406 réponses à ce sujet

[N7 Lisbeth]

Endorlf wrote...

I'm seeing some people here claiming that EDI was never alive. Just to see what people's opinions are, I created a poll. Do you think EDI is alive? Why or why not? And to follow that up, do you consider her a tool or a person?

Do you consider EDI to be alive?
Do you consider EDI a tool or a person?

I voted on the polls, but to address the reasoning:

Q. Is EDI a tool or a person.
A. Clearly EDI is a person, as she has her own goals and her own personality. She even has a sense of humour. She is her own person, in that she's independent.

Q. Is EDI alive?
A. This one has a simple answer, but it involves a complex discussion as it touches upon the definition of "Life" (seen here at dictionary.com). To be direct, the definition of Life is outdated (pinning its definition on the distinguishing differences between organic and non-organic) and is in sore need of updating to modern concepts. (Just like we update medicine. Otherwise we'd still be treating you for anemia with leeches. <Shakes head>)

If a machine can think, replicate, grow or adapt by changing its core programming or physical form (EDI went from core processors to a physical body after all -- and yet she is still both), or evolve by creating new software that modifies its processes and way of thinking or doing something ... then is it not alive? EDI has demonstrated this numerous times. She is not a computer, she is an AI. Perhaps the singular best we see in all of Mass Effect, despite there being more advanced AIs and tech (e.g., Reapers), in part because they are introduced to us without dimensions or scope to forever keep them the mysterious, dangerous enemy.

In summation, the answer is yes.

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 05 septembre 2012 - 09:10 .

[N7 Lisbeth]

JakeMacDon wrote...

How is she a person?  Let's examine a few mistakes people make:

Programming is not intelligence.  Programming requires intelligence.

EDI is an Artificial Intelligence. I stressed the word you seemingly forgot and do not take into account and disproving your statement.

EDI does not program herself.

Wait. You say this but then say:

She can add programs, she may even be able to rewrite or write new programs, but she does not get "smarter" for doing it.

That's definitively smarter. And yes, as you pointed out subsequently, she does program herself. Numerous times this is brought up in conversations, with or regarding EDI.

["she doesn't get smarter"] She simply expands her database.

Patently false. Expanding her database would be downloading skillsets, like how to fire a gun. EDI changes her consciousness and philosophises more than most people.

To change your point of view, allow me to ask you something: If you read an encyclopedia or a book of medicine, does that not make you smarter? EDI is probably the smartest person on the ship, but she has specialties, just like PhDs do. For instance, EDI may know about quantum physics, we would still likely turn to Liara regarding Prothean artifacts, because it is her field of expertise whereas EDI may only be aware of what has been published.

She has no impulses, she has no drives that have not been programmed into her. 

Disproven in the story. She cares for Joker and has multiple impulses, which she is concerned about and asks Shepard for advice regarding many of them. She also changes her core programming regularly, as displayed when the subject of moral objection is brought up and she states she plans to change her self preservation programming because she wouldn't want to live in a world where she'd have to sacrifice Joker or her friends to do so.

Until EDI looked like us, no one particularly cared.  That included Joker.

What? EDI was introduced in ME2. Talk to Joker at the start and he despises EDI. Talk to him again after she breaks her programming shackles (this happens post-Collector abductions of the crew), and he sings her praises. He is clearly attached to EDI, and this is often remarked upon not just in ME2 towards the end, but also throughout the course of ME3. (Numerous instances.) The basis for their relationship is EDI saving his life. This has been the starting place of many love relationships.

There are these odd things human brains do - one is pattern recognition - it's a survival mechanism, but it also allows us to see shapes in clouds and dust and ancient bedsheets.

Your definition of life ... is expressionism? Really? Are you an art student or something? In any event, EDI does this as well.

She was clearly presented to us this way intentionally, and there are a ton of reinforced concepts throughout the Extended Cut where we support different sides of theories, all of which point us to our definition of life (from brain death to a direct approach in the mess hall) and how it relates to artificial intelligence and our final choice at The End. It's a case of reinforced-foreshadowing, as we made opinions about the end before it was revealed.

Back on topic. Simply, EDI is sentient. Sentience is defined by being conscious. Consciousness is defined by being self-aware. Self awareness is one of the key principles of an artificial intelligence, and why she is so advanced. This is why she is special.

Lastly, to disprove your entire theory about how a metal chassis that is shaped like breasts (which was designed explicitly for infiltration), Joker loved her as a bloody ship and he cannot perform physical love due to his bone condition. Nevermind the fact EDI has no means of interacting that way, this is not relative. Without the physical attraction, where is your theory left? Pretty much baseless bias. Which is fine, but it's your technophobia (or negative impression of feminism) getting in the way and not the logical interpretation of the facts at hand.

Just saying. The thought posited by the OP is more interesting than you give it credit for. The definition of life has been a philosophical puzzle confronted by modern concepts for some time now. It's also an interesting subject.

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 05 septembre 2012 - 09:48 .

[Errationatus]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

EDI isn't programmed to say she's self-aware. She is self-aware. She demonstrates the level of though necessary to be self-aware. She understands complicated concepts and reasons on them in ways her creators didn't directly program into her.

 

All that means is that her programming was exceedingly well written.

 
I'm not quite sure why you're making a big distinction over a brain that evolved and one that was created. Surely it's only the complexity of thought that matters, not the events which led to that thought being formed?

Or is it because her brain is deterministic? Because that's equally true for everyone.

 

Since EDI does not actually think, there is no actual distinction.  We think.  Machines imitate.  Is accurate imitation of life life? She's a golum.  That's it.

 
I'm pretty sure they're not supposed to. The enforcement is just lax.

 

Non-existent, I think you'll find.

 
I meant her thoughts were officially complex enough to have earned the same rights a human possesses.

 

I respectfully disagree.

 
So the origins are different but the end result is the same?

 

How are they the same?  EDI is a machine.  I am not.  She's an artificial construct.  I am organically derived.  I fit the definition for life - even if I remove the intelligence and self awareness in myself, I will still be alive.

She'll just be a set of blank HD's.

That's the bloody difference.

 
You said nobody asked whether she was alive. I did.

 

Nitpickery.

 
And the distinction is that a dog doesn't possess the same level of intelligence a human does while EDI does. And just as I wouldn't keep a human or an alien behind a fence against their will, I'm not letting Cerberus put constraints on any member of my crew. Which EDI is.

 

That's your opinion.  It changes nothing.  Just like my opinion that she is nothing more than a shapely speedy calculator changes nothing.  Diabolus Advocati, in an interesting argument.  

I'm not invested emotionally, because I don't care.  I find it interesting, but I'm not trying to persuade anyone or define intelligence.  I'm merely presenting an opposing viewpoint, and a personal opinion.

 
Neither plants nor animals can create complex thoughts the way humans and EDI can. That complexity of thought is the only parameter that matters to me. So yes, that's exactly why it's not as relevant. Because a flower can't understand what a credit is, much less imagine the concept of futility.

So you're a hypocrite, gotcha.  Only smart life matters.  Crabs and lobsters have nervous systems.  They feel pain. Flowers and plants react chemically to being picked, cut, chopped, mulched.  They alert all the plants around them. That is a plant's version of a scream. 

Interesting distinction you're making.  

[Clayless]

JakeMacDon wrote...

-snip-

How do you who is alive and who is just imitating real life?

[EricHVela]

Ugh.

Here we go.

You have to discount real life. Mass Effect is not real life. They've tweaked the rules of what's possible in the game on many occasions.

AIs consider themselves to be living software. Explaining how they exist throws in a sci-fi quasi-definition for quantum computing (which is not the same as real-life quantum computing). For all intents and purposes within the scope of the game, the synthetics are correct about being alive regardless whether or not it's possible in real life.

So the argument whether or not Mass Effect's version of living software is life or not is immaterial. In Mass Effect, it is life.

[SeptimusMagistos]

JakeMacDon wrote...

How are they the same?  EDI is a machine.  I am not. 

Irrelevant.

JakeMacDon wrote...

She's an artificial construct.  I am organically derived. 

Irrelevant.

JakeMacDon wrote...

I fit the definition for life - even if I remove the intelligence and self awareness in myself, I will still be alive.

She'll just be a set of blank HD's.

And you'll be a comatose (dead?) body.

JakeMacDon wrote...

That's the bloody difference.

All you've proven is that you're an organic and she's a synthetic. We knew that much already.

You haven't proven that what your organically derived brain can do is in any way fundamentally different from what her artificially constructed brain does. What is it that neurons do that circuits can't?

JakeMacDon wrote...

Nitpickery.

You were asserting that her having a humanoid body was the only reason anyone thought of her as alive. You were wrong.

JakeMacDon wrote...

So you're a hypocrite, gotcha.  Only smart life matters.  Crabs and lobsters have nervous systems.  They feel pain. Flowers and plants react chemically to being picked, cut, chopped, mulched.  They alert all the plants around them. That is a plant's version of a scream. 

Interesting distinction you're making.  

Exactly. Only smart anything matters. Really I don't care if EDI is alive as much as I care about the fact that she's smarter than some arbitrary value.

And what's so interesting about that distinction? It's essentially the same distinction we make between chimps and humans. Anything above the line gets to vote and anything below it can be put into a cage for people's amusement. EDI is above the line.

JakeMacDon wrote...

Since EDI does not actually think, there is no actual distinction.  We think.  Machines imitate.  Is accurate imitation of life life? She's a golum.  That's it.

This one seems to be the crux of your argument. And I think you're confusing an AI and a VI.

A VI is essentially limited by its programming and can't think.

An AI is a program that's grown complex enough to think on its own. EDI or the geth can come to conclusions never foreseen by their creators. They can form mental categories and organize things in them. They can create and modify new ideas, acquire a sense of humor, form preferences, and analyze abstract concepts like life, love and justice. By what measure do you argue that this is an imitation of thought and not actual thought?

Is it because it's dependent on the original programming? Because your brain is deterministic as well, even if it evolved rather than being made.

As far as I'm concerned the origin of the thought doesn't matter. If a being is capable of performing the necessary operation - if they can grasp a concept and analyze it, if they can draw conclusions and form opinions - that's what makes them worth something.

If you still disagree, I would like a more complete explanation as to the difference between actual thought and imitation thereof. Preferrably something that doesn't rely on the fact that your brain is made of meat and hers isn't, because that by itself doesn't mean anything.

[Errationatus]

[quote]N7 Lisbeth wrote...

EDI is an Artificial Intelligence. I stressed the word you seemingly forgot and do not take into account and disproving your statement.
[/quote] 

I took it into account.  Programming is not intelligence.  EDI possesses no inherent intelligence.  All knowledge she gains is through artifical means - programming code.  Human brains do not work that way.

[quote] 
Wait. You say this but then say:

That's definitively smarter. And yes, as you pointed out subsequently, she does program herself. Numerous times this is brought up in conversations, with or regarding EDI.
[/quote] 

That's not smarter.  She's adding functionality.  EDI in and of herself (because she has no "self") learns nothing. Everything she does is emulation. There is no "person inside her" to learn anything.  There is only an empty machine that executes a series of ones and zeros that imitates thinking and cognition.  She is not conscious.  She mimics consciousness.  She could be shut off - "killed" - and as long as her core programming doesn't get damaged, she could get booted right back up and go on as if never shut off.  Do that to a human.

[quote] 
Patently false. Expanding her database would be downloading skillsets, like how to fire a gun. EDI changes her consciousness and philosophises more than most people.
[/quote] 

Like I said - adds functionality.  She doesn't learn anything.  The knowledge drops into her "brain" fully available in a instantly accessible form.  That's like adding a program to my computer that automates when it defrags and scans for viruses and sorts all my picture files.  My computer is not smarter.  It's just more functional.  It hasn't learned squat.

[quote] 
To change your point of view, allow me to ask you something: If you read an encyclopedia or a book of medicine, does that not make you smarter?
[/quote] 

Nope.  It just means I'd tend to know a lot of trivia.  If I were a doctor and I read a medical journal full of new research and study the conclusions therein and then apply them in real-world application, then I would consider myself smarter. Otherwise, just having access to the information means I have the potential to know more, not that I actually do.

[quote] 
EDI is probably the smartest person on the ship, but she has specialties, just like PhDs do. For instance, EDI may know about quantum physics, we would still likely turn to Liara regarding Prothean artifacts, because it is her field of expertise whereas EDI may only be aware of what has been published.
[/quote] 

Liara is the only Prothean expert in the Galaxy is she?  EDI couldn't just instantaneously scan the Extranet and instantly become an expert?  Oh, wait - she could. That's what computers do.  Liara's been at it for 50 years and it turns out she really didn't know as much about them as she thought.  As PE's go, she's not that reliable any longer. Nor would EDI be, since most of her information would be incorrect - according to Javik, anyway - as well.

EDI has access to anything she can download.  Instant expert on anything. No work done, no research completed, no thought required.  Instant knowledge, meaningless to her unless queried.

Hmmm.  Well, that comparison kinda tanked on you. Sorry.

[quote] 
Disproven in the story. She cares for Joker and has multiple impulses, which she is concerned about and asks Shepard for advice regarding many of them.
[/quote]  

Not in ME2 she didn't.  And Joker didn't take to her until she actually became useful and saved his life.  But that wasn't conscious either.  Very likely part of her operating mandate.  If it had been only Kelly onboard, she'd have likely acted the same, just used a different argument.

[quote]  
She also changes her core programming regularly, as displayed when the subject of moral objection is brought up and she states she plans to change her self preservation programming because she wouldn't want to live in a world where she'd have to sacrifice Joker or her friends to do so.
[/quote]  

So?  Self-preservation of EDI is automatically self-preservation of ship and crew.  Busted computer means ship go nowhere.  Her "reasons" are immaterial.  It makes functionality within the ship and with the crew easier for her to display such solidarity.  That would not violate her original programming and is not proof of "life" or "awareness".

[quote]  
What? EDI was introduced in ME2. Talk to Joker at the start and he despises EDI. Talk to him again after she breaks her programming shackles (this happens post-Collector abductions of the crew), and he sings her praises. He is clearly attached to EDI, and this is often remarked upon not just in ME2 towards the end, but also throughout the course of ME3. (Numerous instances.) The basis for their relationship is EDI saving his life. This has been the starting place of many love relationships.
[/quote]  

One thing:  Joker seriously anthropomorphizes the Normandy.  He did this long before EDI.  The ship was in pieces and he still refused to give up.

It is no stretch for him to do the same to EDI now that the Normandy can actually talk to him in a "sexy" female voice. He's already inclined to give her a lot of leeway.

Still don't make her anything but a mechanism.

[quote]  
Your definition of life ... is expressionism? Really? Are you an art student or something? In any event, EDI does this as well.
[/quote]  

That wasn't my definition of life.  Read the rest of it.  Put it back in context.

[quote]  
She was clearly presented to us this way intentionally, and there are a ton of reinforced concepts throughout the Extended Cut where we support different sides of theories, all of which point us to our definition of life (from brain death to a direct approach in the mess hall) and how it relates to artificial intelligence and our final choice at The End. It's a case of reinforced-foreshadowing, as we made opinions about the end before it was revealed.
[/quote]  

I must have missed that.  The ongoing argument through the game didn't reach any conclusions.  There was a ton of hyperbole and wishful thinking - even some more metaphysical nonsense, but the argument was still lame.  Synthesis doesn't raise EDI to life, it degrades us to machines. Smart machines, but machines.  Of course she's alive if everyone else is in exactly the same state she is.  Now.  

Feh.

[quote]  
Back on topic. Simply, EDI is sentient. Sentience is defined by being conscious. Consciousness is defined by being self-aware. Self awareness is one of the key principles of an artificial intelligence, and why she is so advanced. This is why she is special.
[/quote]  

Sophisticated, certainly.   I maintain that she is none of these things.  EDI does not think.  She is not aware of anything. There is no EDI as an individual, conscious or otherwise, as anything other than a computer installed on a starship with a slinky peripheral.  There is no one inside either that blue box or silver girlybot to be aware of anything.  Code is code.  It doesn't gift life.  Artificial is just that:  artificial.  

That's it.  

[quote]  
Lastly, to disprove your entire theory about how a metal chassis that is shaped like breasts (which was designed explicitly for infiltration), Joker loved her as a bloody ship and he cannot perform physical love due to his bone condition. Nevermind the fact EDI has no means of interacting that way, this is not relative. Without the physical attraction, where is your theory left?
[/quote]  

This is irrelevant since I never said anything remotely similar to this.  All I said was that people - us -  didn't care this much until she was boobed-up and be-butted.  Joker never considered anything other than an intellectual relationship with EDI until she gained new boobinality.  We have no idea how completely functional she is, but that cameltoe says the build was pretty thorough.  Unless EDI is programmed with only "jackhammer" mode, I have a feeling she can download "long and slow".  Since she "cares so much".  Since there's no real bone in the only bone that matters in that instance, I think Joker will have no complaints.

[quote]  
Pretty much baseless bias. Which is fine, but it's your technophobia (or negative impression of feminism) getting in the way and not the logical interpretation of the facts at hand.
[/quote]  

I'd be careful how you paint me - especially since you do it so ******-poorly.  I am being perfectly logical.  You've been rebutted logically, and your assumptions about me personally are baseless and inaccurate.

You may, of course, continue being wrong at your leisure.

[quote]  
Just saying. The thought posited by the OP is more interesting than you give it credit for.
[/quote]  

Nowhere did I say it wasn't interesting.  In fact, in my very latest post to the OP I said that it was interesting.  Hence me wasting this kind of time.  

You've made yet another erroneous assumption.  I won't hold it against you, however.

[quote]  
The definition of life has been a philosophical puzzle confronted by modern concepts for some time now. It's also an interesting subject.
[/quote]

Indeed.  Again, as I have said.

[Errationatus]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

JakeMacDon wrote...

-snip-

How do you who is alive and who is just imitating real life?

Well, if you walked up to me, I'd assume you were alive.

If C3PO walked up to me, I wouldn't make that same assumption.  Even though he frets and moans and apparently feels.  
Or is he and R2 alive too?

[Errationatus]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Ugh.

Here we go.

You have to discount real life. Mass Effect is not real life. They've tweaked the rules of what's possible in the game on many occasions.

AIs consider themselves to be living software. Explaining how they exist throws in a sci-fi quasi-definition for quantum computing (which is not the same as real-life quantum computing). For all intents and purposes within the scope of the game, the synthetics are correct about being alive regardless whether or not it's possible in real life.

So the argument whether or not Mass Effect's version of living software is life or not is immaterial. In Mass Effect, it is life.

Well, yeah.  I'm arguing from a real-world perspective, which is where the confusion comes in, I think.  Ingame, yeah, sure, why not.  Not realistic, but then what is in it, anyway?

[Errationatus]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

If you still disagree, I would like a more complete explanation as to the difference between actual thought and imitation thereof. Preferrably something that doesn't rely on the fact that your brain is made of meat and hers isn't, because that by itself doesn't mean anything.

No, I don't really disagree, because I certainly don't give as much of a sh!t about this topic as you apparently do.  As I said, I was playing devil's advocate.  I was also arguing from a real-world perspective and not a gaming one.  As someone said, the game has fudged the rules, so under those rules, you're correct, you win.

I made my statements and I stand by them, but I really have nothing more to add.  At this point it'd just be repetition on my part.

It is an interesting topic, though.  

[N7 Lisbeth]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Ugh.

Here we go.

You have to discount real life. Mass Effect is not real life. They've tweaked the rules of what's possible in the game on many occasions.

AIs consider themselves to be living software. Explaining how they exist throws in a sci-fi quasi-definition for quantum computing (which is not the same as real-life quantum computing). For all intents and purposes within the scope of the game, the synthetics are correct about being alive regardless whether or not it's possible in real life.

So the argument whether or not Mass Effect's version of living software is life or not is immaterial. In Mass Effect, it is life.

I rather like this, and endorse it heartily.

I also refute pretty much anything JakeMacDon says at this point on the principle that he can't revise his opinion despite being proven wrong. He has ignored or missed large portions of the game, perhaps due to not seeing the content in his rush; examples of such were ignored in his replies.

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 07 septembre 2012 - 12:01 .

[Red Panda]

We're just biological machines too, so I don't consider human beings to be much more than advanced organic AI. All that we are is simply biochemical patterns stored in our brain. Yes, that includes every emotion.

By the idea that we are similar in that we are machines simply made of different materials, how can anyone say EDI is less than a human being. That's like saying Jacob's a bad caracter because he's black.

Are you a bigot?

[xCirdanx]

The game tells me that if i choose destroy all "synthetics" die. (big plothole no matter what anyway..) so no..she is dead. DEAD! ^^ What i or you believe is fiction and nothing else. The game says she is dead. The Geth are dead. And, because it´s just such a beautiful plothole..maybe every person with enough tech in them is dead too. Awesome isn´t it?


As for the second question: i consider her a person and a tool. She definitely has a consciousness.

[Neria Rose]

I've repeatedly tried and failed to view her as just a tool. She's pretty much on par with my other squadmates (save Liara) in spite of her sexbot platform. Which, I suppose, was by design. Same with the Geth.

[Errationatus]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

I also refute pretty much anything JakeMacDon says at this point on the principle that he can't revise his opinion despite being proven wrong. He has ignored or missed large portions of the game, perhaps due to not seeing the content in his rush; examples of such were ignored in his replies.

It's rather poor form - not to mention childish - to "gloat" when you refuted nothing I actually said.  Indeed, I left you a rather long reply that explained my position, addressed your erroneous and rather poor assumptions, and explained my personal viewpoint quite clearly.

Saying "you refute pretty much anything" I say is not actually refuting anything.  I've played all three ME's many, many times now, and I pay attention, I assure you.  

You can say it, but until you actually do it, your mouth is writing cheques your ass can't cash.

But then, I'm not trying to "win" anything, so you can wave your metaphorical wee-wee all you like. It doesn't make you right, it just makes you look like a jackass. 

Play on, McDuff.

[The Night Mammoth]

She's not biologically alive but she's obviously a fully formed, sapient individual who deserves the same respect you should give any organic person.

[Lunch Box1912]

I'm sure someone already said this...

Comander Shepard is this one Alive?

[N7 Lisbeth]

JakeMacDon wrote...

But then, I'm not trying to "win" anything, so you can wave your metaphorical wee-wee all you like. It doesn't make you right, it just makes you look like a jackass. 

Play on, McDuff.

The fact that you think I'm trying to "win" something pretty much describes your mindset. Nevermind your resort to name-calling, that's always a telling place in a discussion.

And you wonder why people want nothing to do with you, hah.

[N7 Lisbeth]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

I'm sure someone already said this...

Comander Shepard is this one Alive?

To quote EDI, "That would be telling."

[SeptimusMagistos]

JakeMacDon wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

If you still disagree, I would like a more complete explanation as to the difference between actual thought and imitation thereof. Preferrably something that doesn't rely on the fact that your brain is made of meat and hers isn't, because that by itself doesn't mean anything.

No, I don't really disagree, because I certainly don't give as much of a sh!t about this topic as you apparently do.  As I said, I was playing devil's advocate.  I was also arguing from a real-world perspective and not a gaming one.  As someone said, the game has fudged the rules, so under those rules, you're correct, you win.

I made my statements and I stand by them, but I really have nothing more to add.  At this point it'd just be repetition on my part.

It is an interesting topic, though.  

Um...I was also arguing from a real-life perspective?

The problem is I just genuinely don't understand your statements. You draw a line between thought and emulation of thought but don't define that line.

As far as I'm concerned, intelligence can be defined as the ability to perform a series of tasks. If an entity is capable of performing these tasks, then it's thinking, not merely imitating thought. EDI can perform these tasks. The geth can perform these tasks. Joker can perform these tasks. Avina cannot. A dog cannot. A toaster cannot.

A more in-depth discussion of that would get a bit technical. AI researchers have been struggling to figure out these definitions for decades now. But EDI zooms right past the commonly defined benchmarks.

[Errationatus]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

The fact that you think I'm trying to "win" something pretty much describes your mindset.
 

 

Really?  You're a psychologist now, too?  That's fascinating.

 
Nevermind your resort to name-calling, that's always a telling place in a discussion.

 

If you say so.

 
And you wonder why people want nothing to do with you, hah.

They don't?  I've been ostracized?  Left in the cold?  Ignored?

Alas.

Chuckle, chuckle, ha, ha, guffaw, etc.

[RadicalDisconnect]

About EDI's anthropomorphism.

Let's see, she was constructed by a human organization, and she spent her entire existence alongside the almost entirely human crew of the Normandy SR-2. Almost all of her social interactions are with humans, and she is programmed to emulate human behavior. Considering this, is her anthropomorphism all that surprising?

Oh, and individuality isn't the same as "humanizing," since Turians, Krogans, Asari, Salarians, and just about every race we encounter in the ME universe are consisted of individuals.

On a side note, I do feel that the geth shouldn't have pursued individuality. Compared to EDI, the geth really have no good reasons for the writers to force them to adopt individuality. But that's for another discussion.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 07 septembre 2012 - 07:11 .

[Errationatus]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Um...I was also arguing from a real-life perspective?

 

Very well.

 
The problem is I just genuinely don't understand your statements. You draw a line between thought and emulation of thought but don't define that line.

 

I did define the line.  Humans think.  Machines do not.  Machines run programs.  Thought and programming are not the same thing.  It's a semantic argument, but it's essentially correct.

 
As far as I'm concerned, intelligence can be defined as the ability to perform a series of tasks.

 

In this case, as far as you're concerned, a welding robot in a car factory is intelligent.  The gears in my pocket watch are intelligent - which makes my watch intelligent.  It will doubtless be surprised to hear that.

 
If an entity is capable of performing these tasks, then it's thinking, not merely imitating thought. EDI can perform these tasks. The geth can perform these tasks. Joker can perform these tasks. Avina cannot. A dog cannot. A toaster cannot.

 

Geth cannot perform anything advanced unless they're in bunches.  Individual geth are as stupid as traffic lights.

Dogs can be trained to sniff out bombs, drugs, cancer.  They can perform a thousand different tasks.  My toaster can toast bread, waffles and bagels.  EDI is a machine programmed to perform certain tasks.  She does not think because there is no "she" in there to think.  There is no entity called EDI that exists.

There is a machine, a computer.  There is code that defines a program.  That program imitates a personality that people around it call "EDI" which is not a name but an acronym.  There is nothing inside that computer that thinks independantly.  It's a program.  It can be likened to the image on film.  A picture of a tree is not the tree no matter how fine the detail of the image.  A computer program of EDI's sophistication is an image of mind.  It is not mind and never will be, just as an image of the tree will never be a tree.  There is an image, an amalgam of ideas of a programmer that mimics a mind, but there is no mind - only bytes engaged in imitation.  EDI is not a person and will never be.  She doesn't exist as an entity because she's no more real than these words you see here, these letters are just light and dark, not real words, just pixel substitutes for thought.

This is EDI.  Thoughts translated.  Not the thoughts themselves.  Imitations.  

Make any more sense now?

 
A more in-depth discussion of that would get a bit technical. AI researchers have been struggling to figure out these definitions for decades now. But EDI zooms right past the commonly defined benchmarks.

Thankfully she's a work of fiction and can do that.  EDI is not a logical construct but a metaphysical one.  Intelligence grants life/soul and smarts makes real girls and boys. 

Sorry.  No.  That's not how it works.  In fiction you can have the wooden boy be real because he was good and the kiss can turn the beast into prince.  There's a reason AI researchers have struggled.  Imitation is all they'll ever achieve, and fantasy is all EDI will ever be, no matter how much wishful thinkers would want it to the contrary.

[Ieldra]

JakeMacDon wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...
The problem is I just genuinely don't understand your statements. You draw a line between thought and emulation of thought but don't define that line.

 

I did define the line.  Humans think.  Machines do not.  Machines run programs.  Thought and programming are not the same thing.  It's a semantic argument, but it's essentially correct.

As far as science has been able to determine, this is exactly what is wrong with your argument.

Thinking is information processing, just the same as when a program runs. Our emotional responses are programmed responses, developed through evolution. Our brains are organic machines with emergent properties. That we don't understand the whole complexity of it all yet is the only reason you can make an assertion like above. There is no indication at all that we are more than organic machines, not even an indication that some mysterious "more" is possible at all.

Edit:
Do you recall the debate between Chakwas and Adams after the Geth Dreadnought mission? Basically, you're arguing Chakwas' position while I'm arguing Adams'. I don't think we'll reach an agreement here, but your assertion that thinking is fundamentally different from information processing is nothing more than a statement of belief. Not at all self-evident. And while I do not *know* that I'm right, everything neuroscience has uncovered about the human brain would rather support my position.

Edit2:
As for the OP's question, that means that if a synthetic brain is about as complex as the human brain, *and* if it can self-modify in reponse to sensory input and its own information processing (even dumb programs can be made to do that), it can theoretically become self-aware. EDI is clearly of that kind. She is a person and we should classify her as alive, though the current definition of life doesn't apply to her.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 septembre 2012 - 07:48 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

JakeMacDon wrote...

I did define the line.  Humans think.  Machines do not.  Machines run programs.  Thought and programming are not the same thing.  It's a semantic argument, but it's essentially correct.

So your argument is based on the idea that neurons can do something circuits cannot?

JakeMacDon wrote...

In this case, as far as you're concerned, a welding robot in a car factory is intelligent.  The gears in my pocket watch are intelligent - which makes my watch intelligent.  It will doubtless be surprised to hear that.

...A series of mental tasks. I was talking about things like the ability to solve a problem or to analyze data hazard a heuristic guess, or to understand an unfamiliar word from the context of the conversation.

Without changing the goalposts so as to claim that the machine didn't understand it because machines tautologically can't understand things. We're looking for objective benchmarks.

JakeMacDon wrote...

Geth cannot perform anything advanced unless they're in bunches.  Individual geth are as stupid as traffic lights.

...right.

JakeMacDon wrote...

Dogs can be trained to sniff out bombs, drugs, cancer.  They can perform a thousand different tasks.  My toaster can toast bread, waffles and bagels.  EDI is a machine programmed to perform certain tasks.  She does not think because there is no "she" in there to think.  There is no entity called EDI that exists.

There is a machine, a computer.  There is code that defines a program.  That program imitates a personality that people around it call "EDI" which is not a name but an acronym.  There is nothing inside that computer that thinks independantly.  It's a program.  It can be likened to the image on film.  A picture of a tree is not the tree no matter how fine the detail of the image.  A computer program of EDI's sophistication is an image of mind.  It is not mind and never will be, just as an image of the tree will never be a tree.  There is an image, an amalgam of ideas of a programmer that mimics a mind, but there is no mind - only bytes engaged in imitation.  EDI is not a person and will never be.  She doesn't exist as an entity because she's no more real than these words you see here, these letters are just light and dark, not real words, just pixel substitutes for thought.

This is EDI.  Thoughts translated.  Not the thoughts themselves.  Imitations.  

Make any more sense now?

No.

EDI's personality is 'simulated' by a series of circuits switching on and off.

My personality is 'simulated' by a series of synapses firing off.

It's the same damn thing. A deterministic process based on the current state of the brain and the environment around it. A bunch of physical processes which can be analyzed and mapped as a series of ones and zeroes and thereafter replicated by any sufficiently complex system.

Or are you asserting that that's not what thought is? And if not then what is it?

JakeMacDon wrote...

Sorry.  No.  That's not how it works.  In fiction you can have the wooden boy be real because he was good and the kiss can turn the beast into prince.  There's a reason AI researchers have struggled.  Imitation is all they'll ever achieve, and fantasy is all EDI will ever be, no matter how much wishful thinkers would want it to the contrary.

...The struggle I meant is over where to place the line between 'imitating' thought and 'doing' thought, not over whether how to cross it.

Like I said before: The human brain is Turing-Computable.