406 réponses à ce sujet

[Errationatus]

For ME2, I recall almost no one asking this question.

EDI was the ship's computer, and that was all she was.  She was the Normandy's KITT.  As an AI she was intelligent, even shallowly personable.

Was the Knight Rider car alive?

A computer is a computer is a computer.  Period.  It could be upgraded to the point where it could even fool us with the subtle nuances of a personality - but that's a tribute to the skill of the programmer, not the computer itself. The programmer makes all the choices, not the machine running the code.  Even if EDI can adjust her own programming, she's not doing anything that hadn't already been allowed by that programming.  She's not making real choices.

In ME3, EDI gets a peripheral (remember - only part of her is in there) - one with a sleek chassis and ski-slope tatas.

Now people start asking if she's alive - now that she has a face.  It's a borrowed face, it's pretty and it has a body that's sleek and well put together. And it has big jugs.  Let's not forget those.  Those are important.  They keep our attention.

The real question is not whether she's alive but whether anyone would even ask or care if she'd never appropriated the mech in the first place.

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 05 septembre 2012 - 05:21 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

JakeMacDon wrote...

For ME2, I recall almost no one asking this question.

EDI was the ship's computer, and that was all she was.  She was the Normandy's KITT.  As an AI she was intelligent, even shallowly personable.

Was the Knight Rider car alive?

A computer is a computer is a computer.  Period.  It could be upgraded to the point where it could even fool us with the subtle nuances of a personality - but that's a tribute to the skill of the programmer, not the computer itself. The programmer makes all the choices, not the machine running the code.  Even if EDI can adjust her own programming, she's not doing anything that hadn't already been allowed by that programming.  She's not making real choices.

In ME3, EDI gets a peripheral (remember - only part of her is in there) - one with a sleek chassis and ski-slope tatas.

Now people start asking if she's alive - now that she has a face.  It's a borrowed face, it's pretty and it has a body that's sleek and well put together. And it has big jugs.  Let's not forget those.  Those are important.  They keep our attention.

The real question is not whether she's alive but whether anyone would even ask or care if she'd never appropriated the mech in the first place.

My answer was yes even then. That's why back in ME1 I accused Tali's race of attempted genocide and tried my hardest to talk the Citadel AI out of suicide.

Computers which develop intelligence are people.

[Iconoclaste]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I'm sure a synthetic could be programmed with emotions it could not alter - glands are as easily similated as brains are. But to what end? The capacity to experience emotions isn't what gives us our rights. If we hooked a human's glands to their conscious brain so they could alter their feelings with a conscious thought we wouldn't take away their citizenship.

A Turian can discuss "emotions" with a human or any other "talking" organic without having to explain the matter. When EDI comes to Shepard and asks big questions, she clearly has some pieces of the "organic puzzle" missing. Organics do not "learn" to become what they are, but a machine has to "bridge" the difference. Having "rights" is not a characteristic of "living beings". "Viruses" have no "rights", even less "intelligence", yet they are more "alive" than EDI.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 05 septembre 2012 - 05:28 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

Iconoclaste wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I'm sure a synthetic could be programmed with emotions it could not alter - glands are as easily similated as brains are. But to what end? The capacity to experience emotions isn't what gives us our rights. If we hooked a human's glands to their conscious brain so they could alter their feelings with a conscious thought we wouldn't take away their citizenship.

A Turian can discuss "emotions" with a human or any other "talking" organic without having to explain the matter. When EDI comes to Shepard and asks big questions, she clearly has some pieces of the "organic puzzle" missing. Organics do not "learn" to become what they are, but a machine has to "bridge" the difference. Having "rights" is not a characteristic of "living beings". "Viruses" have no "rights", even less "intelligence", yet they are more "alive" than EDI.

Oh. I kind of assumed we were discussing being alive in terms of being a person vs. being an object. Anything with the kind of mind EDI clearly demonstrates is the former rather than the latter.

If you're discussing alive in terms of being organic-like then sure EDI isn't a lot like an organic unless she chooses to be. So what?

[chuckles471]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

chuckles471 wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

chuckles471 wrote...

Your trying to be profound...  O.K.
We have a war and hopefully we kick their heads in.  It really is that simple, we are different from them.

1: People who are different from you have same value as you.

2: So the Catalyst is right, then? War between synthetics and organics is inevitable?

1. I think synthetics have less value than a human.
2.  You brought up the hypothetical war, with synthetics being the aggressors.  So I said I hope we win.  At no point did I say let us start a war.  You would think your hand is up my ass, the way you put words in my mouth.

1. On what basis other than that they're different from us?

2. What the Catalyst essentially said was that if put into a situation like the one you described the organics would constantly pick other organics. But that one day a synthetic would get the hammer - possibly because someone like me would give it to him because I know there are people like you - and then it would only be fair for them to judge us on the same merits we judged them. And synthetics can hammer a lot more efficiently than any human.

3. The whole thing can be avoided if we all just assign equal value to synthetics and organics.

1.They are created and can be programmed any way someone wants.  Yes, I know people can be "programmed" but it is not as easy as typing code.  And supposedly they can hammer better.
2.What do you mean "people like you":lol:.  Your the one thats giving them the ability to start a war that no one wants, ghandi.  I don't care what they do.
3. Everyone isn't the same and saying everyone is only causes more problem e.g Krogan breeding rate.

[Iconoclaste]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...
Oh. I kind of assumed we were discussing being alive in terms of being a person vs. being an object. Anything with the kind of mind EDI clearly demonstrates is the former rather than the latter.

If you're discussing alive in terms of being organic-like then sure EDI isn't a lot like an organic unless she chooses to be. So what?

Those are completely different things. Even "companies" are defined as "persons" (moral persons, legal entities), because they  "issue decisions", they "produce goods and services", they "take actions" and have 'liabilities". But that doesn't make them "living persons". OP asks if EDI is "alive", it clearly isn't. Is it a "person"? It can be without a problem.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 05 septembre 2012 - 05:45 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

chuckles471 wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

chuckles471 wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

chuckles471 wrote...

Your trying to be profound...  O.K.
We have a war and hopefully we kick their heads in.  It really is that simple, we are different from them.

1: People who are different from you have same value as you.

2: So the Catalyst is right, then? War between synthetics and organics is inevitable?

1. I think synthetics have less value than a human.
2.  You brought up the hypothetical war, with synthetics being the aggressors.  So I said I hope we win.  At no point did I say let us start a war.  You would think your hand is up my ass, the way you put words in my mouth.

1. On what basis other than that they're different from us?

2. What the Catalyst essentially said was that if put into a situation like the one you described the organics would constantly pick other organics. But that one day a synthetic would get the hammer - possibly because someone like me would give it to him because I know there are people like you - and then it would only be fair for them to judge us on the same merits we judged them. And synthetics can hammer a lot more efficiently than any human.

3. The whole thing can be avoided if we all just assign equal value to synthetics and organics.

1.They are created and can be programmed any way someone wants.  Yes, I know people can be "programmed" but it is not as easy as typing code.  And supposedly they can hammer better.
2.What do you mean "people like you":lol:.  Your the one thats giving them the ability to start a war that no one wants, ghandi.  I don't care what they do.
3. Everyone isn't the same and saying everyone is only causes more problem e.g Krogan breeding rate.

1. I don't see why that should make them less valuable than ourselves.

2. People who believe organics are inherently superior to synthetics. If we assume that the hammer in your description was a metaphor for things like legal procedures, you're essentially advocating consigning them to either second-class citizenship or outright slavery. I would certainly work to give them the tools they need to be taken seriously as equal members of the community. And then someone who doesn't consider shutting them down murder would try to shut them down and things would pretty much spiral out of control.

3. Everyone isn't the same but they're all equal. Also, I opposed the genophage, so what's your point?

Iconoclaste wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...
Oh.
I kind of assumed we were discussing being alive in terms of being a
person vs. being an object. Anything with the kind of mind EDI clearly
demonstrates is the former rather than the latter.

If you're
discussing alive in terms of being organic-like then sure EDI isn't a
lot like an organic unless she chooses to be. So what?

Those
are completely different things. Even "companies" are defined as
"persons" (moral persons, legal entities), because they  "issue
decisions", they "produce goods and services", they "take actions" and
have 'liabilities". But that doesn't make them "living persons". OP asks
if EDI is "alive", it clearly isn't. Is it a "person"? It can be
without a problem.

Oh. I don't think your meaning for alive is the one the OP was asking about. But if that's what we're arguing over, then I don't particularly care who's 'alive' or not. Organic or synthetic, alive or undead, all sentient, sapient beings have value in a way mere objects and animals do not. And that applies to EDI as well.

Modifié par SeptimusMagistos, 05 septembre 2012 - 05:49 .

[Iconoclaste]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

1. I don't see why that should make them less valuable than ourselves.

2. People who believe organics are inherently superior to synthetics. If we assume that the hammer in your description was a metaphor for things like legal procedures, you're essentially advocating consigning them to either second-class citizenship or outright slavery. I would certainly work to give them the tools they need to be taken seriously as equal members of the community. And then someone who doesn't consider shutting them down murder would try to shut them down and things would pretty much spiral out of control.

3. Everyone isn't the same but they're all equal. Also, I opposed the genophage, so what's your point?

Organics can't be created "from scratch", and they can die irreversibly (except Shepard, of course...). That makes the "living beings" precious and calls for more "protection" than synthetics will ever need. Even the Reapers, from the game's "main theme" admit their agenda is solely to "protect organics" from their eradication by synthetics. The "robots" wouldn't have come into existence if some "organics" had not evolved to the point of being able to create them. No organics = no synthetics. This equation can never be turned around, and gives a lot of weight to the "living beings" over their "creations".

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 05 septembre 2012 - 05:59 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

Iconoclaste wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

1. I don't see why that should make them less valuable than ourselves.

2. People who believe organics are inherently superior to synthetics. If we assume that the hammer in your description was a metaphor for things like legal procedures, you're essentially advocating consigning them to either second-class citizenship or outright slavery. I would certainly work to give them the tools they need to be taken seriously as equal members of the community. And then someone who doesn't consider shutting them down murder would try to shut them down and things would pretty much spiral out of control.

3. Everyone isn't the same but they're all equal. Also, I opposed the genophage, so what's your point?

Organics can't be created "from scratch", and they can die irreversibly (except Shepard, of course...). That makes the "living beings" precious and calls for more "protection" than synthetics will ever need. Even the Reapers, from the game's "main theme" admit their agenda is solely to "protect organics" from their eradication by synthetics. The "robots" wouldn't have come to existence if some "organics" had not evolved to the point of being able to create them. No organics = no synthetics. This equation can never be turned around, and gives a lot of weight to the "living beings" over their "creations".

But...that's not the basis of rights?

Sure, a synthetic might feel more comfortable going into battle if they have a backup (or might not depending on how they view identity) but that just means organics are more fragile, not more worthy. It's a strictly practical consideration, on par with not needing to put air on ships crewed by synthetics. While destroying a geth platform within range of a carrier might not be murder, doing so outside that range is.

Also the Catalyst is a product of bigotry created by beings who believed organics to be superior to synthetics. Believing that everyone would forever hold to the same bigotry it felt it had no choice but to harvest them before they created something that would fight back against the oppression they would inevitably bring about. When my Shepard replaced him, it was to protect organics and synthetics in equal measure.

[chuckles471]

SeptimusMagistos the hammer is a hammer. Stop putting words into my mouth. It was a hypothetical question. I said nothing about slaves, you are really determined to make me out as some kind of monster. See I can put words in your mouth. Some people hate honesty.

Only in rainbow fairy land are all people equal, it may not be right but that is just the way things are.

[devSin]

M920CAIN wrote...

I'd like to add that EDI is software, but she also has the ability to modifiy her own programming, so therefore programming her to love you wouldn't work if she decides that it's not what she wants...

EDI's software is unique to her hardware (it's more quantum mechanics garbage).

The geth are purely software-based.

And yes, the destroy beam doesn't make any sense.

M920CAIN wrote...

Question: Can emotions be programmed? Is programming EDI to like you considered "programming emotions" or "manipulation"? tough one...

Almost certainly. The brain just isn't well enough understood to do it (but you can easily manipulate people into feeling certain emotions, which itself could be considered a form of programming or conditioning).

The only important thing is whether EDI can choose what to think and feel for herself (or at least recognize the difference between what she really feels and what she was told to feel).

I used to think she could, before they said she was just a machine without synthesis.

Modifié par devSin, 05 septembre 2012 - 06:17 .

[Mythanblood]

EDI is the Cleverbot or Evie of Mass Effect.
Are Cleverbot or Evie alive? Are they persons or are they just tools?

[Iconoclaste]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

But...that's not the basis of rights?

Sure, a synthetic might feel more comfortable going into battle if they have a backup (or might not depending on how they view identity) but that just means organics are more fragile, not more worthy. It's a strictly practical consideration, on par with not needing to put air on ships crewed by synthetics. While destroying a geth platform within range of a carrier might not be murder, doing so outside that range is.

Also the Catalyst is a product of bigotry created by beings who believed organics to be superior to synthetics. Believing that everyone would forever hold to the same bigotry it felt it had no choice but to harvest them before they created something that would fight back against the oppression they would inevitably bring about. When my Shepard replaced him, it was to protect organics and synthetics in equal measure.

Did you see the movie "Star Trek : The Voyage Home"?

Humanity is facing destruction because the alien starship is unable to get a response from a whale. This "theme" is the same here, with the "Reapers wiping advanced civilizations" to preserve "balance". No one made a fuss following that movie, by the way. We are already causing one of the biggest "mass extinction" of our planet's history, and no one seems to be genuinely frightened about this. Instead, people still get to work in their car, people still ponder about justifications to make war against our brothers, people still believe this planet will sustain pollution to no end, etc. In a fantasy world, we can imagine powerful beings putting an end to our folly, and it makes for great discussions on forums. But in reality, we are slowly killing ourselves, with all kinds of reasons. There is the line between reality and fiction, that is not wise to cross to compare beliefs related to the "real world" to those of the "fantasy realm". Games are made to have fun, but in the face of actuality, playing games on computers while our planet is dying is just a luxury we shouldn't take too seriously. So I stick to the "living" and happily shoot down sexy robots without a flinch, because I find that amusing. And if some kid in love with the sexy robot starts to rant, I can easily tell him to open his eyes and stop dreaming about an improbable future.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 05 septembre 2012 - 06:20 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

chuckles471 wrote...

SeptimusMagistos the hammer is a hammer. Stop putting words into my mouth. It was a hypothetical question. I said nothing about slaves, you are really determined to make me out as some kind of monster. See I can put words in your mouth. Some people hate honesty.

Only in rainbow fairy land are all people equal, it may not be right but that is just the way things are.

Sorry. I guess I extrapolated your metaphor too far?

But in your hypothetical question you assigned less value to EDI than you did to a human. Any government system based on such values is unlikely to be conductive to organic-synthetic peace.

And of course all people are equal. Legal equality is sort of the basis of the entire justice system. I'm just concerned about the idea that some people can look at an AI and think it doesn't deserve the same rights just because it's made of circuits instead of meat. Because I literally cannot wrap my head around how that could possibly be unless you were assigning rights based on how similar someone is to you. And we've been struggling against that concept for enough generations that I would hope it would be met with automatic disgust by now?

Iconoclaste wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

But...that's not the basis of rights?

Sure,
a synthetic might feel more comfortable going into battle if they have a
backup (or might not depending on how they view identity) but that just
means organics are more fragile, not more worthy. It's a strictly
practical consideration, on par with not needing to put air on ships
crewed by synthetics. While destroying a geth platform within range of a
carrier might not be murder, doing so outside that range is.

Also
the Catalyst is a product of bigotry created by beings who believed
organics to be superior to synthetics. Believing that everyone would
forever hold to the same bigotry it felt it had no choice but to harvest
them before they created something that would fight back against the
oppression they would inevitably bring about. When my Shepard replaced
him, it was to protect organics and synthetics in equal measure.

Did you see the movie "Star Trek : The Voyage Home"?

Humanity
is facing destruction because the alien starship is unable to get a
response from a whale. This "theme" is the same here, with the "Reapers
wiping advanced civilizations" to preserve "balance". No one made a fuss
following that movie, by the way. We are already causing one of the
biggest "mass extinction" of our planet's history, and no one seems to
be genuinely frightened about this. Instead, people still get to work in
their car, people still ponder about justifications to make war against
our brothers, people still believe this planet will sustain pollution
to no end, etc. In a fantasy world, we can imagine powerful beings
putting an end to our folly, and it makes for great discussions on
forums. But in reality, we are slowly killing ourselves, with all kinds
of reasons. There is the line between reality and fiction, that is not
wise to cross to compare beliefs related to the "real world" to those of
the "fantasy realm". Games are made to have fun, but in the face of
actuality, playing games on computers while our planet is dying is just a
luxury we shouldn't take too seriously. So I stick to the "living" and
happily shoot down sexy robots without a flinch, because I find that
amusing. And if some kid in love with the sexy robot starts to rant, I
can easily tell him to open his eyes and stop dreaming about an
improbable future.

I don't really see what that has to do with anything. I'm trying to argue about meta-ethics and the basis of life here.

For the record I imagine if we ever do get AIs they'll look a lot more like Skynet than like EDI. And I'll still be arguing for giving them the vote.

Modifié par SeptimusMagistos, 05 septembre 2012 - 06:25 .

[Eelectrica]

Edi is a program running on the Normandy, that uploaded a copy of itself, or at least enough into the body of a cerberus eva unit.

Being both cerberus in design it makes sense they're compatible.
Since Destroying the reapers doesn't destroy the normandy, all they gotta do is find another Cerberus Eva unit and EDI can upload herself onto it.

Modifié par Eelectrica, 05 septembre 2012 - 06:25 .

[Iconoclaste]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I don't really see what that has to do with anything. I'm trying to argue about meta-ethics and the basis of life here.

For the record I imagine if we ever do get AIs they'll look a lot more like Skynet than like EDI. And I'll still be arguing for giving them the vote.

Freedom is a wonderful thing.

The basis of life can be seen everywhere around, for those who care enough to look. No one can blame others for being seduced by fantasy, but reality calls are hard to resist sometimes.

If put through a vote, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority would simply put the robots back in their place, and never let them decide of their own fate, for the sake of common sense.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 05 septembre 2012 - 06:34 .

[Kidd]

JakeMacDon wrote...

The real question is not whether she's alive but whether anyone would even ask or care if she'd never appropriated the mech in the first place.

I love EDI and I'm not a fan of that body she snatched. The body doesn't change anything for me - of course she's alive, she's a person.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Iconoclaste wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I don't really see what that has to do with anything. I'm trying to argue about meta-ethics and the basis of life here.

For the record I imagine if we ever do get AIs they'll look a lot more like Skynet than like EDI. And I'll still be arguing for giving them the vote.

Freedom is a wonderful thing.

The basis of life can be seen everywhere around, for those who care enough to look. No one can blame others for being seduced by fantasy, but reality calls are hard to resist sometimes.

If put through a vote, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority would simply put the robots back in their place, and never let them decide of their own fate, for the sake of common sense.

...And I'm trying to understand on what possible basis the latter position can be formed.

This is how it works for me:

If something can think then it's a person.
If it's a person it deserves all the rights that come with being a person.
If it's a person then destroying it permanently is murder.

The fact that it was possible to take exactly this position in Mass Effect felt pretty good to me. Now I'm just wondering why other people take different positions. Which of these premises do you disagree with?

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I've always found AI's to be a stupid concept in fiction

They either go the "I wanna be a real boy" route ala Data, EDI, Legion*maybe* or the "Kill all humans/whatever" route.

It's boring.

Anyway.

If the brobots are willing to play nice I'm a strong proponent of "live and let live"

If they don't want to play nice they should be completely destroyed.

Pretty simple really.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 05 septembre 2012 - 06:51 .

[Iconoclaste]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...
...And I'm trying to understand on what possible basis the latter position can be formed.

This is how it works for me:

If something can think then it's a person.
If it's a person it deserves all the rights that come with being a person.
If it's a person then destroying it permanently is murder.

The fact that it was possible to take exactly this position in Mass Effect felt pretty good to me. Now I'm just wondering why other people take different positions. Which of these premises do you disagree with?

The "thinking" part. This is, right now, subject to hard debate and still a greatly unknown process. We have to make a "leap of faith" in Mass Effect to accept that this matter has all been investigated and put down in sets of processes and rules. But right now, the subject is still matter of heavy debate among scientists, in many disciplines. In Mass Effect, it is mostly described and depicted on the "software" standpoint, but this is far from the whole picture we are trying to figure out right now. Unfortunately, since we do not even know now what "thinking" equates to, I assume that nobody can be ruled "in" or "out" of the "person" category, from your criteria.

Dogs "think" and can be "murdered" if they become dangerous. Chicken also "think" but they are not "persons".

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 05 septembre 2012 - 06:49 .

[chuckles471]

SeptimusMagistos you are now pretty much saying I'm cutting hole in my bed sheets and answering to some dragon person. Please if you want to call me a racist, go ahead. Don't hide behind wishy washy statements. I will say you couldn't be more wrong but at least you will be saying something honest.

All I said was I would pick a human over a synthetic in my hypothetical situation. Nothing about second class citizens, no slavery and no making new laws. You just have to accept that people have different POV.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Iconoclaste wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...
...And I'm trying to understand on what possible basis the latter position can be formed.

This is how it works for me:

If something can think then it's a person.
If it's a person it deserves all the rights that come with being a person.
If it's a person then destroying it permanently is murder.

The fact that it was possible to take exactly this position in Mass Effect felt pretty good to me. Now I'm just wondering why other people take different positions. Which of these premises do you disagree with?

The "thinking" part. This is, right now, subject to hard debate and still a greatly unknown process. We have to make a "leap of faith" in Mass Effect to accept that this matter has all been investigated and put down in sets of processes and rules. But right now, the subject is still matter of heavy debate among scientists, in many disciplines. In Mass Effect, it is mostly described and depicted on the "software" standpoint, but this is far from the whole picture we are trying to figure out right now. Unfortunately, since we do not even know now what "thinking" equates to, I assume that nobody can be ruled "in" or "out" of the "person" category, from your criteria.

Okay. I actually thought you were arguing with the second premise.

I don't know. Generally speaking if an AI can pass the Turing Test and demonstrate a grasp of abstract concepts I tend to slap a 'good enough' sticker on it.

[The Heretic of Time]

My heart tells me that EDI is alive and a person.
My brain tells me that EDI is not alive and just a tool.


Should I listen to my heart or my brain?

[ghost9191]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

My heart tells me that EDI is alive and a person.
My brain tells me that EDI is not alive and just a tool.


Should I listen to my heart or my brain?

brain is smarter

heart is filled with emotions and emotions are bad

although i don't know either


also isn't that a machines way of thinking though? all logic no emotions,

Modifié par ghost9191, 05 septembre 2012 - 07:23 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

My heart tells me that EDI is alive and a person.
My brain tells me that EDI is not alive and just a tool.


Should I listen to my heart or my brain?

What part of your brain tells you EDI is not a person? Because we've been arguing the definition of personhood and I would assert that any sentient and sapient being qualifies and that EDI is clearly both.

chuckles471 wrote...

SeptimusMagistos you are now pretty
much saying I'm cutting hole in my bed sheets and answering to some
dragon person. Please if you want to call me a racist, go ahead. Don't
hide behind wishy washy statements. I will say you couldn't be more
wrong but at least you will be saying something honest.

All I
said was I would pick a human over a synthetic in my hypothetical
situation. Nothing about second class citizens, no slavery and no
making new laws. You just have to accept that people have different
POV.

From what your initial statements I kind of assumed you were, but your insistence that it's just a hammer makes me less sure. Why even bring up the fact that you personally consider synthetic life to be less valuable than organic life if you're not going to turn it into a blueprint on how all robots should be treated?

I'm sorry if I seem rude, but when you said that you'd pick any human over any synthetic it made me assume you wanted to be seen as a member of an anti-robot equivalent of the Terra Firma party.

Modifié par SeptimusMagistos, 05 septembre 2012 - 01:04 .