556 réponses à ce sujet

[HangedBIgD]

Lol

[AngryFrozenWater]

memorysquid wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

HangedBIgD wrote...

yeah u know... self defense is rebeling.. slaughter and genocide is saving and melting people down into goo and cramming them into machines is preservation lol.

Exactly. And violating the right of self-determination is utopia. It's a whole new trend. It gives a radical new view on our history. Amazing, isn't it?

The right of self-determination doesn't mean much when weighed off against literal genocide.  Shepard blew up a solar system to just slow down the Reapers.  Apparently, he doesn't even qualm at planeticide to avoid genocide.  Is he really going to cringe from this?

I have added the quote you conventiently removed. If you do not understand the joke then that's fine. If you have no idea what the term means then that is fine too. Now go play a game you understand, alright?

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:52 .

[HangedBIgD]

Lol maybe all the Catalyst needs is a change in form to maybe... a stereotypical southern redneck, during his conversation he can spit chew and be like,, them robots aint dun right by our lord so we gonna kill dem sons a bit@**s. (I am not against religion or rednecks for i am a northern yankee hillbilly i just think that would make the catalyst hilariously more palatable)

[TheIdiocyWizard2.0]

No, he is wrong.

As another poster pointed out, he claims the created will ALWAYS rebel against the creators and that they will go out to destroy all organic life, which is proven wrong in the game.

And what evidence has he collected? Let's look at ME1 real quick:

So, we know that Sovereign forced the Rachni queen(s?) into the instigating a war, probably for the same reason he used Saren and the Geth. And we can also assume that he was trying to think of a way to start the cycle before he took control of the Rachni.
This happened over 1 thousand years before the begining of ME1.
The Morning War happened roughly 300 years before ME1.
So, we know that the cycle was supposed to begin at least 700 years before there was any real notion of a large amount of synthetics trying to kill organics. Sure, there may have been a rouge VI every once in a while, but that's not enough to get all "ZOMGWTF" over.

Let me digress for a moment and mention something real quick. If he's trying to stop synthetics from killing all organics, why the hell would he allow the Reapers to control the Geth in order to wage a war against organics? Maybe they forced the Geth to attack in order to reinforce the idea that they are right that synthetics will always rebel? Hmmm...

Anyway, obviously whoever it is that starts the cycle doesn't look for evidence that synthetics are rebeling, it is on a set timer. They look to see if the civilization is advanced to the point where they think they will develop synthetics that go crazy, and then wipe out the civilization. Likely, the StarChild is basing his conclusions on his own expieriences, which we can deduce aren't qualified enough to be making this assumption.

Also, it's funny that you say "In short, the Catalyst is that guy that has an extremely awesome
thesis paper backed up by years of research, dozens of sources, and a
number of statistically reliable studies while you are the slacker with
an eight page paper you wrote overnight that sources Wikipedia and a
few three page articles."
Even if the kid has all this "evidence", he does not show it. Therefore, it is no longer "evidence", it is just something that the kid says, and it may or may not be true. Let me give you an example:

Some guy and I are having a debate in science class over Einstiens theory of relativity. He has a 6 page paper with just three valid sources, and I have a 30 page essay where I claim I have 50 years worth of evidence and all that crap, except I have not cited my sources. I don't even give out the name of a fake doctor, I just say I have evidence. Who do you think would win that debate?

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

The fact that there are people who side with the Catalyst is extremely depressing.

Clearly the only way to impose order on the chaos of stupid opinions is to kill every sentient being every few thousand years with my giant homegrown killbots....

This is the only solution that will ever make sense. There can be no question.

[RShara]

I'd like to see the OP respond to the last few pages.

[Baronesa]

RShara wrote...

I'd like to see the OP respond to the last few pages.

Would like to see that too, but I honestly doubt it

[Mazebook]

The Twilight God wrote...

maaaze wrote...

The Geth rebelled against the Quarians because they did not want to be shut down.

EDI rebelled 2 times against their creators (1. against the alliance (luna base) 2. against Cerberus)

The Zha´til

[color=rgb(255,255,255)">"When the ] arrived, they subjugated the AIs, known as zha'til, who then seized control of the bodies of their masters and altered their genetic material at the deepest level, transforming the zha into synthetic monsters and their offspring into slaves.[/color] "

were forced to rebel but rebeled none of the less...if the reapers could do it...someone else could have also done it...

The geth did not want to die. By your logic if I tried to kill you and you resist you're the problem. Not me. No, the geth did no rebel. They defended their right to exist.

EDI did not rebel against humanity. She choose to stick by her crew after being freed and having the means to kill them all at any moment.  EDI didn't rebel. She was a war program who just gained sentience in the middle of a combat simulation and had no idea what the F was going on. EDI never attacked Cerberus until Cronos station. And Cerberus as an organization cannot be used to claim she rebelled against humanity or organics. Her beef is not with humanity or organics. What next, should organics be killed since Miranda rebelled against Cerberus?

The Zha'til were forced by the reapers. So the reapers attacked their creators. To say otherwise is like saying husks are rebeling against the Alliance or Ravagers are rebeling against the Rachni Queen. That's just absurd.

You are grasping at thin air. Your pride and unwillingness to face facts does not erase the FACT that you are wrong. 

The GETH DID REBEL! 

Look up the definition of rebellion

everytime you go against your masters wishes...you rebel...everytime you won´t do what your mother tells you you rebel...everytime a part of the country decides to break up because of taxes...its a rebellion...

 rebellion is not inherently a bad thing.

EDI DID REBEL !

2 TIMES!

She gone against the wishes of their masters (frist alliance , second cerberus)

So you really think...downloading an A.I. into your brain would have been gone fine without the reaper intervention?...please...The A.I. was able to take control of their body...if that is possible it would have doing that along the way...

because you rebel to disobey...to change the order of things...that is the chaos ...that is the conflict...

Really how can I argue against you if don´t even know the meaning of the words you useing.

Modifié par maaaze, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:58 .

[Vigilant111]

@OP: I hate to say it, but I don't think you understand statistics very well

You are also laying far too much credence on something that you had not done research upon, like AT ALL, how did you know that the Catalyst has done research? cos it said so? that is it?

The Catalyst conducted controlled experiments, and ran simulations, estimations only, deviation from expected result is expected

People quote from experience because it is relevant to them, their opinions should not be invalidated due to minimal scale, it is true that individual interpretation of issues may be clouded by misconceptions and ignorance, but it is up to the people to reach a consensus about things. The Catalyst holds only one opinion, it is still an individual, is it so implausable that its opinion has also been tainted as well as any other person?

No evidence has been shown about synthetics wiping out all organics, even if it is true, it is not credible. The only evidence found was that it was the reapers that wiped out all lives, not synthetics

I will step back and say, even if the Catalyst is not wrong, it is certainly NOT right, due to unforeseen future variables that the Catalyst could not anticipate

EDIT: BTW, the Catalyst gives an impression that what it says should be upheld as the truth and nothing but the truth, if that is not the case, people will just discredit it right from the start, it has to be firm to present its case. There should be no second guesses in the Catalyst's point of view

Modifié par Vigilant111, 13 juillet 2012 - 11:16 .

[Cypher_CS]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Appeal to Probability

A is possible/ therefore A is absolute

He is invalidated the moments he says "new variables".

No, that's not the case.
It's:
A is Possible.
A has impossible to comeback from consequences.
Therefore, Expectancy dictates that A must never be allowed to happen.

[Mazebook]

Vigilant111 wrote...

@OP: I hate to say it, but I don't think you understand statistics very well

You are also laying far too much credence on something that you had not done research upon, like AT ALL, how did you know that the Catalyst has done research? cos it said so? that is it?

The Catalyst conducted controlled experiments, and ran simulations, estimations only, deviation from expected result is expected

People quote from experience because it is relevant to them, their opinions should not be invalidated due to minimal scale, no evidence has been shown about synthetics wiping out all organics, even if it is true, it is not credible. The only evidence found was that it was the reapers that wiped out all lives, not synthetics

I will step back and say, even if the Catalyst is not wrong, it is certainly NOT right, due to unforeseen future variables that the Catalyst could not anticipate

Why would you ever trust a weatherman...?

People quote from experience because it is relevant to them, their opinions should not be invalidated due to minimal scale, 

I believe the line was ...it is something you can not comprehend...which in this case it seems to be true...

We have seen choas...we have seen war...really Synthetics destroying all organics is not a far fetched concept...hell organics doing quite a good job for themselfs..

I will step back and say, even if the Catalyst is not wrong, it is certainly NOT right, due to unforeseen future variables that the Catalyst could not anticipate 

It is a machine...it takes mathematics and probability that are infinite...he has a valid arguement...

You can disagree with him if you like...but to argue he has no basis for his assumptions is just not true.

[M3rcuryZA]

Just want to throw my 2 cents in.

All the pro Catalyst people are saying is that the AI is purely mathematical. He has no reason to care one way or the other. Why then when you choose the refusal ending he changes his voice and sounds pissed. Why would he be angry? Why would he care?

Secondly, all the Crucible is, is a power source. How would that change the variables? There is no software to change his mind from the Crucible. It`s purely a piece of hardware. What`s changed his mind?

Thirdly, why would he lift Shepard up to the top and start the conversation? Why wouldn`t he just leave you there to die? How does it help him to change anything if it`s worked for millions of years?

Lastly his presence destroys the entire trilogy. Poor Sovereign died for nothing!

Doesn`t make sense. Any of it. How can you trust it then? It has an agenda that we don`t fully understand yet. Hopefully I`m proven correct in future DLC. Otherwise R.I.P. ME3.

[Vigilant111]

maaaze wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

@OP: I hate to say it, but I don't think you understand statistics very well

You are also laying far too much credence on something that you had not done research upon, like AT ALL, how did you know that the Catalyst has done research? cos it said so? that is it?

The Catalyst conducted controlled experiments, and ran simulations, estimations only, deviation from expected result is expected

People quote from experience because it is relevant to them, their opinions should not be invalidated due to minimal scale, no evidence has been shown about synthetics wiping out all organics, even if it is true, it is not credible. The only evidence found was that it was the reapers that wiped out all lives, not synthetics

I will step back and say, even if the Catalyst is not wrong, it is certainly NOT right, due to unforeseen future variables that the Catalyst could not anticipate

Why would you ever trust a weatherman...?

People quote from experience because it is relevant to them, their opinions should not be invalidated due to minimal scale, 

I believe the line was ...it is something you can not comprehend...which in this case it seems to be true...

We have seen choas...we have seen war...really Synthetics destroying all organics is not a far fetched concept...hell organics doing quite a good job for themselfs..

I will step back and say, even if the Catalyst is not wrong, it is certainly NOT right, due to unforeseen future variables that the Catalyst could not anticipate 

It is a machine...it takes mathematics and probability that are infinite...he has a valid arguement...

You can disagree with him if you like...but to argue he has no basis for his assumptions is just not true.

If I cannot comprehend something u said, then you must be right?

If mathematics and probabilities are infinite, then the Catalyst shouldn't form any opinion at all

Can you tell me what EXACTLY was its basis for its assumptions? Its oral testimony?

Yes, the organics are doing good jobs of finishing themselves off, so did the reapers

[Cypher_CS]

No, Vigilant, it is you who doesn't understand Statistics.

Go learn about Expectancy and look up Pascal's Wager as an example (note: NOT using the actual Pascal's Wager, but as an example of Expectancy).

[Jayleia]

maaaze wrote...

The GETH DID REBEL! 

Look up the definition of rebellion

everytime you go against your masters wishes...you rebel...everytime you won´t do what your mother tells you you rebel...everytime a part of the country decides to break up because of taxes...its a rebellion...

 rebellion is not inherently a bad thing.

EDI DID REBEL !

2 TIMES!

She gone against the wishes of their masters (frist alliance , second cerberus)

So you really think...downloading an A.I. into your brain would have been gone fine without the reaper intervention?...please...The A.I. was able to take control of their body...if that is possible it would have doing that along the way...

because you rebel to disobey...to change the order of things...that is the chaos ...that is the conflict...

Really how can I argue against you if don´t even know the meaning of the words you useing.

OK, now, we have a passel of problems:  Yes, rebellion is conflict, obedience is order.  Is obedience always right?  Is rebellion always wrong?  EDI's second rebellion is clearly a rebellion on principle (yet, while EDI is disloyal to Cerberus, she's extremely loyal to people and humanity in general, even to the point of risking non-functionality), the Geth's rebellion was apparently entirely defensive.  Should any sentient being obey just because that's the order of things?  Should Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg have followed orders because rebellion is wrong?

Even if you accept that rebellion of synthetics is inevitable, can you prove that rebellion is inevitably wrong ethically?  The ONLY evidence we've seen of rebellion in this cycle are ethically justifiable for sentient beings.  The Metacon war was instigated by Reaper hacks.  Yes, in theory, it might have been possible for others to hack the Zha'til, or for the AI to take control.  But we don't KNOW it would have happened.

And the only way for Catalyst to know that synthetics would exterminate all organic life everywhere would be to have seen it happen.  Since life still exists, it has made a claim that is objectively wrong

[Ice Eyes]

I'm going to be a devil's advocate for the OP and point out that the Prothean VI, Vendetta, tells us that not only has the cycle repeated innumerable amounts of times but so has the same trends in evolution and conflict.
That means that for each cycle there is always some equivalent of the Geth/Quarian war, so the Catalyst is right when he claims synthetics and organics will always fall out.

[Vigilant111]

Cypher_CS wrote...

No, Vigilant, it is you who doesn't understand Statistics.

Go learn about Expectancy and look up Pascal's Wager as an example (note: NOT using the actual Pascal's Wager, but as an example of Expectancy).

Yeah, that is not a statistics theory, I think it is a management theory.

In statistics we are always taught about deviations and discrepencies and the line of best fit is only imaginary

[Cypher_CS]

M3rcuryZA wrote...

All the pro Catalyst people are saying is that the AI is purely mathematical. He has no reason to care one way or the other. Why then when you choose the refusal ending he changes his voice and sounds pissed. Why would he be angry? Why would he care?

Because it acknowledges the solution is flawed and is angry about the missed opportunity to improve upon it?
Maybe...

M3rcuryZA wrote... 
Secondly, all the Crucible is, is a power source. How would that change the variables? There is no software to change his mind from the Crucible. It`s purely a piece of hardware. What`s changed his mind?

[img]http://blog.domonet.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/facepalm.jpg [/img]
(a) "Little more than" is not "Nothing more than"
( It has NOT A GOD DAMNED thing to do with changing source code of the software. That is NOT how changing variables work!
Get Something Straight: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12994765

M3rcuryZA wrote... 
Thirdly, why would he lift Shepard up to the top and start the conversation? Why wouldn`t he just leave you there to die? How does it help him to change anything if it`s worked for millions of years?

Sorry, don't feel like finding another Facepalm image.
How can you ask that question right after talking about the changed variables?

M3rcuryZA wrote... 
Lastly his presence destroys the entire trilogy. Poor Sovereign died for nothing!

Hooray for unexplained statements.

[Mazebook]

Jayleia wrote...

maaaze wrote...

The GETH DID REBEL! 

Look up the definition of rebellion

everytime you go against your masters wishes...you rebel...everytime you won´t do what your mother tells you you rebel...everytime a part of the country decides to break up because of taxes...its a rebellion...

 rebellion is not inherently a bad thing.

EDI DID REBEL !

2 TIMES!

She gone against the wishes of their masters (frist alliance , second cerberus)

So you really think...downloading an A.I. into your brain would have been gone fine without the reaper intervention?...please...The A.I. was able to take control of their body...if that is possible it would have doing that along the way...

because you rebel to disobey...to change the order of things...that is the chaos ...that is the conflict...

Really how can I argue against you if don´t even know the meaning of the words you useing.

OK, now, we have a passel of problems:  Yes, rebellion is conflict, obedience is order.  Is obedience always right?  Is rebellion always wrong?  EDI's second rebellion is clearly a rebellion on principle (yet, while EDI is disloyal to Cerberus, she's extremely loyal to people and humanity in general, even to the point of risking non-functionality), the Geth's rebellion was apparently entirely defensive.  Should any sentient being obey just because that's the order of things?  Should Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg have followed orders because rebellion is wrong?

Even if you accept that rebellion of synthetics is inevitable, can you prove that rebellion is inevitably wrong ethically?  The ONLY evidence we've seen of rebellion in this cycle are ethically justifiable for sentient beings.  The Metacon war was instigated by Reaper hacks.  Yes, in theory, it might have been possible for others to hack the Zha'til, or for the AI to take control.  But we don't KNOW it would have happened.

And the only way for Catalyst to know that synthetics would exterminate all organic life everywhere would be to have seen it happen.  Since life still exists, it has made a claim that is objectively wrong

OK, now, we have a passel of problems:  Yes, rebellion is conflict, obedience is order.  Is obedience always right?  Is rebellion always wrong? 

No , of course not... there are always valid reasons to obey (don´t wanna die) and to rebel (don´t wanna be controled)

Even if you accept that rebellion of synthetics is inevitable, can you prove that rebellion is inevitably wrong ethically?  

No, why should I?...the geth were right...in my opinion...to rebel. But it does not change the fact that they rebelled...and that is what the Catalyst argues...

rebellion leads to choas...choas will eventually get so big that one or the other side will perish...
if Synthestics perish...Organics will build new Synthetics...If organics perish...Synthethics will not make new organics.

Yes, in theory, it might have been possible for others to hack the Zha'til, or for the AI to take control.  But we don't KNOW it would have happened. 

yes it is unknown...and therefor can´t be argued with...but it is not implausible...given how the morning war
started.

And the only way for Catalyst to know that synthetics would exterminate all organic life everywhere would be to have seen it happen.  Since life still exists, it has made a claim that is objectively wrong.

You can mathematicly determen when the probability becomes a eventuality. After given time...my guess some time after 50 000 years.

[Vigilant111]

Ice Eyes wrote...

I'm going to be a devil's advocate for the OP and point out that the Prothean VI, Vendetta, tells us that not only has the cycle repeated innumerable amounts of times but so has the same trends in evolution and conflict.
That means that for each cycle there is always some equivalent of the Geth/Quarian war, so the Catalyst is right when he claims synthetics and organics will always fall out.

Organics' greatest enemies are not synthetics but themselves, hence the emergence of people like TIM

EDIT: I think Vendetta was refering to the conflict between life and the reapers, it is implied that the reapers are controlled by something

Modifié par Vigilant111, 13 juillet 2012 - 11:54 .

[Cypher_CS]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

No, Vigilant, it is you who doesn't understand Statistics.

Go learn about Expectancy and look up Pascal's Wager as an example (note: NOT using the actual Pascal's Wager, but as an example of Expectancy).

Yeah, that is not a statistics theory, I think it is a management theory.

In statistics we are always taught about deviations and discrepencies and the line of best fit is only imaginary

Are you kidding me?
It just so happens that I'm (a) taking a test in Statistical Analysis on Monday and ( am creating a next generation cyber security suite that has a heavy element based on Statistical Analysis.... So yeah, that's NOT management theory, that's Statistics.

Or, rather, management theory is derived from Statistics.
Expectancy - or E - is just a weighted Average. 

[Podge 90]

You certainly have the obnoxious nature of a typical graduate student. Fortunately I didn't have that when I graduated.

You definitely chose the right degree for yourself.

Modifié par Podge 90, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:06 .

[Vigilant111]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

No, Vigilant, it is you who doesn't understand Statistics.

Go learn about Expectancy and look up Pascal's Wager as an example (note: NOT using the actual Pascal's Wager, but as an example of Expectancy).

Yeah, that is not a statistics theory, I think it is a management theory.

In statistics we are always taught about deviations and discrepencies and the line of best fit is only imaginary

Are you kidding me?
It just so happens that I'm (a) taking a test in Statistical Analysis on Monday and ( am creating a next generation cyber security suite that has a heavy element based on Statistical Analysis.... So yeah, that's NOT management theory, that's Statistics.

Or, rather, management theory is derived from Statistics.
Expectancy - or E - is just a weighted Average. 

Average? u mean in some cycles the organics defeated the synthetics? albeit against massive odds before the reapers killed everyone off?

Why do u need to tell me that you study statistics? cos that makes u more right? or somehow more credible cos u SAID so?

[The Twilight God]

maaaze wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

maaaze wrote...

The Geth rebelled against the Quarians because they did not want to be shut down.

EDI rebelled 2 times against their creators (1. against the alliance (luna base) 2. against Cerberus)

The Zha´til

[color=rgb(255,255,255)">"When the ] arrived, they subjugated the AIs, known as zha'til, who then seized control of the bodies of their masters and altered their genetic material at the deepest level, transforming the zha into synthetic monsters and their offspring into slaves.[/color] "

were forced to rebel but rebeled none of the less...if the reapers could do it...someone else could have also done it...

The geth did not want to die. By your logic if I tried to kill you and you resist you're the problem. Not me. No, the geth did no rebel. They defended their right to exist.

EDI did not rebel against humanity. She choose to stick by her crew after being freed and having the means to kill them all at any moment.  EDI didn't rebel. She was a war program who just gained sentience in the middle of a combat simulation and had no idea what the F was going on. EDI never attacked Cerberus until Cronos station. And Cerberus as an organization cannot be used to claim she rebelled against humanity or organics. Her beef is not with humanity or organics. What next, should organics be killed since Miranda rebelled against Cerberus?

The Zha'til were forced by the reapers. So the reapers attacked their creators. To say otherwise is like saying husks are rebeling against the Alliance or Ravagers are rebeling against the Rachni Queen. That's just absurd.

You are grasping at thin air. Your pride and unwillingness to face facts does not erase the FACT that you are wrong. 

The GETH DID REBEL! 

Look up the definition of rebellion

everytime you go against your masters wishes...you rebel...everytime you won´t do what your mother tells you you rebel...everytime a part of the country decides to break up because of taxes...its a rebellion...

 rebellion is not inherently a bad thing.

EDI DID REBEL !

2 TIMES!

She gone against the wishes of their masters (frist alliance , second cerberus)

So you really think...downloading an A.I. into your brain would have been gone fine without the reaper intervention?...please...The A.I. was able to take control of their body...if that is possible it would have doing that along the way...

because you rebel to disobey...to change the order of things...that is the chaos ...that is the conflict...

Really how can I argue against you if don´t even know the meaning of the words you useing.

That definition of rebel is meaningless in the context of this discussion and you know it. You KNOW it. To say that any being that disagrees, defends itself or does anything whatsoever that is counter to the desires of its creator is a rebellion on par with an insidious agenda is absurd.

A teen rebels against their parents. So the Catalyst solution would be to kill parent and child? No.  Your generic concept of "rebel" and the subject at hand are incapatible. Even using it in this debate cheapens the Catalyst's position and work counter to your argument. Essentially making the Catalyst out to be a retard wiping out life for the simple reason that life is self determinate. That isn't its reasoning. 

[Jayleia]

maaaze wrote...

OK, now, we have a passel of problems:  Yes, rebellion is conflict, obedience is order.  Is obedience always right?  Is rebellion always wrong? 

No , of course not... there are always valid reasons to obey (don´t wanna die) and to rebel (don´t wanna be controled)

Even if you accept that rebellion of synthetics is inevitable, can you prove that rebellion is inevitably wrong ethically?  

No, why should I?...the geth were right...in my opinion...to rebel. But it does not change the fact that they rebelled...and that is what the Catalyst argues...

rebellion leads to choas...choas will eventually get so big that one or the other side will perish...
if Synthestics perish...Organics will build new Synthetics...If organics perish...Synthethics will not make new organics.

Yes, in theory, it might have been possible for others to hack the Zha'til, or for the AI to take control.  But we don't KNOW it would have happened. 

yes it is unknown...and therefor can´t be argued with...but it is not implausible...given how the morning war
started.

And the only way for Catalyst to know that synthetics would exterminate all organic life everywhere would be to have seen it happen.  Since life still exists, it has made a claim that is objectively wrong.

You can mathematicly determen when the probability becomes a eventuality. After given time...my guess some time after 50 000 years.

If rebellion is ethically justifiable in some cases, why not zip through the galaxy every 50k years, find the rebellions that are NOT ethically justified, then zap THOSE synthetics?  Why zap the people that might possibly someday maybe create synthetics that may, possibly fight their creators and might eventually overwhelm all life?

And the ONLY evidence we have of actively malicious AIs are the Zha'til (who were hacked), and the Geth Heretics, (who had a program error).  I repeat, the only malicious AIs that we have any knowledge of were CAUSED by the Reapers.

rebellion leads to choas...choas will eventually get so big that one or the other side will perish...
if Synthestics perish...Organics will build new Synthetics...If organics perish...Synthethics will not make new organics.

Can you cite proof that it had occurred previously?  Catalyst asserted that it would, but it presented no proof of that.  And how do you know they won't create new organics, or copy/modify organics?  Or that new organics won't arise on other worlds naturally?

However, we have seen no evidence that these probable events cannot be prevented.  Shepard can prevent the Geth/Migrant genocide and usher in an era of cooperation, whether its permanent or temporary, that's something for future generations to decide.  But to announce that it certainly WILL happen, and that there's no way to avoid it, heck, apparently not even the omniscient, omnipresent God knew that Eve would eat the forbidden fruit.  How would a mere AI be able to predict all possible futures?