406 réponses à ce sujet

[Errationatus]

[quote]SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Hm. Not sure what to say about that one.
[/quote] 

You say, "Well, Jake, it's been infuriating and annoying, but at least you weren't a total jackass.  Thanks for trying to have an intelligent conversation."



[quote] 
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.
[/quote] 

Indeedy.

[quote] 
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.
[/quote] 

...which we won't know until it's actually achieved.

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

The evidence is mounting from the various sources I've read. Nothing conclusive, though.  Another interesting speculation - ala computer minds - is what if we were to increase non-human animal intelligences?  Similar situation?

[quote]  
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?
[/quote]  

Well, hanar and varren are different orders of intelligence.  There is, however, no doubt that both are living creatures. Even in the ME universe, there is doubt that machines are - no matter how smart they are.  

Of course, one can always say that a varren is as intelligent as it needs to be - to be a successful varren.

Perhaps machines may be judged the same way.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not hostile to the idea of machine intelligence, I just need more than wishful thinking and overly-broad definitions.  I'd need proof, although I admit I'm not quite sure exactly what kind of proof I'd accept at this juncture.

[quote]  
Not strictly speaking, no.
[/quote]  

Here's the rub.  I am strictly speaking.  
 
[quote]  
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.
[/quote]  

Not if it's my five grand it isn't.

[quote]  
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.
[/quote]  

I can still say that she imitates us well, and that's all she's doing.  You say if she can fool us, what's the difference? 

How about this: Forget Data - was that doctor on ST: Voyager a person?  Was the computer-driven hologram a person?  A mind?  If he was, the entire computer of Voyager was, no?  If it wasn't - especially wth the computing power to write and modify that holodoc, why wasn't it?  Everytime they took Voyager into battle, where was the asking for permission to risk the ship? Did they even care?  Not only was it intelligent, it could create intelligence and give it form! Was every ship in Starfleet with a holodeck capable of this?  

What happens in this scenario?  Different case than EDI or the same?  Why?

[quote]  
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.
[/quote]  

Cool.  Until there are real-world examples... - who knows, maybe quantum computers will make it happen.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]  

And I grew up on fiction where they used aliens.  Or elves.  Or dwarves.  Allegories are handy like that.  As long as it isn't us, it's viable.  

Like I said, your bias is showing.  It's not a bad thing as long as you're aware it is a bias.

[quote]  
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.
[/quote]  

I wouldn't, obviously, consider myself a bad person if I choose to save a living person over a synthetic proxy for one.  

Of course, I'd have to know one to see one...

[quote]  
Yeah, okay.

I hope we can have this argument again in several decades' time.
[/quote]

That would be cool.  

[Errationatus]

AlanC9 wrote...

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

I would think neither, really, not in the strictest sense.  

The key word, however, is "simulate".  My friend Septimus thinks that (I'm paraphrasing) a faithful simulation is as good, and I say it's not, that a simulation is all it would ever be.

As to whether it's worth doing?  People complained about creating and using cars, planes and spacecraft, giving women the vote and allowing black people to be considered human.

Still working on gays, lesbians and atheists, though.  One step at a time.

[Errationatus]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

So what exactly is EDI the approximation of? 

  

I believe the argument is she's an approximation of a mind - and a good enough one to be considered a person. Some of us disagree.

  
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. 

  

I was unaware that Bioware had made that distinction.

  
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. 

  

Think like is not thinking as.

  
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. 

The crux of the argument is that should she be considered an equal?  Some say no, some say yes.  I say no, with provisions.

[Dendio1]

She's a machine that ive grown attached to and protect. Like my gaming laptop...or rosie to the jetsons

Modifié par Dendio1, 10 septembre 2012 - 05:09 .

[AlanC9]

JakeMacDon wrote...
I would think neither, really, not in the strictest sense.  

The key word, however, is "simulate".  My friend Septimus thinks that (I'm paraphrasing) a faithful simulation is as good, and I say it's not, that a simulation is all it would ever be.

Heh. OK. How about virtualization? Individual neurons aren't exactly hard things to model. Do them all and you've got the brain.

Though our criteria for deciding what's a "mind" and what isn't, and why this matters in the first place, are so crappy that I don't think this can actually go anywhere.

As to whether it's worth doing?  People complained about creating and using cars, planes and spacecraft, giving women the vote and allowing black people to be considered human.

Not quite where I was going with that. The point I wanted to make was that we've already got human thought; if I was making AI my goal would be making something better rather than more of the same.

[RadicalDisconnect]

Reikilea wrote...

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. 

There will always be people who dislike certain characters. I'm completely fine with people disliking EDI. I'm completely fine with people disliking the direction Bioware took with her. There are groan-worthy aspects of her character. However, I have to call out BS statements when I see them.

If you dislike her because you think she's boring and unoriginal, that's perfectly fine. If you dislike her due to her sexualized body, that's perfectly fine. If you dislike her character regardless of her in-game model, that's perfectly fine. Implying that her character is defined by her in-game model is a questionable sentiment that I feel compelled to challenge. My previous post was not meant to delegitimize people's dislike for EDI. It was meant to point out the flaws in some of your statements about her. I apologize for the caustic language in my previous post, but I've grown edgy after seeing many of the same statements.

Didn't I say I also disliked how sexualized her body is? Believe me, I went into ME3 fully expecting to despise her because I was under the assumption that her character and dialogue would heavily reflect that body. However, I was happy to be proven wrong. Again, if you look at her dialogue, it will remain almost the exact same even if she didn't get a horribly sexualized body. However, now that I see that your dislike for EDI isn't dependent on her in-game model, I am fine with that.

As for Cronos Station, I'm not sure why you brought it up. Just to clear up any confusion, I wasn't talking about the actual mission itself. I'm impartial towards your proposal.

I agree with you on several points. EDI's introduction is poorly done, i.e. seizing control of Eva Core's body and not asking for permission to continue using it. I also agree that her story arc is lacking in originality. It follows along much of the same lines as Commander Data. However, given her background and environment, she at least has reasons to go that direction while the geth have no excuse for wanting individuality seemingly out of the blue.

As a side note, by saying that you agree with Patrick Weekes, I suppose you're referencing this interview?
"...do we really need her [EDI] to turn into Commander Data? We had seven seasons of Data, that was enough."

Well, Mr. Weekes made this followup tweet after the interview.
"Also doesn't include second half of my response in re EDI: I WAS nervous, but I thought Chris Hepler aced her continuing character arc."

Nevertheless, I understand if you still dislike EDI due to lack of originality; that is a valid complaint.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 10 septembre 2012 - 10:03 .

[Endorlf]

Dendio1 wrote...

She's a machine that ive grown attached to and protect. Like my gaming laptop...or rosie to the jetsons

You and an amoeba have as much in common as EDI and a gaming laptop.

Modifié par Endorlf, 11 septembre 2012 - 08:39 .

[The Night Mammoth]

JakeMacDon wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

So what exactly is EDI the approximation of? 

  

I believe the argument is she's an approximation of a mind - and a good enough one to be considered a person. Some of us disagree.

I'm not entirely sure how anyone can disagree. There's nothing in either games that shows her in any way not a 'person' other than the fact that she's not made of the same material as us. 

  
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. 

  

I was unaware that Bioware had made that distinction.

I was unaware BioWare didn't either. 

  
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. 

  

Think like is not thinking as.

Erm....... I'm not aware of the difference. 

  
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. 

The crux of the argument is that should she be considered an equal?  Some say no, some say yes.  I say no, with provisions.

I'm not entirely sure what makes her unworthy of being considered equal. What exactly is it about her? Because she's evidently capable of everything mentally that any other character in the game is, or has demnstrated the ability to learn. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 10 septembre 2012 - 10:17 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

JakeMacDon wrote...
You say, "Well, Jake, it's been infuriating and annoying, but at least you weren't a total jackass.  Thanks for trying to have an intelligent conversation."

Actually it hasn't been annoying at all. You're one of the first people I've talked to about this subject who didn't just answer with a knee-jerk response. This was a good talk.

JakeMacDon wrote...

I can still say that she imitates us well, and that's all she's doing.  You say if she can fool us, what's the difference? 

How about this: Forget Data - was that doctor on ST: Voyager a person?  Was the computer-driven hologram a person?  A mind?  If he was, the entire computer of Voyager was, no?  If it wasn't - especially wth the computing power to write and modify that holodoc, why wasn't it?  Everytime they took Voyager into battle, where was the asking for permission to risk the ship? Did they even care?  Not only was it intelligent, it could create intelligence and give it form! Was every ship in Starfleet with a holodeck capable of this?  

What happens in this scenario?  Different case than EDI or the same?  Why?

I've been given to understand that Star Trek isn't exactly partial to artificial intelligence. Given that Data had to prove he was a person, I'm frankly disappointed in the fine people of the Federation.

But as for the other thing: sure. If the ship's computer is equivalent to an AI and not just a VI, it should absolutely get combat pay and the ability to transfer into a safer occupation if it so desires. That's part of the reason I was upset with Cerberus for shackling EDI - I wasn't going to have an AI on my ship unless it was fully independent. No override commands; no safety switches. I'm not having anyone serve with a gun to their head.

Modifié par SeptimusMagistos, 10 septembre 2012 - 10:28 .

[Clayless]

Threads like this actually make me angry as it's clear she's a perfectly alive being. No other topic of conversation on this site makes me angry except this one.

The stupidity on people that try to say she's not alive because she's made from different materials is actually astounding.

[Kastrenzo]

I APPRECIATE THAT LEGION, BUT THE GETH ARE NOT ALIVE, THEY ARE MACHINES, MACHINES THAT GOT HACKED. AND NEED TO BE DESTROYED,

Pretty much the same argument applies to EDI IMO, Not alive, just a smart machine that imitates life.
Didn't want to kill the Geth or EDI, But if it meant sending the reapers to hell, boom.

[The Night Mammoth]

Kastrenzo wrote...

I APPRECIATE THAT LEGION, BUT THE GETH ARE NOT ALIVE, THEY ARE MACHINES, MACHINES THAT GOT HACKED. AND NEED TO BE DESTROYED,

Pretty much the same argument applies to EDI IMO, Not alive, just a smart machine that imitates life.
Didn't want to kill the Geth or EDI, But if it meant sending the reapers to hell, boom.

A really smart machine. 

Smarter than me or you. 

That's a really good actor. 

[DirtySHISN0]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

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.

allowing it some more time to sink in.

[Virginian]

My definition of humanoid life requires 2 things sapience & sentience.

EDI has or showed great wisdom or sound judgment.
EDI has the power of perception by the senses and is aware of her own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

She actively questioned her own existence, sought another's advice on whether or not she should date Joker, she had questioned her morality.

Ere go EDI is alive.

If EDI is not alive neither are you, neither is your mother, father, Shepard, or anyone on the the Normandy.

Modifié par Virginian, 11 septembre 2012 - 10:30 .

[Haargel]

I consider her ( "it?") alive.

[Harorrd]

she is a intelligent tool, and she died

[TheJediSaint]

EDI was a person, or at least developed into a person by the end of the game. I was sorry that she, along with the Geth, had to be sacrificed in order to rid the universe of the Reapers.

[Virginian]

Harorrd wrote...

she is a intelligent tool, and she died

She was murdered.

TheJediSaint wrote...

EDI was a person, or at least developed into a person by the end of the game. I was sorry that she, along with the Geth, had to be sacrificed in order to rid the universe of the Reapers.

Murdered.

[Legbiter]

It is a full AI. It's sapient but not alive. A hyper-advanced toaster/sexbot if you will. Based on Reaper code.

[VaultingFrog]

Are we more than our thoughts?

[Errationatus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Heh. OK. How about virtualization? Individual neurons aren't exactly hard things to model. Do them all and you've got the brain.

Though our criteria for deciding what's a "mind" and what isn't, and why this matters in the first place, are so crappy that I don't think this can actually go anywhere.

 

You've hit it squarely on the head - that's the tricky bit.

 
Not quite where I was going with that. The point I wanted to make was that we've already got human thought; if I was making AI my goal would be making something better rather than more of the same.

See, AI as a verifiable different order of intelligence doesn't bother me.  In that sense the criteria for "alive" changes.  In that sense, EDI would move from a construct to an alien consciousness.  Different story, in my opinion.

[SeptimusMagistos]

JakeMacDon wrote...

See, AI as a verifiable different order of intelligence doesn't bother me.  In that sense the criteria for "alive" changes.  In that sense, EDI would move from a construct to an alien consciousness.  Different story, in my opinion.

I think that's basically what most of us are advocating? (with the stipulation that even though it's alien you still have an obligation to be nice to it).

Although since it's you, I'm going to have to ask that you specify what you mean by 'verifiable.'

[AlanC9]

JakeMacDon wrote...
I can still say that she imitates us well, and that's all she's doing.  You say if she can fool us, what's the difference? 

How about this: Forget Data - was that doctor on ST: Voyager a person?  Was the computer-driven hologram a person?  A mind?  If he was, the entire computer of Voyager was, no?  If it wasn't - especially wth the computing power to write and modify that holodoc, why wasn't it?  Everytime they took Voyager into battle, where was the asking for permission to risk the ship? Did they even care?  Not only was it intelligent, it could create intelligence and give it form! Was every ship in Starfleet with a holodeck capable of this?  

Looks like Voyager pretty much said yes to that. See episodes Author, Author and Endgame. Which imply that the Federation is kidding itself about AI's potential for life, and has been for quite some time

However, the potential for life is not itself life. If a ship doesn't have a program that's considered life, it isn't alive. And I'm not sure we can call the whole computer alive just because one of its component programs is.

Though really, I'm not sure this all proves anything except that the definition of "life" in the Trek universe is just as crappy as the one we're using.

Larry Niven's used the term "Legal Entity." Anything's a person if the legal system says it is.

[Errationatus]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I'm not entirely sure how anyone can disagree.

 

Well, I had thought I'd made a decently clear case as for why I do.

 
There's nothing in either games that shows her in any way not a 'person' other than the fact that she's not made of the same material as us. 

 

That's the thing:  in the games, in that universe's rules, she can be considered a person. Extrapolating out in the the "real" world, that's a smidge more tricky, IMO.

 

I was unaware BioWare didn't either.

 

Bioware, if I'm not mistaken, had always intended for EDI to end where she did - a thinking entity whose sole purpose is to make us consider our final decisions with a smidge more care.

Regardless, I pick "Destroy" 7 times out of 10.

 
Erm....... I'm not aware of the difference. 

 

Thinking like is emulation.  Thinking as is not.  To be more cogent:  We think 'as' one another because we both possess organic brains and minds.   Thinking 'like' would be an attempt to say, portray you on stage.  That's what I mean by that distinction.

 

I'm not entirely sure what makes her unworthy of being considered equal.
 

 

How are you applying "equal" here?  In many ways, her computational abilities far outstrip a human mind - they're superior.  She's more durable.  She doesn't require sustenance or atmosphere.  She never tires nor requires sleep. Again, she can be considered clearly superior.  Wasn't that the problem to begin with?

 

 
What exactly is it about her? Because she's evidently capable of everything mentally that any other character in the game is, or has demnstrated the ability to learn. 

Again, from my perspective, EDI is not smart.  She learns nothing because she isn't a she, she's an artifical construct running a series of sophisticated programs that emulate all the things people insist make her worthy of personhood.  I say the same criteria disqualifies her.

Pixels emulate images.  The image you see on your screen is not what your eyes see when you look out a window. One is vision, one is emulation.

Of course, listening to some theoretical folks, even that's iffy.

Nothing's really definitive, but that doesn't make it any less interesting to contemplate.

[Errationatus]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Actually it hasn't been annoying at all. You're one of the first people I've talked to about this subject who didn't just answer with a knee-jerk response. This was a good talk.

 

Thanks.  Appreciated.

 
I've been given to understand that Star Trek isn't exactly partial to artificial intelligence.  

 

Frank Herbert's Dune series had an interesting take on AI as well.

 
Given that Data had to prove he was a person, I'm frankly disappointed in the fine people of the Federation.

 

Technically, aliens have to prove their status as well, to join the Federation.  Can't be too religious or aggressive - unless they need you.  *cough*Klingons*cough*

 
But as for the other thing: sure. If the ship's computer is equivalent to an AI and not just a VI, it should absolutely get combat pay and the ability to transfer into a safer occupation if it so desires.
 

 

Except for one episode - which was kindy dodgy - Fed computers are never portrayed as anything other than VI-level. So that EMH and the Holmesian eps were also kinda dodgy.

 
That's part of the reason I was upset with Cerberus for shackling EDI - I wasn't going to have an AI on my ship unless it was fully independent. No override commands; no safety switches. I'm not having anyone serve with a gun to their head.

I think it was more like she was in a straightjacket than a gun.