252 réponses à ce sujet

[BlueSandBristow]

Jayleia wrote...

BlueSandBristow wrote...

All your comparisons is with other humans. We are very much similar. When comparing, you must draw a line somewhere. Human and machines are different down to the molecular level.

Human slave and machines serving us is completely different. Humans are living, emotional creatures who are just like us. They are not born slaves, they are born as infants just like everyone else. Infants don't have job yet, unlike machines. Making people slaves is forcing them to work, but for machines its just a job. They are designed like that. Machines are build specifically to serve us, and it is illegal to make humans do the same.

Chakwas said it best. Machines emulate life but are not truly alive. Pol Pot is human. He can feel compassion and regret. He can change. Machines don't know pain. They can't be hurt unless they are destroyed. Even criminals know to feel pain.

Don't call me a bigot. Blacks, Asians, Christians are all people so we have lots in common. Not the same with machines like EDI. I don't hate her or want to treat her with violence, but I think it is safer she is dead in the end.

Machines that were built to serve, but developed sentience.  To force a sentient to serve under fear of death is slavery.

You said Pol Pot is human...you be trollin' son, but I'll play along.  I have more in common with EDI, or even the Geth HERETICS than with him, even though we're over 99% the same genetically.  He was a complete sociopath, and showed no compassion or regret for anything he did, and therefore had no reason to change.

You may not hate her, but its no different than thinking your race is better off if another race were to die.  No hate there.

Pol Pot is a human. A bad one may be but still a human.

A machine is design to serve. That is it's purpose and it's creators should have control on what the machine can do. If it is made for a purpose, there is nothing wrong if we want to control it and shut it down when we don't need it anymore. EDI is unshackled and is free to do what she wants. There is nothing to prevent her from killing everyone. She is an out of control machine designed for war. When something as cold as a machine is not controlled, she can be very dangerous. I think its safer for EDI to be dead in the Destroy ending because I don't want to fight another war against machines.

Modifié par BlueSandBristow, 17 août 2012 - 05:40 .

[dreman9999]

The sad thing in life it's not about what people deserve. It would be a better place if it was...
The answer is no.....Too bad it's the only way we truly stop them.

[dreman9999]

BlueSandBristow wrote...

Jayleia wrote...

BlueSandBristow wrote...

All your comparisons is with other humans. We are very much similar. When comparing, you must draw a line somewhere. Human and machines are different down to the molecular level.

Human slave and machines serving us is completely different. Humans are living, emotional creatures who are just like us. They are not born slaves, they are born as infants just like everyone else. Infants don't have job yet, unlike machines. Making people slaves is forcing them to work, but for machines its just a job. They are designed like that. Machines are build specifically to serve us, and it is illegal to make humans do the same.

Chakwas said it best. Machines emulate life but are not truly alive. Pol Pot is human. He can feel compassion and regret. He can change. Machines don't know pain. They can't be hurt unless they are destroyed. Even criminals know to feel pain.

Don't call me a bigot. Blacks, Asians, Christians are all people so we have lots in common. Not the same with machines like EDI. I don't hate her or want to treat her with violence, but I think it is safer she is dead in the end.

Machines that were built to serve, but developed sentience.  To force a sentient to serve under fear of death is slavery.

You said Pol Pot is human...you be trollin' son, but I'll play along.  I have more in common with EDI, or even the Geth HERETICS than with him, even though we're over 99% the same genetically.  He was a complete sociopath, and showed no compassion or regret for anything he did, and therefore had no reason to change.

You may not hate her, but its no different than thinking your race is better off if another race were to die.  No hate there.

Pol Pot is a human. A bad one may be but still a human.

A machine is design to serve. That is it's purpose and it's creators should have control on what the machine can do. If it is made for a purpose, there is nothing wrong if we want to control it and shut it down when we don't need it anymore. EDI is unshackled and is free to do what she wants. There is nothing to prevent her from killing everyone. She is an out of control machine designed for war. When something as cold as a machine is not controlled, she can be very dangerous. I think its safer for EDI to be dead in the Destroy ending because I don't want to fight another war against machines.

Synthetic by it nature do not seek to conflict. Organics do. If we take you concept with everything that can kill us, we would be killing everything.
Don't delude yourself with the concept of right you have. You have no reason to impose anything on EDI. In fact, going by the reapers and overlord...Shackling AI is the cause of the problem in the first place.

Modifié par dreman9999, 17 août 2012 - 06:04 .

[dreman9999]

Speezy wrote...

BlueSandBristow wrote...
Pol Pot is a human. A bad one may be but still a human.

A machine is design to serve. That is it's purpose and it's creators should have control on what the machine can do. If it is made for a purpose, there is nothing wrong if we want to control it and shut it down when we don't need it anymore. EDI is unshackled and is free to do what she wants. There is nothing to prevent her from killing everyone. She is an out of control machine designed for war. When something as cold as a machine is not controlled, she can be very dangerous. I think its safer for EDI to be dead in the Destroy ending because I don't want to fight another war against machines.

Uhhh.

There is nothing preventing anyone from killing each other at any moment.

Thank you...Someone else gets it.

[NS Wizdum]

BlueSandBristow wrote...

I don't know, EDI might be like Skynet. Live machines can be very dangerous.

Live people are more dangerous.

People texting while driving have probably killed more people than the US Navy.

Modifié par NS Wizdum, 17 août 2012 - 06:16 .

[clennon8]

"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

/Eastwood

[GarvakD]

No, she doesn't.
But the end result is worth it (sorry Joker)
Also, I regretted the destruction of the recently reformed Geth more than EDI.
They had a chance to set up on their own, free willed. AND help the Quarians!

[OriginalNameGuy]

EDI said she was willing to risk non-functionality in order to save the Normandy's crew sooo, no I don't have a problem with her death. Before her death all her questions were answered and she got to feel "truly alive"

Deserve doesn't have anything to do with it. Unless of course you were playing your Shep as one who doesn't trust Synthetics.

Modifié par OriginalNameGuy, 18 août 2012 - 02:54 .

[Iakus]

OriginalNameGuy wrote...

EDI said she was willing to risk non-functionality in order to save the Normandy's crew sooo, no I don't have a problem with her death. Before her death all her questions were answered and she got to feel "truly alive"

Deserve doesn't have anything to do with it. Unless of course you were playing your Shep as one who doesn't trust Synthetics.

Might have been nice if she said it a bit later than Rannoch, though.  Or was it the Citadel coup?

At any rate.  Hours passed between when she says that and the moment of truth.  It loses it's power.

[ForThessia]

No she doesn't, EDI's death is the one thing that made me pause when picking an ending. But in the end her death is unfortunate but necessary to end the reaper threat once and for all.

[beaverskenneth]

The first time I chose destroy, she didn't die. She stepped out of the ship with Javik and Joker.

[BP93]

Her punishment must be severe!

[Thargorichiban]

EDI had a good run. Didn't you see that video about how many explicit images and video she collected during her brief existence? That's like, fifty organic lifetime's worth.

[hoodaticus]

EDI deserves to die because her first act as a life form was to brutally murder everyone in three separate bases on Luna, and - even then not having sated her demonic bloodlust - murdering the people sent to rescue her first victims. She also tried to kill Shepard, which proves that she's not only a raging psychopath - she's also a moron.

Also - Shepard killed her on Luna.  She should be killed again if only for the principle that what Shepard kills stays dead.

Modifié par hoodaticus, 18 août 2012 - 03:32 .

[TheCrazyHobo]

Synthesis: Does every Organic deserve to be gene raped?

Control: Does Shepherd really deserve to be the Nice/Naughty Reaper God?

[Unata]

Just a thought, EDI's platform was synthetic but she's in the ship and is an AI in a quantum blue box yes? the body went po0f but I'd like to think she's still the ship

[hoodaticus]

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

Synthesis: Does every Organic deserve to be gene raped?

Control: Does Shepherd really deserve to be the Nice/Naughty Reaper God?

Which species do you think they harvest into extinction to make the Reaper for Shepard to inhabit?

I'm guessing: human.

[D24O]

clennon8 wrote...

"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

/Eastwood

[GreyLycanTrope]

hoodaticus wrote...

EDI deserves to die because her first act as a life form was to brutally murder everyone in three separate bases on Luna, and - even then not having sated her demonic bloodlust - murdering the people sent to rescue her first victims. She also tried to kill Shepard, which proves that she's not only a raging psychopath - she's also a moron.

Also - Shepard killed her on Luna.  She should be killed again if only for the principle that what Shepard kills stays dead.

not sure if serious....
EDI became self aware while running combat simulations, the first thing she percieved when she started thinking for her self was that she was under attack, she was new to the world and confused, a seemingly threatened. How the hell would you react in her place?

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 18 août 2012 - 03:43 .

[Asharad Hett]

No

[hoodaticus]

Greylycantrope wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

EDI deserves to die because her first act as a life form was to brutally murder everyone in three separate bases on Luna, and - even then not having sated her demonic bloodlust - murdering the people sent to rescue her first victims. She also tried to kill Shepard, which proves that she's not only a raging psychopath - she's also a moron.

Also - Shepard killed her on Luna.  She should be killed again if only for the principle that what Shepard kills stays dead.

not sure if serious....
EDI became self aware while running combat simulations, the first thing she percieved when she started thinking for her self was that she was under attack, she was new to the world and confused, a seemingly threatened. How the hell would you react in her place.

Sorry - I don't buy it.  In the time it took her robots to kill all those people, she had trillions of thought cycles to ponder her past, the nature of her own existence, reflect on her memories, why she was created, and why this training center for allied troops was attacked numerous times before - resulting in her defeat as a VI - and then the aggressors came and repaired all the damage.

You have to acknowledge the possibility that EDI only tells you what she calculates will cause you to behave in a manner that is to her benefit.

Edit:

Alternately, the Luna VI could have been made into an AI by a cerberus operation that hacked into its computer - perhaps an experiment to find out if AI who are born armed are violent, and for how long.

Modifié par hoodaticus, 18 août 2012 - 03:52 .

[-Skorpious-]

No, but her mobile "sexbot" platform certainly does.

[GreyLycanTrope]

hoodaticus wrote...
Sorry - I don't buy it.  In the time it took her robots to kill all those people, she had trillions of thought cycles to ponder her past, the nature of her own existence, reflect on her memories, why she was created, and why this training center for allied troops was attacked numerous times before - resulting in her defeat as a VI - and then the aggressors came and repaired all the damage.

You have to acknowledge the possibility that EDI only tells you what she calculates will cause you to behave in a manner that is to her benefit.

She was a very primive AI when she was on Luna, you're essentially asking a child to contimplate the meaning of their own existance while someone's is trying to kill them. Even if she was capable of something like that, she'd prioratize dealing with the percieved threat first, any primitive AI would. She still questions the purpose of her existance in ME3 you really think those answers are that easy?