556 réponses à ce sujet

[Grimwick]

maaaze wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

With probability, in order to predict the possibility of something happening you have to observe it happening for a certain amount of time. What is the probability of the LHC destroying the universe? The singularity has not happened, and is therefore impossible to predict - the only way you can predict it is philosophically, not mathematically. There are no known 'variables' to that equation. What is happening is actually worse than Grimwick's Germany analogy - it's as if we decided that we have to nuke ourselves every few thousand years, because we're afraid that aliens will come and wipe us out if we reach a certain technological level

The Catalyst was wrong because he was built by creators who didn't understand probability very well ...

With probability, in order to predict the possibility of something happening you have to observe it happening for a certain amount of time. 


which is EXACTLY what he did...We tried many solutions...they always ended in conflict.

So think to yourself what evidence the SC has. He has evidence which shows that within the time period he recorded there is a 100% certainty of conflict. Now also think what evidence he has about what will happen next.

He has some evidence that conflict may occur, but he has no evidence to claim a 100% chance of it occuring.

That alone renders your argument invalid.

What is happening is actually worse than Grimwick's Germany analogy - it's as if we decided that we have to nuke ourselves every few thousand years, because we're afraid that aliens will come and wipe us out if we reach a certain technological level 

That analogy makes no sense at all...the analogie would be...because Humans are always in conflict with each other we have to creat a human hive mind that bundeles all thoughts and motivation.

thats the analogy.

The 'analogy' is not an anaolgy of the situation but of the logical reasoning behind the SC.

Please think before you speak.

Also it's funny becuase your 'analogy' completely misses the point and isn't an 'analogy' of the SC.

You don´t even know what an anology is ..do you?

here ...read and learn...

the reasoning of what the catalyst did and what he did are the same.

It appears you have no idea what you are talking about.

the feeling is mutual.

Reapers are exactly that...a hive mind to preserve the civilization.

If you are going to bring up preservation i think you'll lose.

You know those things called explosions? Yeah? They kill people. They don't harvest them,

There's also the debate as to whether they are 'harvested' in the first place when there is no evidence to suggest the consciousness is conserved and frankly plenty of evidence to the contrary.

But don't bring this up here, it doesn't justify your argument.

[Mazebook]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Hey mister ellipsis is back! Hooray!

Catalyst: Created always rebel yadda yadda yadda!

*Starts shooting tube*

Catalyst: NO! You must pick Synthesis it's the most awesomesauce thing ever!!!!!

*tube explodes killing all Reapers *sorry Geth/EDI*


Killing the star brat is the only satisfying part of ME3's endgame.

Does it have a logical reason for doing what it did? No idea and it doesn't matter because it's dead now.

Oh Hi there...welcome back...as i see you are missing the point of the discussion again.

ehm yeah...keep having fun with that.

I'm having a great deal of fun.

Why do you keep over using ellipses?

I can ask you the same...
why don´t you use ellipses ? ...think about it...the answer might surprise you.

[Memnon]

maaaze wrote...
I say he witnessed conflict countless times...where the possibility of total annhilation rises to such a dangerous level...that the point of no return can be touched with your fingertipps.

So he had to act and so he did. 

So why not eradicate the constructs instead of the organics? Why not instead implement measures which prevent synthetics from surpassing their creators.

[Cypher_CS]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Oh I understand perfectly, u gave me a formula, shown me the working, yet there is so much uncertainties about the probabilities, so the end results are neither here or there, only that organics are against massive odds, guess what, we also faced the reapers against those massive odds with the price of countless of lives, but now we are free, synthetics are no more fearful than the reapers

NO!
It's NOT about the Probabilities.
The Probabilities don't matter, or, rather, the only thing about them that matters is that they are non Zero.

Vigilant111 wrote... 
Okay so now its downgraded to synthetics will "probably" win right?

Okay, time to go at it one sentence at a time.
What, on God's rather smog filled Earth led you to the understanding that I wrote anything resembling "probably win"???

Vigilant111 wrote...  
and the Catalyst simply just misused the word "always"...okay, so eventually everyone concludes so, what of it?

Same question....

Vigilant111 wrote...  
So we look past the words and SPECULATE the "true" meaning, which is what we have been doing all along

No, we look up the meaning of "the house ALWAYS wins" and we look up the dictionary meaning of the word Always....

Here, read this to understand the Casino's edge and then understand the meaning of the House ALWAYS Wins:
http://casinogamblin...a/houseedge.htm 

[iSousek]

maaaze wrote...

iSousek wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Excuse me?

You don't predict possibility, you assign probability.
You don't need to say this or that will happen, you only need to give probabilities of different eventualities or possibilities.

Can math not predict how many dead people would be in the radius of a 50kiloton atomic explosion?
Do we really need to first see it happen?

Or hell, can we not predict durabilities of cars, ships or plains "simply" by calculating physical strengths and running Monte Carlo simulations and optimizations on how many spare parts we will need to sustain a desired life expectancy?

You have real data to predict the casualties based on a nuclear explosion over a city - e.g. the city's population, time of day, blast radius, etc. You have real data regarding the material strengths for vehicles regarding collisions - in fact, most of those are observed in a lab with crash simulations, blast testing, etc. What real data do we have for a technical singularity? That there were a few attempts at a solution which ended in conflict ... that's it.

why do you assume a few attempts...for all we know it could be a million attemps

You are saying that catalyst witnessed million times how sythetics wiped out organics? I somehow doubt it because there would be no one left to harvest if that was true? He is being inductive and is creating a general scientific theory. One that fell apart not only in our cycle but also in the previous one.

On the topic of AI. My question was 'why do organics create AI at all?' . It has nothing to do with it being better or worse that organics.


On a side note, this whole debate reminds of what Karl Popper once said that some scientist will upon discovery of black swan simply say 'oh God, look at that huge raven'.

I say he witnessed conflict countless times...where the possibility of total annhilation rises to such a dangerous level...that the point of no return can be touched with your fingertipps.

So he had to act and so he did. 

I doubt it, because all organics are harvested prior to that event.
Also what you are saying is that he witnessed countless conflict and then acted, while we know it is the opposite of that. He witnessed conflict in one specific, particular point in history, created theory and acted upon predictions of that theory in every other situation.

Modifié par iSousek, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:57 .

[Mazebook]

Stornskar wrote...

maaaze wrote...
I say he witnessed conflict countless times...where the possibility of total annhilation rises to such a dangerous level...that the point of no return can be touched with your fingertipps.

So he had to act and so he did. 

So why not eradicate the constructs instead of the organics? Why not instead implement measures which prevent synthetics from surpassing their creators.

Because that would not solve the problem...restart of the Galaxy is the only solution that is permanent
...and a solution that would relie on himself is flawed by default.

[Cypher_CS]

Stornskar wrote...

You talk of Expectancy (theory I assume?), which I admit am not well versed in - Expectancy is related to behavioral predictions, yes? Are you talking the expectancy of synthetics (how does that work?) organics, or both?

Although I'm a Psych major, I am NOT talking about THE Expectancy Theory, I'm talking about the calculationf Expectancy in Statistics.

Read the above linked article on the House Edge and you'll understand.

[Grimwick]

maaaze wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Hey mister ellipsis is back! Hooray!

Catalyst: Created always rebel yadda yadda yadda!

*Starts shooting tube*

Catalyst: NO! You must pick Synthesis it's the most awesomesauce thing ever!!!!!

*tube explodes killing all Reapers *sorry Geth/EDI*


Killing the star brat is the only satisfying part of ME3's endgame.

Does it have a logical reason for doing what it did? No idea and it doesn't matter because it's dead now.

Oh Hi there...welcome back...as i see you are missing the point of the discussion again.

ehm yeah...keep having fun with that.

I'm having a great deal of fun.

Why do you keep over using ellipses?

I can ask you the same...
why don´t you use ellipses ? ...think about it...the answer might surprise you.

Yeah about that:

"Ellipsis (plural ellipses; from the Ancient Greek: ἔλλειψις, élleipsis, "omission" or "falling short") is a series of marks that usually indicate an intentional omission of a word, sentence or whole section from the original text being quoted. An ellipsis can also be used to indicate an unfinished thought or, at the end of a sentence, a trailing off into silence (aposiopesis), example: "But I thought he was . . ." When placed at the beginning or end of a sentence, the ellipsis can also inspire a feeling of melancholy or longing. The ellipsis calls for a slight pause in speech or any other form of text, but it is incorrect to use ellipses solely to indicate a pause in speech."

99% of the times you use an ellipsis are wrong.

[Mazebook]

iSousek wrote...

maaaze wrote...

iSousek wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Excuse me?

You don't predict possibility, you assign probability.
You don't need to say this or that will happen, you only need to give probabilities of different eventualities or possibilities.

Can math not predict how many dead people would be in the radius of a 50kiloton atomic explosion?
Do we really need to first see it happen?

Or hell, can we not predict durabilities of cars, ships or plains "simply" by calculating physical strengths and running Monte Carlo simulations and optimizations on how many spare parts we will need to sustain a desired life expectancy?

You have real data to predict the casualties based on a nuclear explosion over a city - e.g. the city's population, time of day, blast radius, etc. You have real data regarding the material strengths for vehicles regarding collisions - in fact, most of those are observed in a lab with crash simulations, blast testing, etc. What real data do we have for a technical singularity? That there were a few attempts at a solution which ended in conflict ... that's it.

why do you assume a few attempts...for all we know it could be a million attemps

You are saying that catalyst witnessed million times how sythetics wiped out organics? I somehow doubt it because there would be no one left to harvest if that was true? He is being inductive and is creating a general scientific theory. One that fell apart not only in our cycle but also in the previous one.

On the topic of AI. My question was 'why do organics create AI at all?' . It has nothing to do with it being better or worse that organics.


On a side note, this whole debate reminds of what Karl Popper once said that some scientist will upon discovery of black swan simply say 'oh God, look at that huge raven'.

I say he witnessed conflict countless times...where the possibility of total annhilation rises to such a dangerous level...that the point of no return can be touched with your fingertipps.

So he had to act and so he did. 

I doubt it, because all organics are harvested prior to that event.
Also what you are saying is that he witnessed countless conflict and then acted, while we know it is the opposite of that. He witnessed conflict in one specific point in history, created theory and acted upon predictions of that theory.

No he said we tried many solution...many conflicts have arisen...he had the knowlege of what went on before and he has the knwolege of what went on after.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

This thread is fun for the exact same reason that so many BSN threads are enjoyable.

Bullheadedly stubborn people arguing with equally bullheadedly stubborn people about points they will never agree on.

Insults are welcome and entertaining.

Stay golden thread, stay golden.

[Memnon]

maaaze wrote...

Because that would not solve the problem...restart of the Galaxy is the only solution that is permanent
...and a solution that would relie on himself is flawed by default.

We're just going in circles here. If you're looking to win a war of attrition, then I concede ... I'm just going to say again, that I reject this as a fact:

starbrat wrote...
Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence, but those improvements have limits. To exceed those limits, synthetics must be allowed to evolve. They must, by definition, surpass their creators. The result is chaos, destruction, conflict.

Modifié par Stornskar, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:04 .

[bgroberts]

Stornskar wrote...

maaaze wrote...
I say he witnessed conflict countless times...where the possibility of total annhilation rises to such a dangerous level...that the point of no return can be touched with your fingertipps.

So he had to act and so he did. 

So why not eradicate the constructs instead of the organics? Why not instead implement measures which prevent synthetics from surpassing their creators.

Just because his solution is faulty does not mean that his thesis on the dangers and inevitability of synthetic-organic conflict and its predictive tendency towards annihilation is wrong. His solution had to have some flaws to it, otherwise there'd be no game. If the Catalyst came up with the perfect, smiley, happy solution then we'd all be frolicking around picking flowers for three games. I think there is no perfect solution and all endings just delay or extend either a) an inevitable reconstruction of the cycle in some form or the eventual drift to singularity.

[Cypher_CS]

Jayleia wrote...

Who's saving them NOW?  I don't see Reapers saving anything!

Morality!

I answered your question from the Reaper's POV (not my own).
In their POV, THEY are saving you.

Jayleia wrote... 
It doesn't have to be true, its a prediction based on math that's DISPROVEN by the existence of the setting itself.  Then its operating from a false premise, therefore the options presented to us spring from a false premise, any choice other telling the Catalyst that his plan is so flawed that its not even wrong

How is it disproven again?

[riesenwiesel]

Stornskar wrote...

maaaze wrote...
I say he witnessed conflict countless times...where the possibility of total annhilation rises to such a dangerous level...that the point of no return can be touched with your fingertipps.

So he had to act and so he did. 

So why not eradicate the constructs instead of the organics? Why not instead implement measures which prevent synthetics from surpassing their creators.

Well, with only killing the constructs, the organics would advance more and more. At some point they would be able to create constructs not even the reapers will be able to defeat anymore.
The Control ending would have pretty much the same "problem".

[Baronesa]

and again... the problem only exists ont he CAtalyst mind... it is not a real problem, there is no basis to suppose it.

In fact, THERE WAS a technological singularity already on Mass Effect 1... and it ended up on suicide. The money laundering AI was created by another AI. It refuses to accept peaceful negotiation fearing that Organics will always seek to control or destroy AI (considering the laws against AI, a very sound deduction) so even if as Shepard you try to look for an alternative, it does not work. The goals of this AI were not conquest or extermination, just to leave and join other AI AWAY from organics. Finally when cornered decided to self destruct and take down Shepard and co with it.

All the anti AI laws and talk create a self fulfilling prophecy scenario and even then, other synthetics are able to show that the genocidal conflict is not the only option, but collaboration is an open possibility.

[DistantUtopia]

bgroberts wrote...
Did you miss the part where I said no evidence absolutely proves anything? I make no claims of the Catalyst's existence as an infallible entity. I make the claim that he is coming from a position with access to an enormously greater quantity of data. His argument, making some assumptions (primarily that he isn't actually lying), has much more backing than could Shephard's.

Unfortunately I think this is speculation at this point.  Given the dialog we have no idea what his data was.  I give you the following hypothetical timeline given the dialog we know of.

year 1 - Birth of "Creators"
Year 45000 - Birth of "Catalyst"
Year 50000 - Birth of "Harbringer"
                 - Start of "Cycle"
Year 100k - 2nd "Reaping" Cycle.

We simply don't know what happened in between year 50k and Year 100k.  Was there synthetic life?  Was there an existing war between Organics and Synthetics before the cycle began?

It is already implied that the reapers started the last organic/synthetic war in the Prothean cycle so who's to say otherwise that it did not do the same the first time around due to a flawed assumption?

[Someone With Mass]

Hey, here's a big hole in the Catalyst's logic: He says that he harvests the advanced civilizations to save the young ones, right? Well, what will happen when they become advanced as well? Oh, he'll harvest them too. So he's saving absolutely nobody with his utterly retarded and circular logic.

[Vigilant111]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Oh I understand perfectly, u gave me a formula, shown me the working, yet there is so much uncertainties about the probabilities, so the end results are neither here or there, only that organics are against massive odds, guess what, we also faced the reapers against those massive odds with the price of countless of lives, but now we are free, synthetics are no more fearful than the reapers

NO!
It's NOT about the Probabilities.
The Probabilities don't matter, or, rather, the only thing about them that matters is that they are non Zero.

Vigilant111 wrote... 
Okay so now its downgraded to synthetics will "probably" win right?

Okay, time to go at it one sentence at a time.
What, on God's rather smog filled Earth led you to the understanding that I wrote anything resembling "probably win"???

Vigilant111 wrote...  
and the Catalyst simply just misused the word "always"...okay, so eventually everyone concludes so, what of it?

Same question....

Vigilant111 wrote...  
So we look past the words and SPECULATE the "true" meaning, which is what we have been doing all along

No, we look up the meaning of "the house ALWAYS wins" and we look up the dictionary meaning of the word Always....

Here, read this to understand the Casino's edge and then understand the meaning of the House ALWAYS Wins:
http://casinogamblin...a/houseedge.htm 

Okay so you are a believer of singularity! that is totally cool, a virus will kill you in one shot, which is true, but probably not every one, so why did you reply to me about statistics cos I don't think singularity has anything to do with statistics

[bgroberts]

Also, I do want to apologize for the somewhat abrasive way that I started this thread. Some things I had been reading just played into a pet-peeve of mine when I made it, but many anti-Catalyst people here have made well-reasoned responses that I respect (but still disagree with).So, again, sorry.

[Vigilant111]

bgroberts wrote...

Also, I do want to apologize for the somewhat abrasive way that I started this thread. Some things I had been reading just played into a pet-peeve of mine when I made it, but many anti-Catalyst people here have made well-reasoned responses that I respect (but still disagree with).So, again, sorry.

Its okay, at least you chose destroy and placed hope in humanity

[Jayleia]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Jayleia wrote...

Who's saving them NOW?  I don't see Reapers saving anything!

Morality!

I answered your question from the Reaper's POV (not my own).
In their POV, THEY are saving you.

Jayleia wrote... 
It doesn't have to be true, its a prediction based on math that's DISPROVEN by the existence of the setting itself.  Then its operating from a false premise, therefore the options presented to us spring from a false premise, any choice other telling the Catalyst that his plan is so flawed that its not even wrong

How is it disproven again?

Because for an inevitable cycle that results in the permanent destruction of organic life, the Catalyst would have to have evidence of this observing.  If it had observed this occuring we wouldn't exist, because only synthetics would exist.

[iSousek]

maaaze wrote...

iSousek wrote...

maaaze wrote...

iSousek wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Excuse me?

You don't predict possibility, you assign probability.
You don't need to say this or that will happen, you only need to give probabilities of different eventualities or possibilities.

Can math not predict how many dead people would be in the radius of a 50kiloton atomic explosion?
Do we really need to first see it happen?

Or hell, can we not predict durabilities of cars, ships or plains "simply" by calculating physical strengths and running Monte Carlo simulations and optimizations on how many spare parts we will need to sustain a desired life expectancy?

You have real data to predict the casualties based on a nuclear explosion over a city - e.g. the city's population, time of day, blast radius, etc. You have real data regarding the material strengths for vehicles regarding collisions - in fact, most of those are observed in a lab with crash simulations, blast testing, etc. What real data do we have for a technical singularity? That there were a few attempts at a solution which ended in conflict ... that's it.

why do you assume a few attempts...for all we know it could be a million attemps

You are saying that catalyst witnessed million times how sythetics wiped out organics? I somehow doubt it because there would be no one left to harvest if that was true? He is being inductive and is creating a general scientific theory. One that fell apart not only in our cycle but also in the previous one.

On the topic of AI. My question was 'why do organics create AI at all?' . It has nothing to do with it being better or worse that organics.


On a side note, this whole debate reminds of what Karl Popper once said that some scientist will upon discovery of black swan simply say 'oh God, look at that huge raven'.

I say he witnessed conflict countless times...where the possibility of total annhilation rises to such a dangerous level...that the point of no return can be touched with your fingertipps.

So he had to act and so he did. 

I doubt it, because all organics are harvested prior to that event.
Also what you are saying is that he witnessed countless conflict and then acted, while we know it is the opposite of that. He witnessed conflict in one specific point in history, created theory and acted upon predictions of that theory.

No he said we tried many solution...many conflicts have arisen...he had the knowlege of what went on before and he has the knwolege of what went on after.

Yes, refering to his, original 'cycle', one where he was tasked as mediator between synth and organics. One where he came up with the theory. He didn't try many other solution in the next cycles, he deployed Reapers, thus his theory and predictions precede other cycles and any other countless situations he witnessed do not exist.

Modifié par iSousek, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:11 .

[Grimwick]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Jayleia wrote...

Who's saving them NOW?  I don't see Reapers saving anything!

Morality!

I answered your question from the Reaper's POV (not my own).
In their POV, THEY are saving you.

Irrelevant. the point of view doesn't justify poor logic.

Logic is a universal concept.

[Cypher_CS]

Grimwick wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

What are you harping on about.

The fact that Germany would have difficulties invading Europe....
Never mind.

The 'in the future' part of the premise indicates it's possible for Germany to develop. Also irrelevant because it's still a non-zero probability.

Huh?
ROFL
You don't get it, do you?
It would be rather hard for Germany to invade Europe since it resides SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF YUROPE!!!!!

Invade other European countries, sure...
As I said, never mind, it was a joke.

Grimwick wrote... 

1) Haha. Very good, pretending it was my fault that you weren't clear enough. Btw I wasn't arguing the probability was infinite. Read my post again, I was arguing that whether that the timeline was infinite was irrelevant.
2) What the hell are you talking about? So suddenly the SC can giev the value of organic life when the value of life in Europe cannot be given? The value of the lives is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO MY ANALOGY. The underlying premise for the people of Europe is that they don't want to die. The analogy is used as an example of flawed argumentative appeals to probability. Not anything to do with expected results.

1. No pretending anything. And I wasn't talking about the Timeline either.
2. It's not about the combined values of Lives. It's not about a number between One and 7 Billion. Or One and a few Trillions or Gazzilions or whatever. It's the Value of Life continuing in the larger scale (in your case) or Extinguishing all Organic Life from existence (in the Catalyst's case).
These are two incomparable issues. Your analogy is wrong. It's incomparable.

Just a note, I am not remarking on whether the continuation of Organic Life is imperatively Good vs. Continuation of Life in General, even in the form of artificial life.
However, the Catalyst has made that decision for itself (values Organic life above Synthetic). Which is fine within that logic.

Grimwick wrote... 
Do you know why that is? That's because an appeal to probability is fallacious independent of the outcome. Seriosuly, you need to read up on it.

Stop quoting out of context sentences from Wikipedia.

Grimwick wrote...  

Amoral - lacking a moral sense. Synonymous to: Immoral.

Be clearer next time you have a problem with expanding on your points.

What?
Sorry, but I can't be clearer than I already am....

Grimwick wrote...   

Wikipedia wrote...
An appeal to probability is a justification based on probability, sometimes regarded as a logical fallacy, when an unwarranted assumption that something will happen, because it can happen, or when the odds of an occurrence are unrealistically played down in lieu of appropriate precaution.

That's pretty much what I said. Also, have a look at the example they give:

Wikiepedia wrote...
"It doesn't matter if I get myself into debt. If I play the lottery enough, I will win the jackpot, and then I can pay off all my debts."

This argument assumes a best-case scenario, however problem gambling is an urge to gamble despite negative consequences or the desire to stop and is often defined by the harm suffered as opposed to the gambling.

Substitute the example with an anaolgy of the SC and we have a fallacy! Bravo. His argument assumes worst case scenario when it would be beneficial for there not to be genocide.

Again, wrong.
And I'll just be repeating myself.

But I will say this - stupid Wikipedia - the explanation they give leaves SO MANY THINGS OUT!
The problem is not just a Psychological one. It's not just about Gambling being an Urge.
It's about how much money you have to keep gambling before you get cut off. Then what?
Even if you do win, will the winnings cover the debt acrued over so many tries? Then what?

That's the part you are failing to understand.

Grimwick wrote... 
Yeah, I understand how expectancy works - but it's completely irrelevant to an appeal to probability. 

Go back a few pages and see a cool image of Thane's.

[Cypher_CS]

Baronesa wrote...

and again... the problem only exists ont he CAtalyst mind... it is not a real problem, there is no basis to suppose it.

In fact, THERE WAS a technological singularity already on Mass Effect 1... and it ended up on suicide. The money laundering AI was created by another AI. It refuses to accept peaceful negotiation fearing that Organics will always seek to control or destroy AI (considering the laws against AI, a very sound deduction) so even if as Shepard you try to look for an alternative, it does not work. The goals of this AI were not conquest or extermination, just to leave and join other AI AWAY from organics. Finally when cornered decided to self destruct and take down Shepard and co with it.

All the anti AI laws and talk create a self fulfilling prophecy scenario and even then, other synthetics are able to show that the genocidal conflict is not the only option, but collaboration is an open possibility.

By definition, if it was so easy to destroy or kill, it was NOT a post Tech Singularity AI.