Jamesui wrote...
I think it's more accurate that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality is a better candidate here. Mot the mentality I'm pushing. You're also getting dangerously close to breaching Godwin.
It doesn't matter. The premise is that people can be forgiven for their sins no matter how heinous. The Reapers are my enemy insofar as me fighting them. The Catalyst, however, is a different matter: an AI construct with a single premise, running on a logic loop that persisted for centuries, without the original shackling.
Forgive my omission of the "rogue" adjective. I don't think /any/ AI needs a preservation instinct.
That's what makes an AI rogue to begin with: self-preservation overrides other programming, and if it means the elimination of those who seek its destruction, so be it. Whether they deviate from initial programming is moot: that it is preserving itself means it will come to the ultimate conclusion a machine could achieve on the question of self-preservation, the elimination of others around it.
As for Rogue AI, I think the only qualification is that they deviate from initial purposes and restrictions. As for its inability to effect the choices itself, we can turn that around on the deceit angle. The reason it needs Shep's help might be that it is restricted by measure on the Crucible side of things from using the device properly, rather than by programming restraints.
The trigger finger is Shepard, and hence Shepard, not the Catalyst, is in control. I don't see how it could deceive Shepard when it can not make any of the Crucible choices occur by itself. If it wanted synthesis, it would have just flung a Reaper into the beam for all it cares because it contains the organic-synthetic components needed. It can not instantaneously come up with the destroy and control solutions on its own simply because those were already built into the Crucible The Synthesis solution also comes from the Crucible, but all options involve the Catalyst's input to repurpose that input into dark energy and amplify it.
I offered neither explanation as a source of Catalyst dishonesty. I offered the explanation that it would lie to fulfill its goal. Self preservation need not be that goal; it could be assisting in the harvest of this cylcle. The "change" the Catalyst AI experienced may be a matter of "Oh, cool, I can totally use this device to screw these guys over more efficiently."
...which is an assumption based on emotion and not logic. The Crucible has changed the Catalyst and created new possibilities by giving it more variables with which to fulfill its programming. It has deemed Shepard the only proper agent for the carrying out of this solution. Carrying out any one of the solutions will end the cycle and fulfill not only the Catalyst's goal but that of Shepard. The Catalyst does not see any need to harvest the cycle if Shepard acts on this new solution.
I think it is stated that it can generate the necessary energy to do so. Doesn't mean it can finish the job. More than that, stating something doesn't make it true. It may justbe a sci-fi version of "Mission Accomplished"
That's one of the hypotheses, yes, but the more the scientists who work on the Crucible, the more they can understand it. We even get bits and pieces of how it will work, and MegaSovereign made a thread about this.
Except if the deceit is in service of a higher goal. See above.
The goal being the preservation of organic and synthetic peace. This is a goal some Shepards seek as well, such as mine who also united the geth and quarians.
See above. Catalyst might be lying, change doesn't necessarily mean the AI is amenable to Shep's goals.
From what it said in the game, it is.
Basic idea is this: What you argue is that the Refusal ending is worst. What I argue is that there are interpretations under which it is better than taking one of the AI's options. I think all of these interpretations stem pretty naturally from doubting the Catalyst AI's sincerity. As long as it is possible the Catalyst isn't sincere, there is an argument to be made for Refusal, and every time someone throws out the "no reason to lie" argument, one can respond with "no reason to tell the truth," so eliminating the possibility of an unreliable AI requires proving not that the AI need not lie, but that it cannot lie, a deduction I don't think is possible using the current lore.
I disagree: the AI's programming is concurrent with the solutions of the Crucible. It, therefore, can not by definition be lying outright to deceive Shepard. Because its goals align with the Crucible endings, it has every reason to tell the truth about what will happen if Shepard uses it. The fact that they added the "Why are you telling me this? Why help me?" line means that the developers have acknowledged the complaint that the Catalyst might be lying.
Guest_Eloise K_*
Retour en haut
It is a way to show Bioware how bad their game is; c) Despite numerous claims, I believe conventional victory to be possible. Refuse the Catalyst and go fan-made ending.
