196 réponses à ce sujet

[fr33stylez]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Hydralysk wrote...

This is another thing I usually see people say, but the catalyst's argument relies on two points:

1. That synthetics will always rebel against their creators.
2. After the rebellion synthetics will wipe out all organics.

If there is a non-zero chance of (1) ever occurring, there is also a non-zero chance of (2) ever occurring.

Given enough time, all non-zero chances have a 100% chance of occuring.  The Catalyst's argument is sound, if you believe the chance of (1) is more than 0%.

The chance of flipping a coin a million times and having it land on tails is also non-zero. Because non-zero possiblities are practically endless, it doesn't really make sense to delay the possiblity of ONE non-zero chance event (tech singularity/rebellion/organic extinction) by doing whatever the Catalyst is doing to organics. Sci-Fi depeictons of this issue usually take place when it has already occured, because by your own admission, every non-zero chance of anything happening can happen.

Here's another example:

(1) Organics will develop more advanced weapons as technology advances
(2) Organics will use such technology to wipe each other out in a Techno-Nuclear-Holocaust war

We could go on forever. It seems illogical to employ a Reaper solution to delay/prevent the probability of only one event possibly happening, when there are endless events that may happen which can have just as a dire effect on the fate of organics.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 15 août 2012 - 04:18 .

[Xandurpein]

There is really nothing bad about writing Catalyst as a mad AI with an amoral logic. The big problem lies in the story telling. You can't first establish that Catalyst has a flawed logic that is obviously repulsive to us, and then in the same breath expect us to accept Catalyst's proposals to solve everything. In those last minutes of the game they managed to establish that Catalyst was crazy and then demand that we trust it. That's the real reason so many people get upset by Catalyst logic, instead of just accepting it as part of the story.

[CaptainZaysh]

General User wrote...

Well... technically wouldn't "[g]iven enough time" be the operative phrase there?  I mean, if the chance of a given event occurring are so small that it is more reasonable the heat death of the universe will occur first, there is no real sense in making any sort of major decisions based on that occurrence.  

Absolutely.  We'd need to see the calculations to make a judgement.  Given the timescale you're talking about, though, we'd need to be looking at a very low number indeed.

General User wrote...
Now, I would argue that it is possible to reduce the chance of a "synthetic rebellion" to such a small chance, if not all the way to 0%, simply by not oppressing sapient AI's.  Afterall they can't rebel if there's nothing to rebel against.

The trouble with that line of thinking is that it assumes we could predict the reactions and behaviour of an alien superintelligence.  In any sensible risk model, we'd have to assign the chance of the mad god becoming hostile a greater than zero chance.

That might be an infinitesimally low chance, but given galactic timescales even very low chances are highly likely to occur.

General User wrote...
I think point (2) is also important since even if a synthetic rebellion did occur, it could take any number of forms or end in any number of ways.  There's no reason any hypothetical rebellion must be a genocidal conflict, there's even no reason it couldn't be peaceful in nature.  

You're correct again, of course; there could be any number of rebellions that don't end in the utter destruction of organic civilisation.  The trouble is, of course, that it only needs to go bad once and we will never get another throw of the dice and given enough time it will eventually go bad yada yada yada.

General User wrote...

The possible scenarios are as different as the individual people playing them out.  But, of course, "individuality" and "people" were two concepts that largely lied beyond the Catalyst's understanding.

Yeah.  The thing's an abomination.

[CaptainZaysh]

fr33stylez wrote...

Here's another example:

(1) Organics will develop more advanced weapons as technology advances
(2) Organics will use such technology to wipe each other out in a Techno-Nuclear-Holocaust war

Sure, but that's not the problem the Catalyst was designed to solve.

[The Angry One]

> Catalyst
> Logic

Pick one.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

If there is a non-zero chance of (1) ever occurring, there is also a non-zero chance of (2) ever occurring.

Given enough time, all non-zero chances have a 100% chance of occuring.  The Catalyst's argument is sound, if you believe the chance of (1) is more than 0%.

Not necessarily. There are multiple events which can have non-zero probabilities which are mutually exclusive from each other.

It is possible that humans will go extinct due to synthetics.

It is possible that humans will go extinct due to disease.

If either option happens, then the other option becomes impossible. At least pre-EC, this was an issue because it raised the question of why the Catalyst cares so much about the synthetic problem, when there are a million other methods by which we can exterminate ourselves. At least now, with the EC, the Catalyst clearly indicates that the human-Synthetic problem was significant enough that it had a substantial probability of happening.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 15 août 2012 - 04:38 .

[Fedi.St]

Xandurpein wrote...

There is really nothing bad about writing Catalyst as a mad AI with an amoral logic. The big problem lies in the story telling. You can't first establish that Catalyst has a flawed logic that is obviously repulsive to us, and then in the same breath expect us to accept Catalyst's proposals to solve everything. In those last minutes of the game they managed to establish that Catalyst was crazy and then demand that we trust it. That's the real reason so many people get upset by Catalyst logic, instead of just accepting it as part of the story.

this.


I

[The Angry One]

Xandurpein wrote...

There is really nothing bad about writing Catalyst as a mad AI with an amoral logic. The big problem lies in the story telling. You can't first establish that Catalyst has a flawed logic that is obviously repulsive to us, and then in the same breath expect us to accept Catalyst's proposals to solve everything. In those last minutes of the game they managed to establish that Catalyst was crazy and then demand that we trust it. That's the real reason so many people get upset by Catalyst logic, instead of just accepting it as part of the story.

Agreed. The funniest thing is if they had to go with this reason for the Reaper's actions and the 3 solutions, all they had to do was not make the Catalyst responsible for it. It could've just been an AI that had no control over the Reapers, or perhaps the creator who eventually lost control of it's creations.
It can then explain these things and give you your options without looking like a maniac who's presenting you an ultimatum.

Don't get me wrong, the ending would still suck with these options, but one minor change and you avoid the whole issue of being asked to cooperate with a being who is a singularity of anti-logic.

[CaptainZaysh]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Not necessarily. There are multiple events which can have non-zero probabilities which are mutually exclusive from each other.

Yeah, but all of them are outside the Catalyst's mission statement.  The possibility of catastrophic meteor impact doesn't mean we shouldn't mitigate against the risk of nuclear war.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 15 août 2012 - 04:58 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

I am with you, OP. You know, it doesn't really matter what the morals or motivations of the brat are. What's concerns me more is that the brat is here without an invitation. It's sticking its nose in things that are none of its business. No matter what the brat is, no matter what it's fairytale background, it has no right the violate the right of self-determination of countless civilizations by committing a gazallion atrocities.

Another problem is that it is trying to prove its point by turning synthetics hostile. Not only can't it be trusted because of that, but also because it has a long history of lies and deceit. It even created technology to force victims to believe it's lies. It's called indoctrination.

The above is enough for me to reject any of its hypothetical goals. So working with the brat and/or its boys is not an option. They overstayed their welcome.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 15 août 2012 - 05:10 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Yeah, but all of them are outside the Catalyst's mission statement.  The possibility of catastrophic meteor impact doesn't mean we shouldn't mitigate against the risk of nuclear war.

The Catalyst's mission statement is non-sensical if it can't be demonstrated that there is a significant chance of it occurring, which was the original ending's problem. Preventing the genocide of organics by synthetics was about as likely as the hypothetical meteor impact. What the EC at least does for the ending is show us that historically-speaking, conflict between organics and synthetics was frequent and destructive. We did not have that knowledge in the original endings.

[CaptainZaysh]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

The Catalyst's mission statement is non-sensical if it can't be demonstrated that there is a significant chance of it occurring, which was the original ending's problem.

Not really.  We don't need to see the spreadsheet to accept that its risk calculation returned a probability of "death by our creations" as higher than "death by interstellar disease".

[AngryFrozenWater]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

The Catalyst's mission statement is non-sensical if it can't be demonstrated that there is a significant chance of it occurring, which was the original ending's problem.

Not really.  We don't need to see the spreadsheet to accept that its risk calculation returned a probability of "death by our creations" as higher than "death by interstellar disease".

It muffled that spreadsheet away and tries to prove its point by turning synthetics hostile. No thanks.

[General User]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Absolutely.  We'd need to see the calculations to make a judgement.
 Given the timescale you're talking about, though, we'd need to be
looking at a very low number indeed.

I think what I'm getting at is that the likelihood of the Catalyst's worldview coming to pass is entirely dependent on certain conditions and circumstances being in place, and that by adjusting those conditions and circumstances that likelihood can be reduced, even to 0%.

The trouble with that line of thinking is that it assumes we could predict the reactions and behaviour of an alien superintelligence.  In any sensible risk model, we'd have to assign the chance of the mad god becoming hostile a greater than zero chance.

That might be an infinitesimally low chance, but given galactic timescales even very low chances are highly likely to occur.

Super intelligences and gods, I think you might be giving the Catalyst a more credit than it deserves.  Perhaps "super-capable" might be a better way to put it.   Honestly, since any claim the Catalyst might have to any sort of superiority rests on a relatively small technology edge, I really don't see how people are so impressed by the thing. I mean, the Catalyst never exactly wowwed me with it's insight or mental capacity.

You're correct again, of course; there could be any number of rebellions that don't end in the utter destruction of organic civilisation.  The trouble is, of course, that it only needs to go bad once and we will never get another throw of the dice and given enough time it will eventually go bad yada yada yada.

Does it?  I mean arguably after the dice have been thrown once, no matter how things eventually work out, we'd be playing a whole new game.  The circumstances would be different, it's not a game of roulette where the conditions are the same with every spin of the wheel.  How any given conflict takes place and ends could make subsequent conflict more likely, less likely, or any extreme thereof.  So the idea that "it didn't happen this time, but it might still happen later" isn't necessarily true. 

Modifié par General User, 15 août 2012 - 05:37 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Not really.  We don't need to see the spreadsheet to accept that its risk calculation returned a probability of "death by our creations" as higher than "death by interstellar disease".

Sure we do.

Because as it stands, the Catalyst does not employ logic in the original ME3 ending. Logic is based around argumentation, which is composed of a premise (evidence) and a conclusion (a claim supported by evidence). The Catalyst gives us a claim. He does not give any evidence to support that claim.

It would be like if I said to you "All Republics will eventually become corrupt" and didn't give you anything else. You have no way of ascertaining whether that is based on empirical experience, some psychological theory, calculations, or if I'm simply insane. Logic requires both a premise and conclusion. Without the former, you can sub in any ridiculous or reasonable assumption in its place.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 15 août 2012 - 05:54 .

[CaptainZaysh]

General User wrote...

Super intelligences and gods, I think you might be giving the Catalyst a more credit than it deserves.  Perhaps "super-capable" might be a better way to put it.   Honestly, since any claim the Catalyst might have to any sort of superiority rests on a relatively small technology edge, I really don't see how people are so impressed by the thing. I mean, the Catalyst never exactly wowwed me with it's insight or mental capacity.

Ah!  Sorry, I wasn't clear with my metaphor.  I don't mean the Catalyst is a superintelligence, but that what it's seeking to protect us from would be.

General User wrote...
Does it?  I mean arguably after the dice have been thrown once, no matter how things eventually work out, we'd be playing a whole new game.  The circumstances would be different, it's not a game of roulette where the conditions are the same with every spin of the wheel.  How any given conflict takes place and ends could make subsequent conflict more likely, less likely, or any extreme thereof.  So the idea that "it didn't happen this time, but it might still happen later" isn't necessarily true. 

If the hypothetical synthetic enemy were both genocidal and thorough, though, after they'd won they could seed the galaxy with armed Von Neumann probes that would prevent organic civilisation ever recurring.

[General User]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

General User wrote...

Super intelligences and gods, I think you might be giving the Catalyst a more credit than it deserves.  Perhaps "super-capable" might be a better way to put it.   Honestly, since any claim the Catalyst might have to any sort of superiority rests on a relatively small technology edge, I really don't see how people are so impressed by the thing. I mean, the Catalyst never exactly wowwed me with it's insight or mental capacity.

Ah!  Sorry, I wasn't clear with my metaphor.  I don't mean the Catalyst is a superintelligence, but that what it's seeking to protect us from would be.

Oh!  OK then.  That makes me think though... Since organics are creatures that lie beyond the Catalyst's understanding, and a synthetic superintelligence would be a theoretical threat that lies beyond our understanding, wouldn't the Catalyst trying to protect us from a hostile synthetic superintelligence be a bit like a dog trying to prevent a nuclear war?

Modifié par General User, 15 août 2012 - 06:11 .

[Blueprotoss]

 

Hannah Montana wrote...

Legion said they have differently built mind than them which they could not understand, I doubt Organic material is used just for the construction material.

If the organic material isn't the case then the Collectors won't have abducted that many humans to contruct a Reaper even when it had a human skeleton. 

maaaze wrote...

The Catalyst has no concept of valuing individuality...that is the flaw.

If thats no the case then there wold be little to no difference if you look at Sovreign, Harbinger, the Human Reaper, and the Rannoch Reaper.

Eterna5 wrote...

The catalyst has flawed logic because he's a corrupted AI. No more explanation is really needed.

If thats the case then the AI couldn't operate the Crucible and/or the Catalyst.  

Ieldra2 wrote...

Does it matter? We get what we want: the cycle is stopped, there will be no more extinction of advanced civilizations.

We don't know if the cycle stopped since we know so little in the Milky Way.

mass perfection wrote...

They could use his terrible logic and turn it into something positive by giving us a proper villain.

How is a Creator vs Created antagonist a negative and/or unproper villian. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 15 août 2012 - 06:27 .

[Blueprotoss]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Not really.  We don't need to see the spreadsheet to accept that its risk calculation returned a probability of "death by our creations" as higher than "death by interstellar disease".

Sure we do.

Because as it stands, the Catalyst does not employ logic in the original ME3 ending. Logic is based around argumentation, which is composed of a premise (evidence) and a conclusion (a claim supported by evidence). The Catalyst gives us a claim. He does not give any evidence to support that claim.

It would be like if I said to you "All Republics will eventually become corrupt" and didn't give you anything else. You have no way of ascertaining whether that is based on empirical experience, some psychological theory, calculations, or if I'm simply insane. Logic requires both a premise and conclusion. Without the former, you can sub in any ridiculous or reasonable assumption in its place.

How is that because the EC only made it more obvious that the Catalyst was the Reaper leader and the Created vs Creator viewpoints.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Blueprotoss wrote...

How is that because the EC only made it more obvious that the Catalyst was the Reaper leader and the Created vs Creator viewpoints.

The EC has the Catalyst explain that relations between Organics and Synthetics always ended in conflict and that all efforts to prevent this failed. This gives an empirical basis to the Catalyst's claims: that synthetics and organics will always come into conflict with each other. How does he know? Because they've always come into conflict with each other.

Without the EC, the Catalyst doesn't have any knowledge of the topic. All we know is that he thinks synthetics will kill everybody. We have no premise, meaning you can shove in anything you want. Maybe it was empirical, maybe it was a theory, or maybe the Catalyst watched Terminator too many times. Without a premise, we can't say which way the wind blows.  

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 15 août 2012 - 06:46 .

[CaptainZaysh]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Because as it stands, the Catalyst does not employ logic in the original ME3 ending. Logic is based around argumentation, which is composed of a premise (evidence) and a conclusion (a claim supported by evidence). The Catalyst gives us a claim. He does not give any evidence to support that claim.

Serious question.  Didn't you think the very existence of the Catalyst implied that somebody, somewhere had once run the numbers?  I just took it as read.

[CaptainZaysh]

General User wrote...

Oh!  OK then.  That makes me think though... Since organics are creatures that lie beyond the Catalyst's understanding, and a synthetic superintelligence would be a theoretical threat that lies beyond our understanding, wouldn't the Catalyst trying to protect us from a hostile synthetic superintelligence be a bit like a dog trying to prevent a nuclear war?

Yeah!  I think that's a really great analogy actually.  The Catalyst doesn't understand us at all (and therefore can't see that its solution while logical is monstrous), and it certainly wouldn't be able to fight a superintelligence with higher tech levels than it.

[wright1978]

SentinelShepParagon wrote...

 The Catalyst flat out says that he is not "wiping out organic life" (as Shepard accuses him of doing), but rather "preserving them in Reaper form" before they are forever lost to the chaos. By doing this, he believes that he is saving their bodies, minds, and technology instead of having it be totally lost forever and wiped out by conflict. To him this is not killing but "ascending" and "preserving", just in a different form than they were in before. As far as the Catalyst is concerned, they are not wiped out, lost, or even dead. They are simply in a different state of being. He believes this is better than not existing at all. Therefore, that is not a logical flaw. It makes sense.

Think it is pretty flawed to murder millions, indocrinate millions more in order to preserve the leftovers. If it was really interested in preserving it would cull civilisations well before they gained any technological knowhow.

[CaptainZaysh]

wright1978 wrote...

Think it is pretty flawed to murder millions, indocrinate millions more in order to preserve the leftovers. If it was really interested in preserving it would cull civilisations well before they gained any technological knowhow.

It's certainly morally flawed, but "kill everyone before they reach the dangerous tech level" is a logically sound way to stop the dangerous tech level from being achieved.

[comrade gando]

Xandurpein wrote...

There is really nothing bad about writing Catalyst as a mad AI with an amoral logic. The big problem lies in the story telling. You can't first establish that Catalyst has a flawed logic that is obviously repulsive to us, and then in the same breath expect us to accept Catalyst's proposals to solve everything. In those last minutes of the game they managed to establish that Catalyst was crazy and then demand that we trust it. That's the real reason so many people get upset by Catalyst logic, instead of just accepting it as part of the story.

if the catalyst actually is just an AI with faulty logic then they didn't do a very good job explaining it. in fact, very little is explained and what is explained is just warped and doesn't make any sense to me. It also bothers me that he's the kid from earth and shepard doesn't say a damn thing about it, in fact I feel like I'm not even in control of my shepard anymore when he's saying **** like "guess illusive man was right HERP"

they could have had the catalyst be bozo the clown on a unicycle throwing custard pies and shepard would be like "... seems legit..."