans. I genetically engineered a new species of horse to do the deed. 

So I have three solutions. Kill all nations that currently have the ability to manufacture weaponary, which is most first-world countries. Take control of my horse army to guide the future of huamity. Or, you can make everyone into nulcear powered centaurs, which will somehow stop my problem from coming about but I'm not sure how, and I won't elaborate further. 

The paths are open, but you should choose the third one. 

Go.

This, essentially, is the same situation as the standing before the Catalyst at the end. Same dilemma.

Pretty much. It's a case of 'hey that stranger over there could shoot me with that concealed weapon I can't see. I should shoot him first so he doesn't shoot me.'

I doubt that'd hold up in court.

Modifié par Grimwick, 12 juillet 2012 - 05:43 .

[dreman9999]

George Costanza wrote...

I think it's more like...

1: Organic life must be saved.
2: Organics will always eventually create Synthetics.
3: Synthetics will eventually rebel against Organics.
4: If Synthetics are allowed to surpass Organics, when they rebel, Organics will be unable to stop them, and Organic life will be wiped out.
Solution: Cull Organic life before it gets to the point where it can create Synthetic life capable of surpassing it. To ensure 1, as long as 2 and 3 are true, 4 must not be allowed to happen.

The salution is to change organic life via culling it to save it.

[Memnon]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Hey there, I'm an average joe human-being that you've never met, so you should trust me despite the bloody knife in my hand.

Because our species has created nuclear weapons we will use them and eradicate all life on Earth. Proof? We've had so much conflict in our past that it's inevitable. Actual proof? You don't need that, so I won't give you any.

So yeah, I've sat here on wikipedia for like, ages, and the only way to stop the eradication of all life on our planet is to kill all humans. I genetically engineered a new species of horse to do the deed. 

So I have three solutions. Kill all nations that currently have the ability to manufacture weaponary, which is most first-world countries. Take control of my horse army to guide the future of huamity. Or, you can make everyone into nulcear powered centaurs, which will somehow stop my problem from coming about but I'm not sure how, and I won't elaborate further. 

The paths are open, but you should choose the third one. 

Go.

This, essentially, is the same situation as the standing before the Catalyst at the end. Same dilemma.

I want to make this my signature

[The Interloper]

Good post, OP.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Hey there, I'm an average joe human-being that you've never met, so you should trust me despite the bloody knife in my hand.

Because our species has created nuclear weapons we will use them and eradicate all life on Earth. Proof? We've had so much conflict in our past that it's inevitable. Actual proof? You don't need that, so I won't give you any.

So yeah, I've sat here on wikipedia for like, ages, and the only way to stop the eradication of all life on our planet is to kill all humans. I genetically engineered a new species of horse to do the deed. 

So I have three solutions. Kill all nations that currently have the ability to manufacture weaponary, which is most first-world countries. Take control of my horse army to guide the future of huamity. Or, you can make everyone into nulcear powered centaurs, which will somehow stop my problem from coming about but I'm not sure how, and I won't elaborate further. 

The paths are open, but you should choose the third one. 

Go.

This, essentially, is the same situation as the standing before the Catalyst at the end. Same dilemma.

Same here.