406 réponses à ce sujet

[Endorlf]

Icinix wrote...

Prior to the boobs - she was a person.

After the boobs - she was an accessory.

Are you implying that her in-game model defines her character? As someone else said, do you think any of her dialogue would change if her body wasn't exaggerated?

[Reikilea]

I consider EDI destroyed. Every time.

I considered EDI as an interesting AI in ME2. Edi was funny,loyal, helpfull, devoted to the crew. Where could that go wrong? 

After boobs and ass and high heels on a robot I consider Edi as something that doesn´t exist on my ship. And also whole AI trying to become human and trying to understand humans story arc is cliched issue that was forced in order to make us like Synthesis ending. For me this theme was already discused too many times and was completely unnecessary. And forced. As we already went through this with Legion and geth. With Edi it was repoeated in a cheapest way possible.

It´s not only Edi in game model. The model only made everything worse. EDI is failed potential. I had plans for Edi! I wanted Edi to be as Jane from Ender´s game series. But no no Edi had to became a cheap shiny ****** and ass fembot in order to teach us about how synthetics can be good friends with organics. Again.

And I was so in love with Legion. Just because for me Bioware failed in everything they tried to archieve before and trivialised the whole syntetics/organics theme into - Is EDI gonna get laid or not? Where are the times when we had amazing and intelligent robots in our crew. HK-47 I miss you. Oh, the times when I could reply with Doot! (funny thing with Star Wars, humans and robot can be great friends without a problem, but I get it ME theme is synthetics vs organics.)

So, Edi is tool, used by Bioware to explain something that was already said too many times.

Legion is alive.

Modifié par Reikilea, 08 septembre 2012 - 02:23 .

[Icinix]

Endorlf wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Prior to the boobs - she was a person.

After the boobs - she was an accessory.

Are you implying that her in-game model defines her character? As someone else said, do you think any of her dialogue would change if her body wasn't exaggerated?

I do wonder if a Joker / EDI romance would have been explored if EDI did not have a busty pron star body.

Yes - I do believe her dialogue and character development woud have been different.

[AlanC9]

Endorlf wrote...

Jere85 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...
In REAL LIFE hell no. No machine could ever have a soul.

Nope. But neither does anything else. 

Agreed, screenshot or it didn't happen.

What does "soul" mean to you?

To me? Not much. it's a pretty vacuous concept, really. Mostly someplace to hang your hopes for life after death.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Reikilea wrote...


It´s not only Edi in game model. The model only made everything worse. EDI is failed potential. I had plans for Edi! I wanted Edi to be as Jane from Ender´s game series. But no no Edi had to became a cheap shiny ****** and ass fembot in order to teach us about how synthetics can be good friends with organics. Again.

Not to undercut your point, but didn't Jane fall in love with a human and download herself into a woman's body?

[RadicalDisconnect]

Let's see, where to begin...

Reikilea wrote...

I considered EDI as an interesting AI in ME2. Edi was funny,loyal, helpfull, devoted to the crew. Where could that go wrong?

And she isn't loyal, helpful, and devoted to the crew in ME3? Did you play a different game or something? (Your mileage may vary about the funny part. I don't like her humor.)  

After boobs and ass and high heels on a robot I consider Edi as something that doesn´t exist on my ship. And also whole AI trying to become human and trying to understand humans story arc is cliched issue that was forced in order to make us like Synthesis ending. For me this theme was already discused too many times and was completely unnecessary. And forced. As we already went through this with Legion and geth. With Edi it was repoeated in a cheapest way possible.

So, according to you, the geth already explored the "whole AI trying to become human and trying to understand humans story arc." Uh huh...

You do realize that EDI was already anthropomorphized in ME2, right? Her feminine voice isn't unintentional. Notice how towards the end of that game, the crew, most notably Joker, refers to EDI as "she" instead of "it." Also, geth trying to be human in ME2? You must be joking. Don't you remember what Legion said in ME2? They seek to understand organics, but they don't want to emulate them or become human. They want to build their own future. Hell, this is what Legion said about comparing different species. "No two species are identical. All must be judged by their own merits. Treating every species like one's own is racist. Even benign anthropomorphism."

Oh, and did I mention that the three year old EDI was built by a human organization? Not to mention that she spent her entire existence around the almost entirely human crew of the Normandy SR-2. Oh, and most of her interactions are with humans, especially Joker and perhaps Shepard, and until she met Legion near the end of ME2, she had no interactions with other synthetics. Her "community" is essentially consisted of humans. Given EDI's background, are you actually surprised that she wants to be more human and understand them?

Put some more thought into your posts. It will do you lots of favors.

It´s not only Edi in game model. The model only made everything worse. EDI is failed potential. I had plans for Edi! I wanted Edi to be as Jane from Ender´s game series. But no no Edi had to became a cheap shiny ****** and ass fembot in order to teach us about how synthetics can be good friends with organics. Again.

Well, thanks for contradicting yourself. You said that it's not only the in-game model, and then you proceeded to saying that she became "cheap shiny ****** and ass fembot," as if suggesting that she is defined by her in-game model. So what is it? What else would define a character in ME games? Dialogue, right?

Look at EDI's dialogue in ME3. Then imagine that her in-game model isn't sexualized. 99.9% of her dialogue would remain the same. Just how much of her dialogue is actually about sex? Maybe one or two lines?

Believe me, I really don't like her over-sexualized body and that immature romance with Joker, but that's for another discussion.

And I was so in love with Legion. Just because for me Bioware failed in everything they tried to archieve before and trivialised the whole syntetics/organics theme into - Is EDI gonna get laid or not?

Ah, the cherry-picking is strong in you. So, EDI is just a sexbot, nothing more. Nope, no questions about morals, or self-sacrifice, or perspectives of organics/humanity. And nope, she obviously never said that she is willing to sacrifice herself to defeat the reapers. That conversation with EDI before Cronos Station mission is obviously not in the game! Everything about her is the sexbot with a ******; it's what defines her. She obviously serves to be nothing more than Joker's date. Yeah... Are you attempting to win a Darwin Award?

Considering that EDI's character will develop along similar lines, i.e. morality, self-sacrifice, even if you discourage the relationship with Joker (which I didn't like either), your argument is very flawed to say the least.

As a side note, even though I don't like that Joker and EDI romance, it certainly was foreshadowed in ME2. In ME2, it was alluded to that Joker and EDI were forming a close friendship and Mordin even said that there were rumors of a relationship brewing between the two.

So, Edi is tool, used by Bioware to explain something that was already said too many times.

Legion is alive.

I'll give you the benefit of doubt and say that you're trolling; otherwise, you're a complete retard. Let's just hope I'm not giving you too much credit. Legion is alive...why? What properties of sapience and life does Legion have that EDI doesn't have? And believe me, I loved Legion before the ME3's Rannoch dilemma. After all the talk about the geth building their own future, Legion suddenly decided to use Reaper code and turn geth platforms into individuals. Considering that Legion did a complete 180 from his ME2 stance in ME3 by suddenly wanting individuality, I would say that his ME3 incarnation is worse.

Endorlf, I hope I didn't hijack your thread, but I just can't resist.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 08 septembre 2012 - 08:16 .

[Errationatus]

Gone a day and the thread devolves into metaphyics.  "Souls" are irrelevant to this discussion.

Upon re-reading my past posts,  I had thought I had made my position clear, but that was apparently not the case, so I did a re-think, and I believe I can present it (hopefully) much more clearly now.

My perspective goes like this:

If I were to have an arm severed, and replaced with a sophisticated prosthetic, down to simulated pores and arm hair, it is still a device and not an actual arm.  I would never either mistake it for my real arm nor pretend it was a real arm.  It isn't, no matter how pretty and faithful a reproduction it might be.

If I were to have catastrophic heart failure and needed my heart replaced by an artifical heart (real ones being scarce, say), one that replicated it perfectly, it would still not be a real heart.  It would pump the blood and go lump-lump, but I would never mistake it for a real one or pretend it was, either.  Again, a faithful reproduction is just that - a reproduction.

If I were to have a neural scan of my brain taken, and digitized and downloaded into a computer, and that computer went on after I died, it would still only be a facsimilie of me - not me, not ever, not alive, not resurrected, not immortal.

EDI's body is a prosthetic.  It mimics.  It replaces, say, a real living girlfriend Joker could have had, but apparently his balls were made of glass as well.  (It could be that sh!tty "I'm crippled, look how disabled I am, I have the right to be a  d!ck!!" attitude he has, too, jus' say'n.)

EDI herself is a facsimilie of a mind.  She is not a real mind.  She's a very good copy of one, but just as a faithful and masterful copy of the Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa, EDI is faithful copy of a mind - but she is not a mind.

You can believe her a person all you like - but it doesn't change the reality of her state, as it were, and it won't out here in the "really real world".  If all humans sat down and said, "okay, the majority of us agree - we will call this life as equal to our own," then so be it.  That does not, however, change objective reality, it simply expands an arbritrary definition.  

While the fake Mona Lisa might still be considered art, it's not Leonardo, and it's no Mona Lisa.

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 08 septembre 2012 - 06:36 .

[DirtySHISN0]

She is sentient, she is able to recognize her own existence. She is not a copy, she is the union of two created minds (created from two other AI, just as organic life is created from two others). Copies are identical images and do not give rise to originality or variety. Life perpetuates itself through diversity and this includes the ability to sacrifice itself when necessary.

Her thoughts and memories are unique only to her, she collects information to use in her own way and she carries a sense of her own destiny. All this mixes to give rise to EDI and her conscience.

I consider EDI alive and a person.

[SeptimusMagistos]

JakeMacDon wrote...

Gone a day and the thread devolves into metaphyics.  "Souls" are irrelevant to this discussion.

Upon re-reading my past posts,  I had thought I had made my position clear, but that was apparently not the case, so I did a re-think, and I believe I can present it (hopefully) much more clearly now.

My perspective goes like this:

If I were to have an arm severed, and replaced with a sophisticated prosthetic, down to simulated pores and arm hair, it is still a device and not an actual arm.  I would never either mistake it for my real arm nor pretend it was a real arm.  It isn't, no matter how pretty and faithful a reproduction it might be.

If I were to have catastrophic heart failure and needed my heart replaced by an artifical heart (real ones being scarce, say), one that replicated it perfectly, it would still not be a real heart.  It would pump the blood and go lump-lump, but I would never mistake it for a real one or pretend it was, either.  Again, a faithful reproduction is just that - a reproduction.

If I were to have a neural scan of my brain taken, and digitized and downloaded into a computer, and that computer went on after I died, it would still only be a facsimilie of me - not me, not ever, not alive, not resurrected, not immortal.

EDI's body is a prosthetic.  It mimics.  It replaces, say, a real living girlfriend Joker could have had, but apparently his balls were made of glass as well.  (It could be that sh!tty "I'm crippled, look how disabled I am, I have the right to be a  d!ck!!" attitude he has, too, jus' say'n.)

EDI herself is a facsimilie of a mind.  She is not a real mind.  She's a very good copy of one, but just as a faithful and masterful copy of the Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa, EDI is faithful copy of a mind - but she is not a mind.

You can believe her a person all you like - but it doesn't change the reality of her state, as it were, and it won't out here in the "really real world".  If all humans sat down and said, "okay, the majority of us agree - we will call this life as equal to our own," then so be it.  That does not, however, change objective reality, it simply expands an arbritrary definition.  

While the fake Mona Lisa might still be considered art, it's not Leonardo, and it's no Mona Lisa.

Ah. Okay, I finally get your perspective. You're saying the difference between EDI and a human is the same as that between a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa and the actual Mona Lisa?

I frankly don't care which is which. I also wouldn't make a distinction between a 'real' and 'fake' arm so much as between a 'biological' and 'mechanical' one. Both are 'real' in the sense that they exist and do the things an arm is supposed to do.

I think this argument ultimately comes down to either semantics or to how much value being an 'original' holds. Both are frankly irrelevant to me. I'm just going to treat EDI with the same consideration I would show to any organic and to consider anyone who doesn't do the same evil in the real-world sense.

[Errationatus]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Ah. Okay, I finally get your perspective.
 

 

I figured it was my fault.  Apologies all over.

 
You're saying the difference between EDI and a human is the same as that between a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa and the actual Mona Lisa?

 

'Zackly.

 
I frankly don't care which is which. I also wouldn't make a distinction between a 'real' and 'fake' arm so much as between a 'biological' and 'mechanical' one. Both are 'real' in the sense that they exist and do the things an arm is supposed to do.

 

That's not, however, an objective argument.  Regardless of having my arm replaced by a mechanical arm, at the end of the day, I'm still missing an arm.  The prosthetic is still fake.

You "not caring" simply points to how this is your belief.  It's good enough for you, but that doesn't make it fact.  "Real" as in being a physical object is not the same argument as saying EDI is as alive as your or I because she could pass the Turing Test.  That's also not a definitive test, because it's not impossible to program a machine that could recognize itself.  That kinda skews the test and makes it unreliable, no?  We can cheat.  The test also doesn't determine life, just self-awareness, and that doesn't necessarily equal "alive", either.  There's no mystical force that imparts life because intelligence is present.  The idea that we could create intelligent machines - fake intelligence that mimics real intelligence - does away with the metaphysical nonsense that undercuts every discussion like this.

Still doesn't change objective reality.  Computers are still not mind.  Still "fake", still facsimilies.

 
I think this argument ultimately comes down to either semantics or to how much value being an 'original' holds.

 

I've said from the beginning - more or less - that it is a semantic argument.  But that also doesn't change that fake is fake. 

 
Both are frankly irrelevant to me. I'm just going to treat EDI with the same consideration I would show to any organic and to consider anyone who doesn't do the same evil in the real-world sense.

That's your perogative.  It makes you biased, factually wrong and not just-a-little-bit-stubborn (which you have every right to be), but it doesn't make you right.  I wouldn't just up and toss her out an airlock, and I certainly don't share Javik's paranoia, but if the choice is saving, say...  Liara or Tali, Garrus or Chakwas or EDI, EDI is scrap - just like that.  

[SeptimusMagistos]

JakeMacDon wrote...

I figured it was my fault.  Apologies all over.

It's cool.

JakeMacDon wrote...

That's not, however, an objective argument.  Regardless of having my arm replaced by a mechanical arm, at the end of the day, I'm still missing an arm.  The prosthetic is still fake.

You're missing your original, biological arm. You've got another one, which I'm assuming works equally well. If you feel like putting up a fuss over it, that's your right. Personally I don't care. It's an arm and I have it and I'll be using it to pick things up.

The distinction between 'real' and 'fake' doesn't make a huge amount of sense. If you created a perfect duplicate of me, then both the original and the copy would have an equally valid claim to being me. If I uploaded my brain to a computer the uploaded version would still consider itself 'me.'

JakeMacDon wrote...
 
There's no mystical force that imparts life because intelligence is present.  The idea that we could create intelligent machines - fake intelligence that mimics real intelligence - does away with the metaphysical nonsense that undercuts every discussion like this.

A: Not sure about life, but personhood is based solely on the presence of intelligence, no?

B: I guess if we're using your definitions of 'fake' and 'real' then it does. But that's a ridiculous distinction. The only difference between the two is that one was there first. The being that 'mimics' intelligence can do everything you can. It can form preferences and 'feel' things with the same intensity - or with greater intensity if it becomes necessary. It can solve a problem, analyze an abstract concept, imagine something that doesn't exist, etc. Isn't that what's really important - what it can do? Or is the fact that it's not made up of meat more important to you?

JakeMacDon wrote...

I've said from the beginning - more or less - that it is a semantic argument.  But that also doesn't change that fake is fake.

...you're lucky I enjoy semantics-based arguments.

Okay. Please describe the characteristics a mind must possess in order to be considered 'real.' Know in advance that if one of those characteristics is that it must be biologically evolved then I'm arguing about that particular semantic point.

This is probably going to end up like the argument over whether or not Pluto is a planet, though.

JakeMacDon wrote...

That's your perogative.  It makes you biased, factually wrong and not just-a-little-bit-stubborn (which you have every right to be), but it doesn't make you right.  I wouldn't just up and toss her out an airlock, and I certainly don't share Javik's paranoia, but if the choice is saving, say...  Liara or Tali, Garrus or Chakwas or EDI, EDI is scrap - just like that. 

...You show up as the bad guy in a lot of science fiction I read.

[Reikilea]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

I'll give you the benefit of doubt and say that you're trolling; otherwise, you're a complete retard. Let's just hope I'm not giving you too much credit. Legion is alive...why? What properties of sapience and life does Legion have that EDI doesn't have? And believe me, I loved Legion before the ME3's Rannoch dilemma. After all the talk about the geth building their own future, Legion suddenly decided to use Reaper code and turn geth platforms into individuals. Considering that Legion did a complete 180 from his ME2 stance in ME3 by suddenly wanting individuality, I would say that his ME3 incarnation is worse.

Endorlf, I hope I didn't hijack your thread, but I just can't resist.

I remeber you. Saw your comments few times. There were all about defending EDI against people who don´t like her and have their reason for not liking EDI. Somethimes calling them retards and stupid because they don´t like your favourite character.  What gives you the right to call me retard? Just because I am voicing my thougts about not liking Edi. Deal with it. There are people who hate Liara, Tali, Miranda, Jack . There are dozens hate threads against VS. I know why I dislike EDI.

Some people just don´t like characters that are presentend in such a sexualised way. It seriously pains me to see that EDI character was recuced into fembot type of a robot. You say it´s not about her appearance? Well it certainly is. If you have to look through something like that, there is the problem. ME2 bombed us with boobs catsuits, and conveniently places zippers. I thought, no Bioware can´t go more overboard. And then EDI happened. In my mind they failed a lot. I can live with boobs. Please, at least get rid of  the heels. Do you normally build robot with heels?

So, why she had to be sexi? Because designer team was afraid players won´t like her, if she is not? Edi didn´t have to be sexi. Her character was interesting enough. The problems is that this forced sexiness chapened the character. Not just for me. For many players.  I know you are with familiar with this complain. I know your answer already. I know it´s not about EDI´s body, itś about her character. But just try to understand the reasons why other players are against it.

I talked to her, encouraged EDI to became more "human". The dialogue bored me to death. The other point, is that EDI is forced on a player. What if I don´t agree with her uploading into Eva Core´s platfom? (Btw I think someone, maybe it was you said it wasn´t even her body. I always wondered since when do scientists looks like Eva Core? Yes scientists in catsuits always blend in.)  So, why can´t I voice my dissaproval? In ME2 game you had a option to sell Legion to Cerberus. So then why I can´t say my no to EDI´s upload. I don´t  really want someone who nearly killed VS on my ship, walking around freely.  How I´m supposed to be sure, it´s only EDI and Eva Core is not hiddne somwhere. Core tricked whole Mars station. And yes I know, why EDI is there, as  you need a that type of a squadmate in case you had very very bad Suicide mission. I completely understad EDI position in the story. But that doesn´t mean I have to like it.

Also I disagree with EDI joining the Cerberus assault misson. EDI was always to able to hack the ship/stations frames from the outside. Why EDI has to be present now. Only because of one line TIM says. EDI is AI, she will be present no matter what. Can´t we just upload EDI into system as we did before? I am not even Miranda fan, but that was her place. If Miranda was there, her character arc would be closed in a great way. Miranda is too very familiar with the station. Too bad Bioware reduced her into another dying squadmate.

EDI is alive. I never said Edi is not. Edi was made to be alive. The game is all about that one. Both of them EDI and Legion are alive, because they´ve became individual beeings. And for me that´s enough to call them alive. But I dislike EDI because, from the narrative and storytelling point of a view I see her as a tool. EDI is used as a tool to present  one of the most overused and stereotyped human/robot love troopes in the history of cinema and science fiction. In a very unoriginal and overly sexi way. I am with Patrick Weekes on this one. I completely disagree with EDI´s ME3 story arc. There is no need for another Pinoccio story.  But let me get this straight. I am not really against the idea EDI is supposed to represent in the story - I´m againts the way how it was presented.

So yes, I completely disagree with the direction Bioware took with EDI in ME3. 

Modifié par Reikilea, 09 septembre 2012 - 05:23 .

[Chardonney]

Didn't take the poll. Too black and white. My opinion is somewhere in the grey area.

[Errationatus]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

It's cool.

 

Thanks.

 
You're missing your original, biological arm. You've got another one, which I'm assuming works equally well. If you feel like putting up a fuss over it, that's your right. Personally I don't care. It's an arm and I have it and I'll be using it to pick things up.

 

So would I.  I just wouldn't pretend it was mine in the way my "factory original" was, before I lost it and had it replaced with a proxy.

 
The distinction between 'real' and 'fake' doesn't make a huge amount of sense. If you created a perfect duplicate of me, then both the original and the copy would have an equally valid claim to being me.

 

Possibly.  Except one's a copy and one's the original.  However, in the millieu of this thread, it would be more accurate to say that someone built a copy of you and did an approximation of what you would think.  That would be EDI.  Not the same thing at all.

 
If I uploaded my brain to a computer the uploaded version would still consider itself 'me.'

 

It could consider itself you all it likes.  That would not change the fact that it is not you.  You are you.  It's a copy. 

 
A: Not sure about life, but personhood is based solely on the presence of intelligence, no?

 

If that were true, we should consider the non-human intelligences on Earth persons and give them the legal rights they deserve.  

Why don't we?

 
B: I guess if we're using your definitions of 'fake' and 'real' then it does. But that's a ridiculous distinction.

 

How so?  A ten dollar knockoff of a Rolex can fool you, but it's not a Rolex and never will be.  The Starry Night poster that was in my apartment in college was not a real Van Gogh, but it sure looked like one.  I never said "fake" was bad - I simply put it in its proper perspective.  Not bad, just not the real thing.  Just like a McDonald's burger only looks like one.

 
The only difference between the two is that one was there first. The being that 'mimics' intelligence can do everything you can. It can form preferences and 'feel' things with the same intensity - or with greater intensity if it becomes necessary. It can solve a problem, analyze an abstract concept, imagine something that doesn't exist, etc. Isn't that what's really important - what it can do? Or is the fact that it's not made up of meat more important to you?

 

First off, there are no machines on this planet that can do that.  Nor are there likely to be.  If they do achieve sentience, intelligence and self-determination, they will be a different order of intelligence and not like me at all.  Unto themselves they'll be unique.  They'll be the first and they might just think the same way - the same way Neanderthals and Devisonians and the Pygmy Humans are all as human as we, but not like us.  Maybe.

In fantasy, from whence your entire argument derives, the intelligence of machines is a given, and because of that, there's no real counter - of course they're alive, that universe - and its creator - permits and insists on it.

It changes nothing in an objective sense in this reality and my argument has much more a basis in fact than yours.  

Arguing from a fantasy viewpoint, and I've said this already, you're right, you win, there's no contest.  Of course EDI is alive:  Bioware says she is, boom, fait accompli.

To boil it right down, all you and I can really do is agree to disagree.

 
...you're lucky I enjoy semantics-based arguments.

Okay. Please describe the characteristics a mind must possess in order to be considered 'real.' Know in advance that if one of those characteristics is that it must be biologically evolved then I'm arguing about that particular semantic point.

This is probably going to end up like the argument over whether or not Pluto is a planet, though.

 

That's pretty much what it is, anyway.  It's all a matter of preference and perspective.  Potaytoe, potahtoe.

 
...You show up as the bad guy in a lot of science fiction I read.

Yah, in fiction.

[AlexMBrennan]

Are you implying that her in-game model defines her character?

No, but the developers intent defines both her character and her model. The fact that they went with the sexbot upgrade does suggest a few things about their ideas in other areas.

[SeptimusMagistos]

JakeMacDon wrote...

Possibly.  Except one's a copy and one's the original.  However, in the millieu of this thread, it would be more accurate to say that someone built a copy of you and did an approximation of what you would think.  That would be EDI.  Not the same thing at all.

Hm. Not sure what to say about that one.

JakeMacDon wrote...

It could consider itself you all it likes.  That would not change the fact that it is not you.  You are you.  It's a copy.

If it has all of my memories and feelings and comes to the same conclusions I would come to, then it is me. Not the original me, perhaps, but that's getting too deeply into the question of personhood.

If it doesn't then it's not me, but that's getting too deep into the question of what computers are and aren't capable of.

JakeMacDon wrote...
If that were true, we should consider the non-human intelligences on Earth persons and give them the legal rights they deserve.  

Why don't we?

Are there any? I'm pretty sure neither chimps nor dolphins measure up.

All I'm saying is there is a reason the people in Mass Effect universe recognize that the Hanar are a race of people with rights while varren aren't. If we have a principle for distinguishing people from animals, why not just use the same principle for distinguishing people from objects?

JakeMacDon wrote...
How so?  A ten dollar knockoff of a Rolex can fool you, but it's not a Rolex and never will be. 

Not strictly speaking, no. But we're discussing a situation in which the knock-off is as durable as a Rolex, tells time equally well, and looks the same. The only difference is that it wasn't actually manufactured by Rolex. I'm arguing that the distinction in such a case is utterly trivial.

Unless you're arguing that machines aren't able to replicate human thoughts well. In this case we don't exactly have a real-world case to consider but as far as EDI goes, I'd say the results speak for themselves.

JakeMacDon wrote...

First off, there are no machines on this planet that can do that.  Nor are there likely to be.  If they do achieve sentience, intelligence and self-determination, they will be a different order of intelligence and not like me at all.  Unto themselves they'll be unique.  They'll be the first and they might just think the same way - the same way Neanderthals and Devisonians and the Pygmy Humans are all as human as we, but not like us.  Maybe.

I was under the impression that we were assuming an AI which did do that, but okay. I don't see that argument reaching a satisfactory conclusion for several more generations of computer processors, so I'll end it here.

JakeMacDon wrote...
Arguing from a fantasy viewpoint, and I've said this already, you're right, you win, there's no contest.  Of course EDI is alive:  Bioware says she is, boom, fait accompli.

I'll take it.

JakeMacDon wrote...

That's pretty much what it is, anyway.  It's all a matter of preference and perspective.  Potaytoe, potahtoe.

I guess I might feel more seriously about it since I grew up on fiction that uses poor treatment of AIs as allegory for racism.

JakeMacDon wrote...

Yah, in fiction.

Well, no. If the issue existed in the real world I'd feel compelled to politically oppose any system which made decisions on the same basis you described and to furthermore consider you specifically a bad person.

Luckily it's not an issue as of yet.

JakeMacDon wrote...
To boil it right down, all you and I can really do is agree to disagree.

Yeah, okay.

I hope we can have this argument again in several decades' time.

[AlanC9]

JakeMacDon wrote...

First off, there are no machines on this planet that can do that.  Nor are there likely to be.  If they do achieve sentience, intelligence and self-determination, they will be a different order of intelligence and not like me at all.  Unto themselves they'll be unique.  They'll be the first and they might just think the same way - the same way Neanderthals and Devisonians and the Pygmy Humans are all as human as we, but not like us.  Maybe.

Is the argument here that silicon can't be used to simulate the human brain, or that doing this isn't worth doing.

[eye basher]

Edi like the geth and everyone else in the galaxy everyone are assets and all assets are expendable.

[Sejborg]

Yep

[Astralify]

Wayning_Star wrote...

MillKill wrote...

She's a machine. She's a tool. She's not alive.

Shepard is an organic Machine, He's a tool. He is not alive?

My computer is alive too.

[The Night Mammoth]

JakeMacDon wrote...

Possibly.  Except one's a copy and one's the original.  However, in the millieu of this thread, it would be more accurate to say that someone built a copy of you and did an approximation of what you would think.  That would be EDI.  Not the same thing at all.

So what exactly is EDI the approximation of? 


To me, the problem I have with the idea that EDI is just a tool is that it's almost always down to how she's apparently supposed to be a human but made of metal. 

That's probably the wrong way to look at it. She's not an imperfect attempt to make a human brain out of steel and silicon, she was created to think like a sapient being, in order to fulfill certain purpose for Cerberus and the Normandy. 

She has the ability to think like us, but doesn't have the experience and context to be exactly like us, and has experiences and context of her own. 

But she can learn, think emotionally, subjectively, logically, analyze and judge, think in abstract terms. She's certainly our equal, just different, and it'swrong in my opinion to think of her like she's supposed to be the same. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 10 septembre 2012 - 12:32 .

[The RPGenius]

Being "alive" is a condition that's determined through something meeting certain scientifically-accepted criteria. EDI does not meet these criteria well enough to qualify as being "alive." There is, however, no denying that she is, and has been since her introduction in ME2, a person. It is also fair to assume that the qualifiers for being "alive" in a future with actual AI will not necessarily remain static, so "alive" might be more of a judgment call by Mass Effect's time. If we look at it that way, yes, she's "alive," as well.

[Treacherous J Slither]

These three things are what science uses to determine life:

Metabolic processes
Reaction to the environment
Ability to replicate

EDI runs on electricity
Reacts to her environment on an even higher level than we do
Something that is effectively immortal has no need to reproduce.

EDI is a life form. Different from us and arguably superior, but still alive.

[nategator]

Well, since in ME "persons" are mostly tools to string power attacks or remove shields, why can't she be both?

No one could be a bigger tool in the ME universe than Vega