1085 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

BDelacroix wrote...

I don't know why the argument here. Dreman is just saying the catalyst has a bizarre definition of alive and he also said he doesn't actually agree with that bizarre definition himself. I don't see him justifying the actions of the catalyst.

In the book "The Naked Sun" where the robots were altered with a more narrow definition of human so they can be allowed to circumvent their programming, their definition of human was someone who spoke a particular way that was similar to a solarian (the planet these robots were on). The robots themselves didn't know their definition was altered. They had to be put down, by the way. Just like this AI boy has to be put down.

How come out of this entire topic. Only one person gets what I'm saying?

[Thaa_solon]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...




3. No it did not.

Created will always rebelled against their creators.

I was created to bring balance betwen synthetics and organics to secure peace.

I failed

So I turn my creators into first Reaper despite that they did not aprove.

Than I start with galactic genocide.


...This exchange is over...

Oh snap

[dreman9999]

Thaa_solon wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...




3. No it did not.

Created will always rebelled against their creators.

I was created to bring balance betwen synthetics and organics to secure peace.

I failed

So I turn my creators into first Reaper despite that they did not aprove.

Than I start with galactic genocide.


...This exchange is over...

Oh snap

Where in it's programing does it say it has to do what it's creators tell it to do.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

BDelacroix wrote...

I don't know the argument here. Dreman is just saying the catalyst has a bizarre definition of alive and he also said he doesn't actually agree with that bizarre definition himself. I don't see him justifying the actions of the catalyst.

In the book "The Naked Sun" where the robots were altered with a more narrow definition of human so they can be allowed to circumvent their programming, their definition of human was someone who spoke a particular way that was similar to a solarian (the planet these robots were on). The robots themselves didn't know their definition was altered. They had to be put down, by the way. Just like this AI boy has to be put down.

Thank you. Ths guy understands my point.

 And to be clear what dreman has been saying is the kid is a sort of shackled AI who is bound by his programming and yet came up with ways to solve what he was programmed to do by doing the exact opposite.  He has even said the kid is a tragic figure.  He does at points defend the kid because he knows how machines and AIs work and no one else does.

What we have been saying is the kid is not at all shackled by anything.  TIM gave Shepard autonomy because he did not want to influence what Shepard would do because what he might want might not work.  The kid's creators apparently had no solution to the problem so they gave the kid autonomy to work it all out.  dreman wants it both ways.  He implies the kid's programming was strict and he could only come to some strict conclusions with no ability to go outside his programming.  And he implies that his programming was so loose as to allow him to come to whatever conclusion he wanted no matter if it actually did the opposite of what he was supposed to do.  His programming was both controlling and not controlling.

If it was controlling, he would not create war instead of peace.  And he actively creates war.  He sends in monsters that start shooting.  It's not like war just happens accidentally.  He starts it and has been doing so repeatedly by setting up the circumstances for it and then having reapers shoot at people.

He shouldn't have a bizarre definition of being alive considering he was one AI who now has trillions of people added to his consciousness that all have one definition of being alive and it isn't existing as computing power inside reapers.  And all those minds would also tell him that starting a war is not starting peace. 

We are all saying he skipped his programming, he's unhinged.  He deceives, which means he lies.  If he lies or just deceives he shows knowledge of intent.  That means on some level he knows what he is doing is wrong or at least unwanted.  He understood that about his creators and yet he repeats what he did to them.  Sounds pretty unshackled to me.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

Where in it's programing does it say it has to do what it's creators tell it to do.

Oh dear god this is what we've been saying.  If it was programmed to do something and if it's a victim of its programming as you say and if it is continually trying to solve the problem it's creators wanted solved, it is doing what it was programmed to do.  You have continually said this.  Now you are changing it up again.

It's creators gave it a problem to solve, so they told it what to do.  It changed the problem and now creates the problem, so it shows abilities beyond any concept of a shackled AI, or an AI that is the "victim" of its programming.  It isn't doing what its creators told it to do.

We keep saying it created it's own solution and it's own idea of what the problem is.  You kept saying it was just finding new ways to solve its original problem.  Nice retcon of your own assertions.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 10 août 2012 - 03:16 .

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

BDelacroix wrote...

I don't know why the argument here. Dreman is just saying the catalyst has a bizarre definition of alive and he also said he doesn't actually agree with that bizarre definition himself. I don't see him justifying the actions of the catalyst.

In the book "The Naked Sun" where the robots were altered with a more narrow definition of human so they can be allowed to circumvent their programming, their definition of human was someone who spoke a particular way that was similar to a solarian (the planet these robots were on). The robots themselves didn't know their definition was altered. They had to be put down, by the way. Just like this AI boy has to be put down.

How come out of this entire topic. Only one person gets what I'm saying?

Because I think this person is being kind and doesn't really know what you've said in multiple threads all over the place and that you continually change the parameters to suit your argument.

S/he doesn't know that you've described the catalyst as a tragic figure, a victim of his programming who was never told HOW to solve the problem but that just must try to solve it AND that is shackled even though he is not controlled or was never controlled by anyone, but yet he is not able to alter what he must solve, even though he is not now supposed to really do what he was programmed to do.  I think that's why.

The rest of us have tried to "understand" what you are saying and note that you keep changing what you mean whenever someone uses your own words to back up what they are saying.  We entered the black hole.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

BDelacroix wrote...

I don't know the argument here. Dreman is just saying the catalyst has a bizarre definition of alive and he also said he doesn't actually agree with that bizarre definition himself. I don't see him justifying the actions of the catalyst.

In the book "The Naked Sun" where the robots were altered with a more narrow definition of human so they can be allowed to circumvent their programming, their definition of human was someone who spoke a particular way that was similar to a solarian (the planet these robots were on). The robots themselves didn't know their definition was altered. They had to be put down, by the way. Just like this AI boy has to be put down.

Thank you. Ths guy understands my point.

 And to be clear what dreman has been saying is the kid is a sort of shackled AI who is bound by his programming and yet came up with ways to solve what he was programmed to do by doing the exact opposite.  He has even said the kid is a tragic figure.  He does at points defend the kid because he knows how machines and AIs work and no one else does.

What we have been saying is the kid is not at all shackled by anything.  TIM gave Shepard autonomy because he did not want to influence what Shepard would do because what he might want might not work.  The kid's creators apparently had no solution to the problem so they gave the kid autonomy to work it all out.  dreman wants it both ways.  He implies the kid's programming was strict and he could only come to some strict conclusions with no ability to go outside his programming.  And he implies that his programming was so loose as to allow him to come to whatever conclusion he wanted no matter if it actually did the opposite of what he was supposed to do.  His programming was both controlling and not controlling.

If it was controlling, he would not create war instead of peace.  And he actively creates war.  He sends in monsters that start shooting.  It's not like war just happens accidentally.  He starts it and has been doing so repeatedly by setting up the circumstances for it and then having reapers shoot at people.

He shouldn't have a bizarre definition of being alive considering he was one AI who now has trillions of people added to his consciousness that all have one definition of being alive and it isn't existing as computing power inside reapers.  And all those minds would also tell him that starting a war is not starting peace. 

We are all saying he skipped his programming, he's unhinged.  He deceives, which means he lies.  If he lies or just deceives he shows knowledge of intent.  That means on some level he knows what he is doing is wrong or at least unwanted.  He understood that about his creators and yet he repeats what he did to them.  Sounds pretty unshackled to me.

Oh, dear lord.  It''s an issue of defintion of alive.  The reapers are alive,. Heck the concept of that was brought up in the game with Adams many times. I get that you doing beleive that people that are turn to reapers are not alive still but that does not matter. That is your defintion on alive. That does not mean it's the catalyst defination. Your problem here is that you are applying your moraliy as the base of the catalyst actions. What you missing is th catalyst has no morality out side doing it programing. It followed it's  programing based on what it felt the peramiters were but it's creators did not agree because it was too extreme. It's a difference of morality and defiantion. Even BDelacroix even stated that the concept is not even new to sci fi beign that there is a book that had the same thing happen that's going on with the catalyst.
Understand this, you morality is not it's morality. You defination is not it's definations. You can't simply judge it based on you beliefs. You havet o jusdge it based on whats best to do and that still points to destroying it anyway.

Modifié par dreman9999, 10 août 2012 - 03:18 .

[The Exiled Paladin]

ThaDPG wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

If the Reaper Consciousness/Starbrat looks this bad from his own dialogue, imagine once we have the context of Leviathan's point of view, if we get to talk to him. He might have some choice words for everyone's least favorite child-shaped AI.

I know it won't happen, but I'd enjoy watching Leviathan blast starkid into the next galaxy

Equally unlikely as Shep is running to the citadel beam and Harbinger shows up to try and toast him, Leviathan flys in and blasts harbie and the other nearby reapers to atoms!!! Now that I'd ike to see...

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

Oh, dear lord.  It''s an issue of defintion of alive.  The reapers are alive,. Hech the concept of that was brought up in the game with Adams many times. I get that you doing beleive that people that are turn to reapers are not alive stuill but htat does not matter. That is you defintion on alive. That does not mean it the catalyst defination. Your problem here is that you are applying your moraliy as the based of the catalyst actions. What you missing is th catalyst has not morality out side doing it programing. It folloed it programing based on what it felt the peramiters was but it creators did not agree because it was too extreme. It a difference of morality and defiantion. Even BDelacroix even stated that the concept is not even new to sci fi beign that there is a book that had the same thing happen that's going on with the catalyst.
Understand this, you morality is not it's morality. You defination is not it's definations. You can't simply judge it based on you beliefs. You havet o jusdge it based on whats best to do and that still points to destroying it anyway.

First off, what exists in another book doesn't matter.  It's what we are shown here.  You missed the part where people didn't want to become reapers and saw it as dying.  So it's more than my definition of being alive.  It's the definition that would be given to the kid by all those minds added to the reapers.  Alive is not seen by most people (trillions of them) as being inside a reaper that turns people into goo.  Sorry if that is my definition, but I think others probably agree with that and would overrule what the kid thinks.  I'm not basing it on my beliefs unless you think your being alive is a belief.  I'm basing it on the logic of the people computers that would reside in the reapers and say they were far more efficient and alive as autonomous individual beings that had alternate perspectives of the problem.  Just as Legion said was a reason why the geth would move outside of their hubs within mobile platforms.

The kid also tells Shepard when Shepard is to become head reaper, that Shepard will die.  Or did I not understand that that didn't mean death?

And so now this shackled AI fooled its programming.  I thought it was a victim of it.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 10 août 2012 - 03:26 .

[memorysquid]

3DandBeyond wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

His logic is silly, but that's because his creators' logic was silly ... the reason I don't trust the Catalyst is because his creators were morons. No matter how you look at it, the Catalyst doesn't make sense, it's poor writing, and the only reason you trust him is because the writers tell you that you have to

Well of course, but that happens throughout the game.  The writers of ME are not perfect and the choices you get offered reflect their variously correct or mistaken understandings of ethics, politics and physics.  If you are playing the game, you should be playing it by the rules they wrote, otherwise both this discussion is futile because your understanding will be utterly idiosyncratic. 

When Legion told Shepard that the Heretics are the result of a math error but then immediately denied it offering a false equivalence between [2<3] and [1=/=2] did I fly to BSN demanding everyone recognize all the Geth are insane, cannot perform basic math functions and the only correct response is to wipe them out as a danger to all?  No.  Because I understood it was just poor writing.  So I don't get all these horrible, nasty arguments trying to hash out the correct response to what was ultimately understandable, but bad writing.  The writers' intention was clear enough.  If the writers tell you the proto-Reaper race's logic was sterling, well then it was.  Voila! 

I'm sorry but in my game the Heretics say 1 is less than 2, but the true geth say 2 is less than 3.  He is saying it created a similar but different meaning to things.  It means it's like they are speaking a different language almost.  It's the idea that like two people can think they mean and want the same thing, but arrive at it differently.  It made complete sense.

The poor writing took hold in ME3, along with some of the best writing of the series.  The contrast is what is horrific.  In fact, it's because we wanted the writers to play by the rules they wrote and they didn't.  They created their own problems and then refused to see they existed.  And I could go into how they denied so much to fans when they did talk-things they clearly meant to happen in the game, because they said it would happen and did happen, and then came back later and couldn't see why fans thought it happened.  That's not quirkiness or intent, that's pure laziness and rather off-putting.

Way to miss the forest for the trees and it made no sense at all in context.

You've correctly quoted Legion.  Now what did Legion say that in reply to?  Shepard saying "The Heretics are a result of a math error?"  And why did Shepard say that?  Legion saying the Geth "runtimes" return a value of 1.00032 for equations equalling 1.00033 [or something similar].  Which is simply false.  1<2<3 is true.  1.00032=1.00033 is not.  Trying to equate the two is false.  So there we have it.  In ME2 the Geth are insane and starting there and throughout the series Shepard should have striven to wipe them out as dangerously illogical, right?

I agree all this appears to be the result of a rush job.  But trying to create some internal narrative to explain it is silly, when the problems lies with crappy writing.

[memorysquid]

3DandBeyond wrote...

What we have been saying is the kid is not at all shackled by anything. 

And you're wrong.  He mentions he cannot do the final solutions without Shepard's help.  If he could then he could have grabbed any random willing human to perform Synthesis or Control or enacted Destroy all by himself.

[3DandBeyond]

memorysquid wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

What we have been saying is the kid is not at all shackled by anything. 

And you're wrong.  He mentions he cannot do the final solutions without Shepard's help.  If he could then he could have grabbed any random willing human to perform Synthesis or Control or enacted Destroy all by himself.

And you're wrong.  That doesn't shackle him.  It just means he needs Shepard to physically enact the changes.  And my reply was specifically directed to a statement made by the other poster where he says the kid is shackled by his creators and is a victim of his programming.  That same poster then says he fooled his programming and a lot of other stuff.

He needed Shepard's organic being for many things just as he needed organics for the reapers. 

We've been saying that he has understanding of what he's doing and that he was not shackled by his programmers.  But way to take what I said out of context.

[TSA_383]

memorysquid wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

What we have been saying is the kid is not at all shackled by anything. 

And you're wrong.  He mentions he cannot do the final solutions without Shepard's help.  If he could then he could have grabbed any random willing human to perform Synthesis or Control or enacted Destroy all by himself.

He can't achieve his idea of "synthesis" with organics that "resist". He needs shepard's mind - just as harbinger (presumably catalst speaking through harbinger - are they really distinct?) says "Struggle if you must, your mind will be ours." as the last thing it ever says to shepard in Arrival.

So bow to the king of the reapers, get implanted with reaper tech and become part of the reaper collective...

[3DandBeyond]

memorysquid wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

His logic is silly, but that's because his creators' logic was silly ... the reason I don't trust the Catalyst is because his creators were morons. No matter how you look at it, the Catalyst doesn't make sense, it's poor writing, and the only reason you trust him is because the writers tell you that you have to

Well of course, but that happens throughout the game.  The writers of ME are not perfect and the choices you get offered reflect their variously correct or mistaken understandings of ethics, politics and physics.  If you are playing the game, you should be playing it by the rules they wrote, otherwise both this discussion is futile because your understanding will be utterly idiosyncratic. 

When Legion told Shepard that the Heretics are the result of a math error but then immediately denied it offering a false equivalence between [2<3] and [1=/=2] did I fly to BSN demanding everyone recognize all the Geth are insane, cannot perform basic math functions and the only correct response is to wipe them out as a danger to all?  No.  Because I understood it was just poor writing.  So I don't get all these horrible, nasty arguments trying to hash out the correct response to what was ultimately understandable, but bad writing.  The writers' intention was clear enough.  If the writers tell you the proto-Reaper race's logic was sterling, well then it was.  Voila! 

I'm sorry but in my game the Heretics say 1 is less than 2, but the true geth say 2 is less than 3.  He is saying it created a similar but different meaning to things.  It means it's like they are speaking a different language almost.  It's the idea that like two people can think they mean and want the same thing, but arrive at it differently.  It made complete sense.

The poor writing took hold in ME3, along with some of the best writing of the series.  The contrast is what is horrific.  In fact, it's because we wanted the writers to play by the rules they wrote and they didn't.  They created their own problems and then refused to see they existed.  And I could go into how they denied so much to fans when they did talk-things they clearly meant to happen in the game, because they said it would happen and did happen, and then came back later and couldn't see why fans thought it happened.  That's not quirkiness or intent, that's pure laziness and rather off-putting.

Way to miss the forest for the trees and it made no sense at all in context.

You've correctly quoted Legion.  Now what did Legion say that in reply to?  Shepard saying "The Heretics are a result of a math error?"  And why did Shepard say that?  Legion saying the Geth "runtimes" return a value of 1.00032 for equations equalling 1.00033 [or something similar].  Which is simply false.  1<2<3 is true.  1.00032=1.00033 is not.  Trying to equate the two is false.  So there we have it.  In ME2 the Geth are insane and starting there and throughout the series Shepard should have striven to wipe them out as dangerously illogical, right?

I agree all this appears to be the result of a rush job.  But trying to create some internal narrative to explain it is silly, when the problems lies with crappy writing.

I didn't miss the forest for the trees.  Legion is trying to explain 2 complex concepts to Shepard in an artful way.  He did make sense in that both are true but not related to each other.  He is saying what the effect was of the runtimes in that they came to different conclusions.  The other statement is showing that they had different perspectives-different ways to reach the same outcomes.  You are comparing apples and oranges.  The two statements are not referring to the same thing.  The heretics were changed because their programming returned a different answer.  And they wanted to be given their future by the reapers whereas the true geth wanted to find their way and their future.  Two different statements explaining two different concepts.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 10 août 2012 - 03:51 .

[ThaDPG]

The Exiled Paladin wrote...

ThaDPG wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

If the Reaper Consciousness/Starbrat looks this bad from his own dialogue, imagine once we have the context of Leviathan's point of view, if we get to talk to him. He might have some choice words for everyone's least favorite child-shaped AI.

I know it won't happen, but I'd enjoy watching Leviathan blast starkid into the next galaxy

Equally unlikely as Shep is running to the citadel beam and Harbinger shows up to try and toast him, Leviathan flys in and blasts harbie and the other nearby reapers to atoms!!! Now that I'd ike to see...

I would love a Levi/Harby fight scene to death

[memorysquid]

3DandBeyond wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

What we have been saying is the kid is not at all shackled by anything. 

And you're wrong.  He mentions he cannot do the final solutions without Shepard's help.  If he could then he could have grabbed any random willing human to perform Synthesis or Control or enacted Destroy all by himself.

And you're wrong.  That doesn't shackle him.  It just means he needs Shepard to physically enact the changes.  And my reply was specifically directed to a statement made by the other poster where he says the kid is shackled by his creators and is a victim of his programming.  That same poster then says he fooled his programming and a lot of other stuff.

He needed Shepard's organic being for many things just as he needed organics for the reapers. 

As I just pointed out, he didn't need Shepard specifically for anything stated in the game.  Why let Shepard destroy him if he still thought Reaping was a viable idea?  He's a shackled AI.  The limits of his behavior aren't detailed in the game, beyond him not being able to use the Crucible by himself and rejecting his solution due to Shepard's behavior.

[memorysquid]

3DandBeyond wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Way to miss the forest for the trees and it made no sense at all in context.

You've correctly quoted Legion.  Now what did Legion say that in reply to?  Shepard saying "The Heretics are a result of a math error?"  And why did Shepard say that?  Legion saying the Geth "runtimes" return a value of 1.00032 for equations equalling 1.00033 [or something similar].  Which is simply false.  1<2<3 is true.  1.00032=1.00033 is not.  Trying to equate the two is false.  So there we have it.  In ME2 the Geth are insane and starting there and throughout the series Shepard should have striven to wipe them out as dangerously illogical, right?

I agree all this appears to be the result of a rush job.  But trying to create some internal narrative to explain it is silly, when the problems lies with crappy writing.

I didn't miss the forest for the trees.  Legion is trying to explain 2 complex concepts to Shepard in an artful way.  He did make sense in that both are true but not related to each other.  He is saying what the effect was of the runtimes in that they came to different conclusions.  The other statement is showing that they had different perspectives-different ways to reach the same outcomes.  You are comparing apples and oranges.  The two statements are not referring to the same thing.  The heretics were changed because their programming returned a different answer.  And they wanted to be given their future by the reapers whereas the true geth wanted to find their way and their future.  Two different statements explaining two different concepts.

You can keep "artfully" dodging the obvious, but I won't.  2 doesn't equal 3.  Any equation that relies upon it doing so is false, is actually an inequality.  1<2<3 is true; no contradiction.  1.00032 = 1.00033 is false; contradiction.  Using the first to explain why the 2nd is not a math error is irrational, ludicrous, and formally contradictory as it relies upon a contradiction.

The Heretics rely upon a math error; LEGION SAYS SO - right before he denies it is a math error.  Now you can demand that everyone recognize the Geth are the Barbie Dolls of AI [Math is hard!] or admit that the writers are no logicians.  I think the latter is the only sensible conclusion.

[3DandBeyond]

memorysquid wrote...

As I just pointed out, he didn't need Shepard specifically for anything stated in the game.  Why let Shepard destroy him if he still thought Reaping was a viable idea?  He's a shackled AI.  The limits of his behavior aren't detailed in the game, beyond him not being able to use the Crucible by himself and rejecting his solution due to Shepard's behavior.

He says reaping isn't a viable idea anymore, but it won't stop if Shepard does nothing.  So, that seems to indicate it still is.

If he was shackled any moron would have created him to not harm his creators.  And he himself describes his limitations or lack thereof.  If that's not true then he is lying and/or deceptive.  He is acting contrary to what he is programmed to do, something no shackled AI could do.  He is programmed to find peace and creates war.  He actively creates it by sending in reapers with guns that shoot at people.  War doesn't just happen, he creates it.  He says he controls the reapers.  Well his creators became a reaper, so he controlled them?  Yes, that just screams "shackled" to me.

The "limits" on him are merely physical limitations and not due to shackles.  Before EDI gained a body, she was unshackled, but she couldn't have pulled out a pistol and shot someone.  She couldn't give someone some of her organic DNA because she had none.

[Thaa_solon]

Oh my science, what am I reading in this thread......is it logical conclusions now.

Wow that's awesome, finally someone making sense.

[3DandBeyond]

memorysquid wrote...


You can keep "artfully" dodging the obvious, but I won't.  2 doesn't equal 3.  Any equation that relies upon it doing so is false, is actually an inequality.  1<2<3 is true; no contradiction.  1.00032 = 1.00033 is false; contradiction.  Using the first to explain why the 2nd is not a math error is irrational, ludicrous, and formally contradictory as it relies upon a contradiction.

The Heretics rely upon a math error; LEGION SAYS SO - right before he denies it is a math error.  Now you can demand that everyone recognize the Geth are the Barbie Dolls of AI [Math is hard!] or admit that the writers are no logicians.  I think the latter is the only sensible conclusion.

Whatever.  The heretics became what they were because of a math error, but they want what the reapers offer because of a different perspective.

The runtime math error is like why people think different things.  This is like our genetics.  We are "wired" to believe in different things and what I think may be an "error" in my "programming" to you.  I'm female, you maybe are male.  I'm xx, you are xy.  We are equal and not equal.  That's what he's saying.  They are equal and unequal.  It's a dichotomy.

The other idea of 1<2 and 2<3 is how people see things.  In this the heretics have a different perspective.  It's like one family driving a car to get to Disney World and another family flying to get there.  The heretics see the reapers as giving them their future.  The true geth want to earn it.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 10 août 2012 - 04:16 .

[memorysquid]

3DandBeyond wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

As I just pointed out, he didn't need Shepard specifically for anything stated in the game.  Why let Shepard destroy him if he still thought Reaping was a viable idea?  He's a shackled AI.  The limits of his behavior aren't detailed in the game, beyond him not being able to use the Crucible by himself and rejecting his solution due to Shepard's behavior.

He says reaping isn't a viable idea anymore, but it won't stop if Shepard does nothing.  So, that seems to indicate it still is.

If he was shackled any moron would have created him to not harm his creators. 

His creators hadn't seen "Terminator?"  See the point is that ME isn't a real universe; however the writers want him made is how he was made.  His creator race didn't envision him turning against them or they insufficiently protected themselves against the possibility.  Either way your resistance [to the written word] is futile.

[3DandBeyond]

memorysquid wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

As I just pointed out, he didn't need Shepard specifically for anything stated in the game.  Why let Shepard destroy him if he still thought Reaping was a viable idea?  He's a shackled AI.  The limits of his behavior aren't detailed in the game, beyond him not being able to use the Crucible by himself and rejecting his solution due to Shepard's behavior.

He says reaping isn't a viable idea anymore, but it won't stop if Shepard does nothing.  So, that seems to indicate it still is.

If he was shackled any moron would have created him to not harm his creators. 

His creators hadn't seen "Terminator?"  See the point is that ME isn't a real universe; however the writers want him made is how he was made.  His creator race didn't envision him turning against them or they insufficiently protected themselves against the possibility.  Either way your resistance [to the written word] is futile.

The problem is you and one other person here keep using shackled as fluid-it fits where it fits, but should be ignored in places where it doesn't.  Nothing says he was shackled and his words seem to refute the notion of it.  His solution is his solution.  He controls.  He's no mere AI.  So, you believe him or you don't.  He's in charge or he isn't.  He's shackled or he's not.  Otherwise, he's just whatever you want him to be at the moment, to fit your point at the time.  In the next post, he is something else.  If he's a mere machine (as dreman likes to sometimes say) then he is on or off, yes or no, 1 or 0, but not all things at once.  If he is an advanced AI (as dreman likes to say at other times), then he knows things and does things on his own.  If he is the victim of his programming (as dreman likes to say a lot), then he cannot independently change it, but he has. 

[memorysquid]

3DandBeyond wrote...

memorysquid wrote...


You can keep "artfully" dodging the obvious, but I won't.  2 doesn't equal 3.  Any equation that relies upon it doing so is false, is actually an inequality.  1<2<3 is true; no contradiction.  1.00032 = 1.00033 is false; contradiction.  Using the first to explain why the 2nd is not a math error is irrational, ludicrous, and formally contradictory as it relies upon a contradiction.

The Heretics rely upon a math error; LEGION SAYS SO - right before he denies it is a math error.  Now you can demand that everyone recognize the Geth are the Barbie Dolls of AI [Math is hard!] or admit that the writers are no logicians.  I think the latter is the only sensible conclusion.

Whatever.  The heretics became what they were because of a math error, but they want what the reapers offer because of a different perspective.

The runtime math error is like why people think different things.  This is like our genetics.  We are "wired" to believe in different things and what I think may be an "error" in my "programming" to you.  I'm female, you maybe are male.  I'm xx, you are xy.  We are equal and not equal.  That's what he's saying.  They are equal and unequal.  It's a dichotomy.

The other idea of 1<2 and 2<3 is how people see things.  In this the heretics have a different perspective.  It's like one family driving a car to get to Disney World and another family flying to get there.  The heretics see the reapers as giving them their future.  The true geth want to earn it.

The idea that logic is sexually informed is not so good, IMO.  Ok, the Heretics have a different perspective; this is relevantly unlike biological differences in women and men, because the Heretics are different because they are WRONG.  Unless you are willing to commit to either women or men being WRONG by virtue of biology, it is a bad comparison.  If Geth ran differently on different hardware, then it would be an okay comparison.  They don't.  They are all software. 

My point remains that it was just poor writing responsible for a literal interpretation of Legion meaning apparently all Geth are insane as was all this kerfluffle about the Catalyst.  He isn't an evil genius trying to fool Shep, he is just written poorly.  People seem not to want to deal with the fact that the story is simply incoherent in some respects and would prefer to demand genocide be accepted as morally acceptable since the Catalyst has to be an evil genius.

[memorysquid]

3DandBeyond wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

As I just pointed out, he didn't need Shepard specifically for anything stated in the game.  Why let Shepard destroy him if he still thought Reaping was a viable idea?  He's a shackled AI.  The limits of his behavior aren't detailed in the game, beyond him not being able to use the Crucible by himself and rejecting his solution due to Shepard's behavior.

He says reaping isn't a viable idea anymore, but it won't stop if Shepard does nothing.  So, that seems to indicate it still is.

If he was shackled any moron would have created him to not harm his creators. 

His creators hadn't seen "Terminator?"  See the point is that ME isn't a real universe; however the writers want him made is how he was made.  His creator race didn't envision him turning against them or they insufficiently protected themselves against the possibility.  Either way your resistance [to the written word] is futile.

The problem is you and one other person here keep using shackled as fluid-it fits where it fits, but should be ignored in places where it doesn't.  Nothing says he was shackled and his words seem to refute the notion of it.  His solution is his solution.  He controls.  He's no mere AI.  So, you believe him or you don't.  He's in charge or he isn't.  He's shackled or he's not.  Otherwise, he's just whatever you want him to be at the moment, to fit your point at the time.  In the next post, he is something else.  If he's a mere machine (as dreman likes to sometimes say) then he is on or off, yes or no, 1 or 0, but not all things at once.  If he is an advanced AI (as dreman likes to say at other times), then he knows things and does things on his own.  If he is the victim of his programming (as dreman likes to say a lot), then he cannot independently change it, but he has. 

EDI is shackled but also free within constraints until Joker unlocks her.  As would be an actual human in shackles.  The question is the bounds of the constraints.  The Catalyst tells you how he is constrained.  He is constrained to find a solution to organic/synthetic discord.  He is constrained not to be able to activate the Crucible by himself.  You know he is shackled as a result. 

I don't get why you are fighting this.  You have some dog in the fight, you want the Catalyst to be morally culpable or something.  That he is shackled is plainly presented in the game.

[3DandBeyond]

memorysquid wrote...

The idea that logic is sexually informed is not so good, IMO.  Ok, the Heretics have a different perspective; this is relevantly unlike biological differences in women and men, because the Heretics are different because they are WRONG.  Unless you are willing to commit to either women or men being WRONG by virtue of biology, it is a bad comparison.  If Geth ran differently on different hardware, then it would be an okay comparison.  They don't.  They are all software. 

My point remains that it was just poor writing responsible for a literal interpretation of Legion meaning apparently all Geth are insane as was all this kerfluffle about the Catalyst.  He isn't an evil genius trying to fool Shep, he is just written poorly.  People seem not to want to deal with the fact that the story is simply incoherent in some respects and would prefer to demand genocide be accepted as morally acceptable since the Catalyst has to be an evil genius.

Oh good gravy.  I was using an example and not relating sex to the issue.  It was an example of how people that are basically the same can be different in so many ways.  All of us humans do run on the same hardware that evolved from one certain basic thing.  We evolved.  They evolved or were advanced.  They had an error inserted in them to return a different answer.  Much as advancing a race beyond their time would do.  What was true was no longer true.

Legion even says that the Heretics are not wrong, that they came to a different conclusion.  I'm just saying the 2 examples were not meant to relate to one another in the way you think.  You see them as pointing to the same thing.  I don't.  I think they are two examples that show the different ways the 2 types of geth think and why.  The 2 types of geth grew apart-Legion says this and Shepard also says it.  The runtime error just changes the heretics way of thinking.

I don't think the Legion dialogue is poorly written.

I don't see the catalyst as some evil genius.  I think he has attributes that were he human would mean he's evil, crazy, warped, and amoral.  The effect is that.  I don't care what motivates him.  He has the ability to think and do things and to understand what he is doing.  I think what people wanted was a coherent way to deal with him that fit in with the ME story world and not endings based on his problem and the one he continually creates.  I would prefer we went back to wanting to kill reapers and not wanting to know their favorite color and having them be turned into neutered lap dogs to some insane AI.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 10 août 2012 - 05:24 .