196 réponses à ce sujet

[Hydralysk]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Catalyst was known to be the Reaper leader before the EC, but the EC did put a bright spotlight on that based on how some people didn't notice.  Ironically ME1 and ME2 did the whole Created vs Creator thing, which means its nothing new.

I don't see how someone couldn't have noticed. But this has no bearing on the argument. Pre-EC, the Catalyst doesn't give us any evidence. The Catalyst being the Reaper leader doesn't tell us anything about why one might believe that synthetics/organics is a problem, more than anything (dark energy, for example). That's what the EC gives us. Synthetics and organics are a problem because...no matter what happens, something causes them to fight. What is the reason? We don't know, but we still have an empirical basis.

That can be said of any organic race as well, we've never stopped fighting each other even without a good reason other than hating the other guy. Hell the Krogan Rebellions were essentially an organic race attacking everyone simply because they liked to fight.

To accept the logic of the catalyst that fighting needs to climax in the destruction of ALL organic life, and we are still given no empirical evidence of that happening, we only have his word.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Actually the Catalyst has a lot of ground to stand on before the EC while 3-4 extra lines in the EC showed the obvious.  Dark energy is a bad exampled based on how it hasn't been explored that much because its one of the peices of content to be dropped from ME3 and the ME series as a whole.

If that's the case, give me his premise. 16 lines of dialogue. If you can point to any one of them where he provides evidence for his belief in the organic/synthetic conflict and why it's more significant than any other conflict, I'll withdraw all argument.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Hydralysk wrote...

That can be said of any organic race as well, we've never stopped fighting each other even without a good reason other than hating the other guy. Hell the Krogan Rebellions were essentially an organic race attacking everyone simply because they liked to fight.

To accept the logic of the catalyst that fighting needs to climax in the destruction of ALL organic life, and we are still given no empirical evidence of that happening, we only have his word.

That's the other issue. Historically-speaking, the Catalyst's argument doesn't need to be restricted to organics and synthetics. Hell, as people, we have a tendency to kill each other off.

[The Angry One]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Actually the Catalyst has a lot of ground to stand on before the EC while 3-4 extra lines in the EC showed the obvious.  Dark energy is a bad exampled based on how it hasn't been explored that much because its one of the peices of content to be dropped from ME3 and the ME series as a whole.

If that's the case, give me his premise. 16 lines of dialogue. If you can point to any one of them where he provides evidence for his belief in the organic/synthetic conflict and why it's more significant than any other conflict, I'll withdraw all argument.

Watch him say "but but but but rogue Citadel AI!".
I mean, naturally, an AI that steals credits and just wants to be left alone proves that synthetics will exterminate all organic life.

[Baa Baa]

ThePhoenixKing wrote...

Tony77A wrote...

If his logic was sound, the reapers would destroy all synthetic life, tell organics "don't create synthetics or we'll be mad" and monitor the situation from afar.

Guess that was too hard for the AI/catalyst to figure out....
Nope, return every 50k years and press "reset" is much better.

Or how about not leaving tech that catapults the technological levels of societies that finds it...

That's a fantastic point. One of the things that made the Reapers so horrifying in the first two games was how they had essentially modeled the technological development of the galaxy's civilizations between cycles. The existence of the Prothean Archives and the mass relays was a deliberate measure on their part to manipulate organic civilizations in a position where they could be more easily harvested. So if the objective of the Catalyst is to prevent a technological singularty, then why give organics the tech they need to set them on such a path to begin with?

[CaptainZaysh]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

If you can point to any one of them where he provides evidence for his belief in the organic/synthetic conflict

That's been answered upstream.

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%.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
and why it's more significant than any other conflict, I'll withdraw all argument.

It would be more significant because after a synthetic victory, they would have the ability to prevent organic civilisation ever rising again.

[Blueprotoss]

The Angry One wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Actually the Catalyst has a lot of ground to stand on before the EC while 3-4 extra lines in the EC showed the obvious.  Dark energy is a bad exampled based on how it hasn't been explored that much because its one of the peices of content to be dropped from ME3 and the ME series as a whole.

Once again Blueprotoss outright lies about the events and themes of the trilogy.

This shows how little you actually know what you're taking about since there's no explaination or reason attached.

The Angry One wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Actually the Catalyst has a lot of ground to stand on before the EC while 3-4 extra lines in the EC showed the obvious.  Dark energy is a bad exampled based on how it hasn't been explored that much because its one of the peices of content to be dropped from ME3 and the ME series as a whole.

If that's the case, give me his premise. 16 lines of dialogue. If you can point to any one of them where he provides evidence for his belief in the organic/synthetic conflict and why it's more significant than any other conflict, I'll withdraw all argument.

Watch him say "but but but but rogue Citadel AI!".
I mean, naturally, an AI that steals credits and just wants to be left alone proves that synthetics will exterminate all organic life.

Don't forget to add EDI based on what she did on the Moon in ME1 before Cerbereus got to her.   You should also add the Geth and Quarian conflicts in ME1, ME2, and ME3.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 17 août 2012 - 04:41 .

[Blueprotoss]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Actually the Catalyst has a lot of ground to stand on before the EC while 3-4 extra lines in the EC showed the obvious.  Dark energy is a bad exampled based on how it hasn't been explored that much because its one of the peices of content to be dropped from ME3 and the ME series as a whole.

If that's the case, give me his premise. 16 lines of dialogue. If you can point to any one of them where he provides evidence for his belief in the organic/synthetic conflict and why it's more significant than any other conflict, I'll withdraw all argument.

I'm pretty sure you haven't played the ending of ME3 without the EC and anyone could use the dreams alone in ME3 to prove you otherwise.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Hydralysk wrote...

That can be said of any organic race as well, we've never stopped fighting each other even without a good reason other than hating the other guy. Hell the Krogan Rebellions were essentially an organic race attacking everyone simply because they liked to fight.

To accept the logic of the catalyst that fighting needs to climax in the destruction of ALL organic life, and we are still given no empirical evidence of that happening, we only have his word.

That's the other issue. Historically-speaking, the Catalyst's argument doesn't need to be restricted to organics and synthetics. Hell, as people, we have a tendency to kill each other off.

Yet in ME the conflicts are more so Organic vs Organic and Organi vs Synthetic then Synthetic vs Synthetic or Organic/Synthetic vs Synthetic. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 17 août 2012 - 04:45 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Blueprotoss wrote...

I'm pretty sure you haven't played the ending of ME3 without the EC and anyone could use the dreams alone in ME3 to prove you otherwise.

Well, you're wrong. Evidence. Point to it.

[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%.

But again, this doesn't get us anywhere. There are multiple events which all have a non-zero probability of occurring, but cannot occur together. We could potentially go extinct due to nuclear war, or from the Earth exploding. But these possibilities can't exist together.

So a non-zero probability doesn't mean anything. There are infinite numbers of events which can occur with a non-zero probability, hence why the important factor isn't what event can occur. It's the difference between noting possibility and probability.

It would be more significant because after a synthetic victory, they would have the ability to prevent organic civilisation ever rising again.

But apply that reasoning on a large scale, and we still have problems. For one, organics could technically do the same to synthetics (as above, it is "possible").

But notice that none of the conflicts between synthetics and organics occur because of inherent differences between the two. The morning war was the result of a slave uprising, something which can happen with organics. The AI on the Citadel was engaging in a desperate bid for survival, also an organic attribute. Even the Geth who sided with Sovereign did so for an organic motive: religion.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 17 août 2012 - 05:03 .

[CaptainZaysh]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

But again, this doesn't get us anywhere. There are multiple events which all have a non-zero probability of occurring, but cannot occur together. We could potentially go extinct due to nuclear war, or from the Earth exploding. But these possibilities can't exist together.

True, but not really relevant.  If any of those other possibilities happen we'll all be dead anyway.  No sensible risk model would say "there's a chance of catching an STD from unprotected sex with strangers, but then again the earth could explode, so throw away your condoms."

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
But apply that reasoning on a large scale, and we still have problems. For one, organics could technically do the same to synthetics (as above, it is "possible").

Again, not relevant.  The Catalyst isn't there for the synthetics, it's there for the organics.

EDIT: and, on reflection, I don't think it is possible anyway.  Preventing scientific development in a specific field across an entire galaxy made up of unpredictable organics is an impossibility to my mind.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
But notice that none of the conflicts between synthetics and organics occur because of inherent differences between the two. The morning war was the result of a slave uprising, something which can happen with organics. The AI on the Citadel was engaging in a desperate bid for survival, also an organic attribute. Even the Geth who sided with Sovereign did so for an organic motive: religion.

This isn't a model you can apply to a post-singularity AI, though, since their motivations and behaviours are impossible for our lesser minds to predict or comprehend.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 17 août 2012 - 05:32 .

[Massa FX]

I have a question. If organics are preserved can they be restored? If the Reapers are under control of AI Shepard can she reverse engineer trillions of deaths?

[Baa Baa]

Massa FX wrote...

I have a question. If organics are preserved can they be restored? If the Reapers are under control of AI Shepard can she reverse engineer trillions of deaths?

Would the people even want to be brought back?

[CaptainZaysh]

Massa FX wrote...

I have a question. If organics are preserved can they be restored? If the Reapers are under control of AI Shepard can she reverse engineer trillions of deaths?

Interesting question!  Some cut text from ME2 seems to be a direct message from the souls trapped in a Reaper shell.  Maybe the Leviathan DLC will shed some more light on the Reaperisation process.

[General User]

Baa Baa wrote...

Massa FX wrote...

I have a question. If organics are preserved can they be restored? If the Reapers are under control of AI Shepard can she reverse engineer trillions of deaths?

Would the people even want to be brought back?

Personally I imagine not.   After being forcefully tortured and turned into an abomination then forced to do the same to others for thousands or millions of years, I wouldn't hold out much hope for those allegedly preserved minds sanity. 

If they even exist at all that is.  The Catalyst never undertood organics, it would be a bit dubious to think that the Catalyst would be capable of preserving something it couldn't understand.

Modifié par General User, 17 août 2012 - 05:49 .

[Hydralysk]

CaptainZaysh wrote...
True, but not really relevant.  If any of those other possibilities happen we'll all be dead anyway.  No sensible risk model would say "there's a chance of catching an STD from unprotected sex with strangers, but then again the earth could explode, so throw away your condoms."

What is this I don't even.... By the catalyst's logic there is a chance that dolphins could develop intelligence on par with humans and overthrow us, therefore we must murder them all now before they get a chance to do so. It's possible so therefore it's certain is the fallacy here. You can't justifiably take action on whatever has a chance of happening, because EVERYTHING has the same chance of happening in an infinite timespan. It's just as possible that scientists will build a machine to turn every organic into holo-kittens, that doesn't mean I'm justified in killing all scientists because I don't want to be a virtual-cat. 

CaptainZaysh wrote... 
Again, not relevant.  The Catalyst isn't there for the synthetics, it's there for the organics.

Really? Cause I distinctly remember the catalyst saying he's there to solve the tension between organic and synthetic life..... If it was there to simply support organics then they could just blast through the galaxy and kill all synthetics every couple of years.

CaptainZaysh wrote... 
This isn't a model you can apply to a post-singularity AI, though, since their motivations and behaviours are impossible for our lesser minds to predict or comprehend.

If you entire argument relies upon the "You just wouldn't understand" line then I don't believe you deserve to be in a debate at all. I can say that the moon is made of chocolate and if anyone disagrees I can say "You jsut can't understand because you aren't smart enough". You can't make an argument and dismiss the lack of supporting proof by simply insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you. 

Modifié par Hydralysk, 17 août 2012 - 05:55 .

[Wayning_Star]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Massa FX wrote...

I have a question. If organics are preserved can they be restored? If the Reapers are under control of AI Shepard can she reverse engineer trillions of deaths?

Interesting question!  Some cut text from ME2 seems to be a direct message from the souls trapped in a Reaper shell.  Maybe the Leviathan DLC will shed some more light on the Reaperisation process.

hmmm, looks as if the writers were trying to re invent a parable to describe reaperdom drawbacks and some lingering foritutude. It does have biblical pre portions tho. A no no in sci fi, if used for other than support for science theory through recorded history.

But its hard to say about the DLC, so many concepts left open to user discretion it's mottled. From what I gathered in the current game, control is in essence, the same as it would be if reapers pulled the strings.

They wouldn't, for some reason, bring back the entities of previous cycles, but thier social assets and DNA would be accessable for what ever Shep deemed necessary. They could be cloned? Their ideas and tech could be utilized?

And if Javick was around, its possible that they could be remembered, very clearly, so everyone "could" get to know them that way? But that's a lot of family videos to replay..so?

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 17 août 2012 - 05:59 .

[Wayning_Star]

Hydralysk wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...
True, but not really relevant.  If any of those other possibilities happen we'll all be dead anyway.  No sensible risk model would say "there's a chance of catching an STD from unprotected sex with strangers, but then again the earth could explode, so throw away your condoms."

What is this I don't even.... By the catalyst's logic there is a chance that dolphins could develop intelligence on par with humans and overthrow us, therefore we must murder them all now before they get a chance to do so. It's possible so therefore it's certain is the fallacy here. You can't justifiably take action on whatever has a chance of happening, because EVERYTHING has the same chance of happening in an infinite timespan. It's just as possible that scientists will build a machine to turn every organic into holo-kittens, that doesn't mean I'm justified in killing all scientists because I don't want to be a virtual-cat. 

CaptainZaysh wrote... 
Again, not relevant.  The Catalyst isn't there for the synthetics, it's there for the organics.

Really? Cause I distinctly remember the catalyst saying he's there to solve the tension between organic and synthetic life..... If it was there to simply support organics then they could just blast through the galaxy and kill all synthetics every couple of years.

CaptainZaysh wrote... 
This isn't a model you can apply to a post-singularity AI, though, since their motivations and behaviours are impossible for our lesser minds to predict or comprehend.

If you entire argument relies upon the "You just wouldn't understand" line then I don't believe you deserve to be in a debate at all. I can say that the moon is made of chocolate and if anyone disagrees I can say "You jsut can't understand because you aren't smart enough". You can't make an argument and dismiss the lack of supporting proof by simply insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you. 

I've found that the inexplicable stuff is frustrating. We like to put a handle on the reality we're faced with, if we don't have accurate data, we tend to get a bit testy. I know I do.

I've put the catalyst in that frame too, as inexplicable, JUST because I didn't have the data on it to fully understand it's continuity in the game. I think that's why Bioware brought it into the game as a "last straw" for everyone to best guess the outcome of the trilogy. But that's just me. And the reaperships are left unexplained as well, I'd guess another tip that DLC would be forthcoming. But to "decide" on that is really kind of a shot in the dark for everyone, leading to,well a disgruntled fan base. Seems a cheap trick, but I think is just a game tactic, from minds so great, we can never figure them out..lol

[CaptainZaysh]

Hydralysk wrote...

What is this I don't even.... By the catalyst's logic there is a chance that dolphins could develop intelligence on par with humans and overthrow us, therefore we must murder them all now before they get a chance to do so. It's possible so therefore it's certain is the fallacy here.

No.  Remember that the Catalyst was created to solve a specific problem.  It is illogical to assume that an AI developed to prevent the rise of a synthetic superintelligence would also take an interest in dolphin evolution.  The Catalyst's slavish devotion to its mission is the bitter irony at the core of the Mass Effect series.

Hydralysk wrote...
Really? Cause I distinctly remember the catalyst saying he's there to solve the tension between organic and synthetic life..... If it was there to simply support organics then they could just blast through the galaxy and kill all synthetics every couple of years.

I can't remember the exact dialogue, so you may have a point; please feel free to post it, or I'll keep an eye out for it on my next playthrough.

Hydralysk wrote...
If you entire argument relies upon the "You just wouldn't understand" line then I don't believe you deserve to be in a debate at all. I can say that the moon is made of chocolate and if anyone disagrees I can say "You jsut can't understand because you aren't smart enough". You can't make an argument and dismiss the lack of supporting proof by simply insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you. 

No, you've misunderstood.  I'm not insulting anybody's intelligence, just pointing out that it is definitionally impossible for a human to predict the thoughts of a being many orders of magnitude more intelligent than a human, which is what a post-singularity intelligence would be.

[Blueprotoss]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

I'm pretty sure you haven't played the ending of ME3 without the EC and anyone could use the dreams alone in ME3 to prove you otherwise.

Well, you're wrong. Evidence. Point to it.

How is that when it sounds like yo haven't played the ending of the ME3 without the EC and only saying no isn't a counter.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 17 août 2012 - 06:17 .

[Wayning_Star]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Hydralysk wrote...

What is this I don't even.... By the catalyst's logic there is a chance that dolphins could develop intelligence on par with humans and overthrow us, therefore we must murder them all now before they get a chance to do so. It's possible so therefore it's certain is the fallacy here.

No.  Remember that the Catalyst was created to solve a specific problem.  It is illogical to assume that an AI developed to prevent the rise of a synthetic superintelligence would also take an interest in dolphin evolution.  The Catalyst's slavish devotion to its mission is the bitter irony at the core of the Mass Effect series.

Hydralysk wrote...
Really? Cause I distinctly remember the catalyst saying he's there to solve the tension between organic and synthetic life..... If it was there to simply support organics then they could just blast through the galaxy and kill all synthetics every couple of years.

I can't remember the exact dialogue, so you may have a point; please feel free to post it, or I'll keep an eye out for it on my next playthrough.

Hydralysk wrote...
If you entire argument relies upon the "You just wouldn't understand" line then I don't believe you deserve to be in a debate at all. I can say that the moon is made of chocolate and if anyone disagrees I can say "You jsut can't understand because you aren't smart enough". You can't make an argument and dismiss the lack of supporting proof by simply insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you. 

No, you've misunderstood.  I'm not insulting anybody's intelligence, just pointing out that it is definitionally impossible for a human to predict the thoughts of a being many orders of magnitude more intelligent than a human, which is what a post-singularity intelligence would be.

to interject: The reason the catalyst is devoted to organic life is that they 'dominate' the scene, and it could also be that it's creators were organic.

[Blueprotoss]

Wayning_Star wrote...

to interject: The reason the catalyst is devoted to organic life is that they 'dominate' the scene, and it could also be that it's creators were organic.

His Creators did become the 1st Reaper while we don't know if it was willingly or forcefully done.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 17 août 2012 - 06:23 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

True, but not really relevant.  If any of those other possibilities happen we'll all be dead anyway.  No sensible risk model would say "there's a chance of catching an STD from unprotected sex with strangers, but then again the earth could explode, so throw away your condoms."

Certainly it's relevant. If the Catalyst thinks this a problem because "well, anything can happen", then it's not a problem worth solving. Problems with a high degree of probability are more important than problems with an extremely low degree of probability.

Ex: During the Cold War, would it have made sense to worry about death via nuclear warheads from Russia, or to worry that there might be a species of aliens coming to kill us all? Hence the point that we need a reason why synthetics murdering organics is more important than any other cause, otherwise the Catalyst/creators are solving a non-existent problem.

EDIT: and, on reflection, I don't think it is possible anyway.  Preventing scientific development in a specific field across an entire galaxy made up of unpredictable organics is an impossibility to my mind.

Some would say the same for synthetics. The universe is a pretty huge place to prevent the creation of any kind of sentient life ever.

This isn't a model you can apply to a post-singularity AI, though, since their motivations and behaviours are impossible for our lesser minds to predict or comprehend.

Which can justify anything on the grounds of "impossible to understand". The Catalyst could have invented the Reapers to commit genocide every 50k years because they want to steal our underpants. Without a clear line of reasoning, all possibilities sound just as odd.

Edit: Although I should point out that these are two contradictory conclusions. If we can't comprehend the catalyst, then there cannot be arguments defending his actions, except on the grounds of lack of comprehension.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 17 août 2012 - 06:46 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Blueprotoss wrote...

How is that when it sounds like yo haven't played the ending of the ME3 without the EC and only saying no isn't a counter.

I really couldn't give a crap whether you think I beat ME3 pre-EC.

[Hydralysk]

CaptainZaysh wrote...
No.  Remember that the Catalyst was created to solve a specific problem.  It is illogical to assume that an AI developed to prevent the rise of a synthetic superintelligence would also take an interest in dolphin evolution.  The Catalyst's slavish devotion to its mission is the bitter irony at the core of the Mass Effect series.

 

CaptainZaysh wrote...
No, you've misunderstood.  I'm not insulting anybody's intelligence, just pointing out that it is definitionally impossible for a human to predict the thoughts of a being many orders of magnitude more intelligent than a human, which is what a post-singularity intelligence would be.

So I'm supposed to believe that an AI that is so much smarter than us that our minds can't even understand it, is at the same time not smart enough to realize the basic fact that the threat it's wiping out entire civilizations to protect them from is just as likely or unlikely as literally any other doomsday imaginable? I find that hard to believe. The catalyst is an AI, it should be able to learn and reason things out on it's own. Just because it was created to solve a problem doesn't mean it's has to be blind to everything else, that's more in line with what a VI would do.

It's also hard to believe that while it's so much smarter than us, it's unable to figure out a single way to present it's argument in a simplified manner that organics can understand. Even if that's the case, why would the catalyst bother explaining itself to Shepard if by it's own logic Shepard is categorically incapable of understanding what it's telling him?

EDIT: Also, why would we be unable to understand a being that is magnitudes smarter than us? If we know that AI's operate based on pure logic, then we should be able to comprehend it's reasoning if not match it's abilities, the rules of logic don't change based on how smart you are. In essence the catalyst who operates solely on logic should be easier to understand than organics who operate on logic influenced by their emotions and morals.

Modifié par Hydralysk, 17 août 2012 - 06:47 .