After, a toaster, and a bad one with burnt toast and all...
IMO, that's it!
JPR out
Modifié par JPR1964, 07 septembre 2012 - 10:37 .
Do you consider EDI to be alive? Do you consider her a tool or a person?
Débuté par
Endorlf
, sept. 04 2012 10:52
#326
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 10:36
JPR1964
-
- Members
- 792 messages
Until her speech about synthesis : a member of my team...
After, a toaster, and a bad one with burnt toast and all...
IMO, that's it!
JPR out
After, a toaster, and a bad one with burnt toast and all...
IMO, that's it!
JPR out
Retour en haut
#327
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 10:42
Luxure
-
- Members
- 590 messages
Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Alive? Eh. Not in the general biological sense, but yeah.
A person? Hell yeah.
This.
Also...
All these questions she asks Shepard, about life, about human behaviour, about what's right and what's wrong. That makes her "human". That need for, what to call it, information, that curiosity, that makes her "human".
#328
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 10:53
Helios969
-
- Members
- 2 752 messages
She was a unique entity...not human but much, much more than machine. She was the Normandy, she was a valuable member of Shep's team, she was endearing in her childlike naivity and inexperience. With her new found role, she was a fantastic addition to the game. It's unfortunate she had to be sacrified for the greater good (or because she was a pawn of the writers to ensure players wouldn't all just shoot the tube.)
#329
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 11:28
Mcfly616
-
- Members
- 8 996 messages
She's about as alive as the Catalyst.....
#330
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 12:53
Jassu1979
-
- Members
- 1 032 messages
You know, this is another aspect of the ending that clashes with the rest of the series:
Throughout the series, it had been pretty much established that artificial intelligences are self-aware and "alive", not just pieces of equipment acting within the parameters of their functionality.
Even back in the days of ME1, when every AI was hostile by default and the geth still served as thinly disguised cylon stand-ins, there was never any doubt about their self-awareness or autonomy.
In fact, that was part of the horror of the Reapers: they basically turned the "natural order" upside down by conceiving of organic species as nothing more than tools and resources that could be shaped, used, and consumed. To Sovereign (and, by extension, the un-retconned Reapers), *we* were the equivalent of a "toaster": inferior beings that had been designed and cultivated for very specific purposes.
Starting with ME2, the series then started to reinforce the concept of kinship between synthetics and organics: interactions with EDI and Legion reinforced the impression that what we were faced with were entities that were every bit as complex and autonomous as our own species.
Even ME3 reinforced this by further establishing romantic bonds between Joker and EDI, and showing us via the geth consensus that the geth had merely fought for their own survival, and deliberately abstained from a genocide that would have obliterated their creators.
And then, we get to the supposedly godlike entity that acts like a dumb machine.
Then, we get to the part where a green-magicked EDI goes Pinocchio on us.
Then, we get to the part where the Reapers cease to be semi-divine entities that baffle our comprehension, and end up as mere puppets in a rather airheaded anti-heroic plot to save the galaxy.
Throughout the series, it had been pretty much established that artificial intelligences are self-aware and "alive", not just pieces of equipment acting within the parameters of their functionality.
Even back in the days of ME1, when every AI was hostile by default and the geth still served as thinly disguised cylon stand-ins, there was never any doubt about their self-awareness or autonomy.
In fact, that was part of the horror of the Reapers: they basically turned the "natural order" upside down by conceiving of organic species as nothing more than tools and resources that could be shaped, used, and consumed. To Sovereign (and, by extension, the un-retconned Reapers), *we* were the equivalent of a "toaster": inferior beings that had been designed and cultivated for very specific purposes.
Starting with ME2, the series then started to reinforce the concept of kinship between synthetics and organics: interactions with EDI and Legion reinforced the impression that what we were faced with were entities that were every bit as complex and autonomous as our own species.
Even ME3 reinforced this by further establishing romantic bonds between Joker and EDI, and showing us via the geth consensus that the geth had merely fought for their own survival, and deliberately abstained from a genocide that would have obliterated their creators.
And then, we get to the supposedly godlike entity that acts like a dumb machine.
Then, we get to the part where a green-magicked EDI goes Pinocchio on us.
Then, we get to the part where the Reapers cease to be semi-divine entities that baffle our comprehension, and end up as mere puppets in a rather airheaded anti-heroic plot to save the galaxy.
#331
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 12:55
Icinix
-
- Members
- 8 188 messages
Prior to the boobs - she was a person.
After the boobs - she was an accessory.
After the boobs - she was an accessory.
#332
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 01:09
ziyon conqueror
-
- Members
- 349 messages
I consider her to be alive, considering how she thinks of her crewmates, philosophy, etc.
#333
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 01:22
SeptimusMagistos
-
- Members
- 1 154 messages
George Costanza wrote...
I love how many Artificial Intelligence experts there are on here. We should really get you guys better jobs. Our top scientists can't even truly understand how our brains work, or whether or not an AI would be able to completely simulate it. And you guys have all the answers.
Basically, nobody can win the "Is EDI alive?" argument. Simply stating that our brains are no different to a machine's programming is poppycock. These questions have been befuddling our greatest thinkers for years. It's not just a simple case of "Hey our brains are just neurons and chemical reactions, EDI's is shifting ones and zeroes".
Coincidentally I do work in a related field, so I occasionally read some of literalure. Obviously I know way less about neurobiology, but I know enough to know that while our understanding of the human brain is far from perfect it is way less of an unknown than you're trying to present it as.
#334
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 01:34
TJklanger
-
- Members
- 1 messages
i don't consider her to be alive physically, but if something has free will, capable of forming opinions, showing emotion etc.... i treat her as if she was. When she says she feels alive i interpret that as having understanding and feelings of an organic. i consider her a person over a tool.
#335
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 02:08
Xandurpein
-
- Members
- 3 045 messages
When in doubt, I usually refer to a dictionary or some other reference of what words actually mean. Being "alive" refers to the word "life" and the definition of life is:
"Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes. Biology is the science concerned with the study of life."
"A Biological Process is a process of a living organism. Biological processes are made up of any number of chemical reactions or other events that results in a transformation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
The words "life" and "alive" consequently refers to biological beings, capable of among other things reproduction. Consequently I don't regard EDI as "alive", as the word is actually defined in the dictionary. People often confuse "alive", which refers to a biology with sentience, which refers to being capable of higher cognizance. Even amoebas are alive, but they certainly can't think. I think it's obvious that EDI is fully sentient and is capable of moral thinking and should be accorded status as citizen of the Alliance, for example, even if she's not alive.
Shepard: Alive and sentient
EDI: Sentient, but not alive
Amoeba: Alive, but not sentient
Toaster: Neither alive nor sentient.
Edit: I guess that in a Universe were there exist sentient synthetic beings, the definition of "life" may change. But if you assume this, you ought to say so in your argument.
"Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes. Biology is the science concerned with the study of life."
"A Biological Process is a process of a living organism. Biological processes are made up of any number of chemical reactions or other events that results in a transformation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
The words "life" and "alive" consequently refers to biological beings, capable of among other things reproduction. Consequently I don't regard EDI as "alive", as the word is actually defined in the dictionary. People often confuse "alive", which refers to a biology with sentience, which refers to being capable of higher cognizance. Even amoebas are alive, but they certainly can't think. I think it's obvious that EDI is fully sentient and is capable of moral thinking and should be accorded status as citizen of the Alliance, for example, even if she's not alive.
Shepard: Alive and sentient
EDI: Sentient, but not alive
Amoeba: Alive, but not sentient
Toaster: Neither alive nor sentient.
Edit: I guess that in a Universe were there exist sentient synthetic beings, the definition of "life" may change. But if you assume this, you ought to say so in your argument.
Modifié par Xandurpein, 07 septembre 2012 - 02:12 .
#336
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 02:20
shodiswe
-
- Members
- 4 999 messages
Gibb_Shepard wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Gibb_Shepard wrote...
No. She is a series of programs that tell her how to "feel" in certain circumstances.
And you're different..... how?
She is bound by programming, i am not.
It's pure speculation whether or not a machine can actually feel something, or just give the outward appearence of feeling something. Seeing as how we have extremely limited information on how the brain actually works, all of this is conjecture anyway.
She's no more bound by her programming than you are bound by the genetic inheritance given by your ancestry and the sum of your life experience. You can as much become a completely different person as EDI can decide to be different.
From my experience humans in general are creatures of habits, habits don't change unless they face extreme needs for a change, sometimes they fail to change even it it meens their death. That is what I call being bound by their programming.
#337
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 02:22
Seboist
-
- Members
- 11 989 messages
Like Renegade Shep said in ME2, EDI is machine not crew.
#338
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 02:43
fainmaca
-
- Members
- 1 617 messages
I considered EDI to be alive from the start. Hell, I even thought that prototype VI on Luna she grew from was the preliminary stage of life. I also thought the Geth were alive. Legion was alive.
I don't get why ME3 pushed the anti-synthetic angle so hard. It really left no room for pro-synthetic viewpoints. Thought that Legion was already a living being in its own right? Believed that the Quarians were wrong to attack their own creations because it seemed like Genocide to you? Tough. EDI needs synthesis, The Geth need Reaper code, and ultimately they will all murder you. A perspective on existence that is different to your own is not a valid form of life. Any synthetic beings need to go through a pinocchio story arc before they can be considered alive.
That was ultimately my biggest gripe with the core of the ME3 experience. There should have been room for both viewpoints, considering this was a game about choice and morals. Let me make my own moral stance, damnit.
I don't get why ME3 pushed the anti-synthetic angle so hard. It really left no room for pro-synthetic viewpoints. Thought that Legion was already a living being in its own right? Believed that the Quarians were wrong to attack their own creations because it seemed like Genocide to you? Tough. EDI needs synthesis, The Geth need Reaper code, and ultimately they will all murder you. A perspective on existence that is different to your own is not a valid form of life. Any synthetic beings need to go through a pinocchio story arc before they can be considered alive.
That was ultimately my biggest gripe with the core of the ME3 experience. There should have been room for both viewpoints, considering this was a game about choice and morals. Let me make my own moral stance, damnit.
#339
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 02:48
Jaze55
-
- Members
- 1 071 messages
In game yes because in THAT world AI's can become self aware and have feeling and have others fall in love with them, which is why in game I pick Synthesis
In REAL LIFE hell no. No machine could ever have a soul. If I ever had that choice to make in real life I would pick destroy every single time no questions asked and I would NOT feel bad about it. I can always program my toaster all over again.
IM MY OPINION a machine can be programmed to think and learn. Hell we already have that. Can it FEEL? Nope ... ugh honestly I hate this question because in 20 years I might change my answer with how technology is growing. For all we know WE were all created by something. Well I guess we were no matter how you look at it, atheist or religious fanatic or in between, so what does that make us?. But right now, no now way can a machine ever become "alive" because, well, that makes me feel better.
In REAL LIFE hell no. No machine could ever have a soul. If I ever had that choice to make in real life I would pick destroy every single time no questions asked and I would NOT feel bad about it. I can always program my toaster all over again.
IM MY OPINION a machine can be programmed to think and learn. Hell we already have that. Can it FEEL? Nope ... ugh honestly I hate this question because in 20 years I might change my answer with how technology is growing. For all we know WE were all created by something. Well I guess we were no matter how you look at it, atheist or religious fanatic or in between, so what does that make us?. But right now, no now way can a machine ever become "alive" because, well, that makes me feel better.
#340
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 02:51
Jere85
-
- Members
- 1 542 messages
If a refridgerator had a face, people would talk to them too
Though i do believe Edi to be a person, it has a personality. Artificial or not.
That counts to me as a person.
Though i do believe Edi to be a person, it has a personality. Artificial or not.
That counts to me as a person.
#341
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 02:52
BatmanPWNS
-
- Members
- 6 392 messages
Seboist wrote...
Like Renegade Shep said in ME2, EDI is machine not crew.
But Autodialogue moron ME3 Shepard likes EDI.
#343
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 04:22
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 744 messages
Gibb_Shepard wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
She's bound by programming, you're bound by your neurons and brain chemistry.
If you want to make a case for this difference being significant, give it a shot.
That depends. Do you want a long argument where neither of us can possibly come out the victor? Dealing in conjecture is ultimately a pointless endeavor, unless it's been precluded with some hash.
The argument's not worth having. But it sounds like you're pushing some form of vitalism; there's something special that neurons do and transistors can't. Am I misreading that?
#344
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 04:23
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 744 messages
MassEffected555 wrote...
In REAL LIFE hell no. No machine could ever have a soul.
Nope. But neither does anything else.
#345
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 04:38
Jere85
-
- Members
- 1 542 messages
Agreed, screenshot or it didn't happen.AlanC9 wrote...
MassEffected555 wrote...
In REAL LIFE hell no. No machine could ever have a soul.
Nope. But neither does anything else.
#346
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 05:17
inversevideo
-
- Members
- 1 775 messages
Short answer, EDI is self-aware, and has personality. So she is a person. I would say she is 'alive'.
However, the caveat is that what may constitute alive, for organics, like humans, may be different for AI (like EDI or Cylons).
While we can sleep, we cannot be shut completely down, stored indefinitely with no power to any systems, and later be switched back on and have our consciousness suffer no degradation (well except for Shepard of course). Nor can we be backed up to and restored from a database. So it is hard to define what 'life & death' actually mean to an AI.
However, the caveat is that what may constitute alive, for organics, like humans, may be different for AI (like EDI or Cylons).
While we can sleep, we cannot be shut completely down, stored indefinitely with no power to any systems, and later be switched back on and have our consciousness suffer no degradation (well except for Shepard of course). Nor can we be backed up to and restored from a database. So it is hard to define what 'life & death' actually mean to an AI.
#347
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 05:20
Gibb_Shepard
-
- Members
- 3 694 messages
AlanC9 wrote...
Gibb_Shepard wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
She's bound by programming, you're bound by your neurons and brain chemistry.
If you want to make a case for this difference being significant, give it a shot.
That depends. Do you want a long argument where neither of us can possibly come out the victor? Dealing in conjecture is ultimately a pointless endeavor, unless it's been precluded with some hash.
The argument's not worth having. But it sounds like you're pushing some form of vitalism; there's something special that neurons do and transistors can't. Am I misreading that?
I believe that there is far more to the brain than simply neurons transmitting data. Since scientists are still befuddled by the thing, i think that is a pretty safe assumption.
#348
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 05:21
inversevideo
-
- Members
- 1 775 messages
The problem with creating AI is that it is possible to create an appliance/person duality.
If you provide your smartphone or fridge with an AI core, is it an appliance or person? In this case it is both, and that could lead to ethical issues, depending on how you choose to view and interact with this new entity.
If you provide your smartphone or fridge with an AI core, is it an appliance or person? In this case it is both, and that could lead to ethical issues, depending on how you choose to view and interact with this new entity.
#349
Posté 07 septembre 2012 - 05:29
shodiswe
-
- Members
- 4 999 messages
inversevideo wrote...
The problem with creating AI is that it is possible to create an appliance/person duality.
If you provide your smartphone or fridge with an AI core, is it an appliance or person? In this case it is both, and that could lead to ethical issues, depending on how you choose to view and interact with this new entity.
That entierly depends on the AI's ability to percive the world, if it's barely aware of the world beyond the frige inventory and the routines of it's "owner" then it isn't likely to request anything beyond the functionality of the fridge and resupply of relevant inventory.
It would be like locking in a baby in a dark closet for the first 12 years of it's life... It woudln't be very aware of anything and would be scared of anytihng unknown and most certainly unable to grasp or understand the outside.
Thoguh I can't see why anyone would need a fridge with true AI capabilities anyway, all it needs is keep inventory and report malfunctions. No awareness would be needed.
#350
Posté 08 septembre 2012 - 12:37
Endorlf
-
- Members
- 333 messages
Jere85 wrote...
Agreed, screenshot or it didn't happen.AlanC9 wrote...
MassEffected555 wrote...
In REAL LIFE hell no. No machine could ever have a soul.
Nope. But neither does anything else.
What does "soul" mean to you?
