265 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

No human that has ever lived has been an order of magnitude more intelligent than you or I. I would trust your ability to predict Stephen Hawking's intent much more than I would trust your capability to predict how a hyperintelligent alien feels about letting our species exist.

That isnt my point. You are relegating the propensity for danger to synthetics, when we have just as much proof that organics are just as dangerous.

I agree with you in broad philosophical terms, but I do believe that in the real world some fields of science need to restricted. (For example, I personally am not wild about the idea of Iranian scientists researching nuclear weapons.)

What you are talking about though is moral implications onto said science. Well sure, morals should be upheld, but the "fears" born out of robots is something that could be applied to any science(specifically the dangers of particle physics).

To take the approach you are describing, could be placed on anything, science. To restrict research of 1 science because of some one/group is to restrict all sciences, based on somones fears of what "may" happen.

[111987]

Leem_0001 wrote...

So Legion is an expert on what happens after humans are melted into go? Um...no.

And I didn't see anyhting in game about the Virtual Aliens - so was that on the Cerberus Daily News of something? If so I missed it. Even so, I'll take on board the comments about the VA's, but I'll raise you what the Catalyst says when discussing the Control ending:


“You will die – you will control us but you will lose everything you have...your connection to your kind will be lost.”
Bioware went pretty far out of their way to get across the point that Shepard is dead (Catalyst specifically states this). Even though his memories and personality is carried over, he is dead. Same thing with the people who are harvested and, I'd wager, the VA's that you mention. Something lives on, but it is not the being that was before. That is dead, even though its memories and knowladge are passed on. But that being is dead. Again, refer what the Catalyst says. He uses the word 'die'. There is no room for movement here. It is dead. Get that?

That is in game too. Undisputable. And it proves that all the people that are harvested die. So they have been killed. Whatever lives on is something different.

So all this talk of harvesting being different to killing is therefore null and void.

Deal with it.

Legion is more of a expert on it than anyone else we've seen, as they have interacted with the mind of a Reaper (Sovereign). You can't just dismiss what he says. He is certain of what he is saying, otherwise he would have said otherwise.

Yeah, the VA's were in Cerberus Daily News so it's perfectly understandable why you wouldn't have heard of them. But they are considered a canon part of ME lore.

Also, I don't remember every saying that the harvested people continue to live on afterwards. Of course, biologically, as in their bodies, they die. It'd be like control were memory and knowledge live on.

[Meltemph]

Legion is more of a expert on it than anyone else we've seen, as they have interacted with the mind of a Reaper (Sovereign). You can't just dismiss what he says. He is certain of what he is saying, otherwise he would have said otherwise.

Yeah, the VA's were in Cerberus Daily News so it's perfectly understandable why you wouldn't have heard of them. But they are considered a canon part of ME lore.

Also, I don't remember every saying that the harvested people continue to live on afterwards. Of course, biologically, as in their bodies, they die. It'd be like control were memory and knowledge live on.

So are you arguing that the exact same minds of the people who were killed to make a reaper are the exact same minds that are now what make up the reaper?

[78stonewobble]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...
Can you give me a rational explanation for an AI wanting to waste, what amounts to trillions upon trillions of AI lives or years of lives of energy and materials on such a project? 

Yes: by preventing advanced organic civilisation from recurring, it permanently removes the risk of being attacked by an advanced organic civilisatoin.

Also, the point of a Von Neumann probe is that it is self-replicating.  Once you have built one, it then builds its own descendants using resources it finds.  You only have to build the first generation; all the others build themselves.  So the cost of the scheme is not nearly so high as you think.

In addition, the Von Neumann probes can serve other functions (such as surveillance) so it will probably send them out anyway.  Why not arm them?

So: three rational reasons.  Now, before you argue that the superintelligent AI would definitely not do that, I want to ask you a question back.  Why is it you are so certain that you can accurately predict the actions and behaviours of an intelligence vastly superior to your own?  Bear in mind you are risking everybody else in the galaxy's life on your ability to say with authority that you can do this.  What makes you qualified to do so?

Note: We are not talking about the Reapers here. We are talking about the creation of a hypothetical advanced AI that the Reapers exist and work to prevent.

They specifically state all organics rather than just advanced organic civilisation. So a lot of non-threats get wiped out as well.



If the supposed AI can become impossibly powerfull (unbeatable) there is no reason to eradicate the advanced organic civilisation since they are simply no threat. This assumes that AI can develop higher technological levels than organic beings ever could.

Presumably this AI would be so powerfull that in itself it is a deterrent to any attack from advanced organic races.



If the supposed AI can only become very powerfull (but beatable) there is even more reason to instead develop a somewhat peacefull relationship with the varying advanced organic societies. Rather than engaging in a war it might not win. This kind of invalidates what the reaper/catalyst statements though.

This is like the Geth. They are certainly powerfull but with the threat of survival gone there is no need to waste ressources on a conflict.



Von Neumann probes do consume ressources and in time huge amounts of ressources. They are obviously, as you point out, the way to go. If you really want to clean the universe of every cell and piece of self replicating dna.

However... If you want something else. Like a giant AI video arcade (or whatever an AI would want?) you now have the galactic ressources available but minus all the ressources that went into a gazillion von neuman probes.

Indeed they might even spark conflict. Ressources are one of the few things even rational beings will fight over due to survival.



You are right that I have no experiences that come even close to begin describing how an incredibly powerfull AI would work, think, prioritise, feel?, be happy about or what not.

The only thing I CAN do is look at the experiences that I do have available and try to extrapolate and that means looking at humans. Faulty as we may be we do have a little logic and rationality (which is normally associated with AI's) and we do have feelings (which is not normally associated with AI). However, as you say, we don't know and thus both might be present in an advanced enough AI.

In general in humans (today) we don't see:

Very weak people/nations throw themselves at incredibly strong (relatively) people/nations to the point of annihilation. Eg. Luxemburg never declared war on the United States.

Incredibly strong people/nations sacrificing ressources to wipe out someone not a threat. Eg. The United States have never wiped out Luxemburg.

There are exceptions, throughout our history especially, but in hind sight we tend to view these people as being faulty in a way. They were crazy, irrational or had some kind of emotionally based value system that most people today reject.

Reasonably rational or wellbalanced and intelligent people don't run around killing other people and/or wipe out all ants in the world because they had ants in the kitchen.

An analogue, also to fate of everyone in the galaxy:

The life of you, your family, your friends or heck your nation depends on your next door neighbour not being a homicidal nutbag building a nuclear bomb in his spare time.

So why haven't you killed your neighbor? Or all neighbours anywhere, since they could be one too?

The, somewhat, rational reasons to not do this that might be extrapolated to an AI would be.

The odds are extremely low.
Most neighbours are nice people and might even be a positive thing to your existence.
You could go to prison or worse which is basically an end to your life.
Or it would make your own life worthless since, rather than killing you would much rather have spent the time and energy playing me3. Or in the geth case playing me3 multiplayer in their spanking new dysons sphere.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 18 janvier 2013 - 11:30 .

[Leem_0001]

111987 wrote...

[Also, I don't remember every saying that the harvested people continue to live on afterwards. Of course, biologically, as in their bodies, they die. It'd be like control were memory and knowledge live on.

Ah, then I think we were arguing two different points here my friend. I was coming from the perspective that when posters on here say that the Reapers kill what they harvest, they are correct in what they say. It was an argument to those who say 'no, if they are harvested they are not dead', making a distinction between the two. I agree, and am on board with, the notion that something is passed on, but the original organic is dead.

I think we may have been missing each other points during this back and forth.

[Thomas Andresen]

Science Fiction literature have a long tradition of having ambiguous and philosophical approach, and quite often, when not directly dystopian, leaning towards a dystopian outlook on society, culture, government, business/industry, or even evolution. Star Wars is not a good example of common Science Fiction practices (speaking of which, suddenly any regrets I might have had for not seeing this is gone).

What most Science Fiction works have in common is that they rarely have any answers, not to mention any form of closure. An excellent example of this is The Space Merchants, which is widely considered as being one of the best Science Fiction works of all time, so I'll continue drawing a bit from that novel. Much of what goes on and what is explained in the novel doesn't fit to any logic that might fit into present time, or the time when it was written, for that matter. Personally, I would consider the ending of the novel both abrupt and ambiguous, and the only matter that was really resolved was the relationship between the protagonist and his wife. Did I say this is widely considered as one of the best Science Fiction works of all time? Yes, I believe I did.

Why is Science Fiction literature relevant? One of BioWare's derivative goals is to make video games a platform for storytelling to measure up against other venues for storytelling.

[Leem_0001]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Science Fiction literature have a long tradition of having ambiguous and philosophical approach, and quite often, when not directly dystopian, leaning towards a dystopian outlook on society, culture, government, business/industry, or even evolution. Star Wars is not a good example of common Science Fiction practices (speaking of which, suddenly any regrets I might have had for not seeing this is gone).

What most Science Fiction works have in common is that they rarely have any answers, not to mention any form of closure. An excellent example of this is The Space Merchants, which is widely considered as being one of the best Science Fiction works of all time, so I'll continue drawing a bit from that novel. Much of what goes on and what is explained in the novel doesn't fit to any logic that might fit into present time, or the time when it was written, for that matter. Personally, I would consider the ending of the novel both abrupt and ambiguous, and the only matter that was really resolved was the relationship between the protagonist and his wife. Did I say this is widely considered as one of the best Science Fiction works of all time? Yes, I believe I did.

Why is Science Fiction literature relevant? One of BioWare's derivative goals is to make video games a platform for storytelling to measure up against other venues for storytelling.

That argument may have held water if the other 90 percent of the trilogy was set up that way. Unfortunately it was not, so the ending feels forced and tacked on. It doesnt fit with what came before. Sci fi is a large genre, so comparing ME with other sci fi works that are different in style and theme just doesnt work.

[Thomas Andresen]

Leem_0001 wrote...

That argument may have held water if the other 90 percent of the trilogy was set up that way. Unfortunately it was not, so the ending feels forced and tacked on.

Then I am sorry that you feel that way. Because that conflicts with how I have always viewed the series. The way I've felt the story, there's always been a philosophical and thought-provoking undertone, so the ending didn't add anything new for me. I didn't think the undertone was all too subtle, but evidently, it was. The ending might have been clumsily handled, but to call it stupid is exasperatingly narrow-minded.

[Leem_0001]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...

That argument may have held water if the other 90 percent of the trilogy was set up that way. Unfortunately it was not, so the ending feels forced and tacked on.

Then I am sorry that you feel that way. Because that conflicts with how I have always viewed the series. The way I've felt the story, there's always been a philosophical and thought-provoking undertone, so the ending didn't add anything new for me. I didn't think the undertone was all too subtle, but evidently, it was. The ending might have been clumsily handled, but to call it stupid is exasperatingly narrow-minded.

No, it is not narrow-minded at all, it is simply that I am willing to voice my opinion and that I am not willing to except something sub par and tout it as a work of genius (or even being good), just because the creators have a great track record.
The theme and issue of organics vs synthetics was always a side theme at most. Fact. The main theme was unification through diveristy. And this is a fact because every game focused on it. A theme that champions the idea that species can work together despite their differences, indeed that diversity should be celebrated, to achieve a greater good. To put past differences aside. This theme was also extremely applicable to todays world where a lot of people seem unwilling to let go of the past and accept different beliefs and cultures.
However, with the forced and warped 'logic' of the catalyst, the ending suddenly spits in the face of everything Bioware was trying to say in the previous 95% of the series.
In the Synthesis ending diversity is erradicated as organics and synthetics become one. An idea Bioware initially thought was a bad thing as it was the motivation of the antagonist in ME1 - Saren - and something we were fighting against. Yet the ending suddenly tries to say it is okay. This sudden switch, in the last few minutes of the trilogy, is horrible storytelling.
In Control a species of great power is enslaved and controlled. An idea Bioware initially thought was a bad thing as it was the motivation of one of the antagonists in ME2 & ME3, and also covered in the indoctrination plotlines.It is an idea wer were fighting against. Yet the ending suddenly tries to say it is okay. This sudden switch, in the last few minutes of the trilogy, is horrible storytelling.
In Destroy it seems synthetics are deemed as less important than organics as their destruction is acceptable, despite working with them in ME2 & ME3, and despite Bioware seemingly trying to say previously in the series that organics and synthetics can live and work together. It goes against what you were working towards during your unificaiton through diversity by saying it is okay to sacrifice one particular type of life to save another. The ending suddenly tries to say it is okay. This sudden switch, in the last few minutes of the trilogy, is - have you guessed it? - horrible storytelling.
So please do not insinuate it was somehow a case of a side theme being too sublte for me to pick up on. I simply know good storytelling and this is not it.
If Bioware wanted the whole series to be about synthetics vs organics and if they can truely co-exist, then they should have worked the series to suit that idea.  
They made a mess of it, plain and simple.
Then, of course, there are our choices and how, when all is said and done, they didn't really matter at all. And the 16 different endings where we don't simply pick A, B, or C...but maybe that is for another thread.

[RiouHotaru]

Steelcan wrote...

Except for the part where he tells us in very plain language. The Reapers are here to kill you so you don't make synthetics that kill you.

It isn't confusing or anything, it's just plain flat out stupid.

This is actually the part that gets people.  The Catalyst's mandate is to "preserve organic life at all cost".  It says absolutely NOTHING about living.  In the Catalyst's programming, the most important part is the culture, intellect, and experience.  Unfortunately, this comes at the cost of the physical body.

Remember, Synthesis proves the civilizations that are a part of each Reaper are fully intact AND aware.  I'm not saying I agree with the Catalyst's actions, it's distasteful, and obviously, as Shepard said, "we prefer to keep our form", but that just shows the difference between the Catalyst and Shepard, organic and synthetic.  The Catalyst cannot comprehend us keeping our physical forms, just as we cannot comprehend giving it up to be a Reaper.

[Leem_0001]

RiouHotaru wrote...

This is actually the part that gets people.  The Catalyst's mandate is to "preserve organic life at all cost".  It says absolutely NOTHING about living.  In the Catalyst's programming, the most important part is the culture, intellect, and experience.  Unfortunately, this comes at the cost of the physical body.

I have many, many problems with the ending, and lots of issues with what I see as the catalysts shoddy logic - but this part I do agree with.

The points I was making with regards to people being dead after being harvested was aimed at people saying there was a difference. That you werent acutally dead after being harvested. That I disagreed with.

[Fistleaf]

The Reapers are just following instructions: preserve organic life = preserve organic DNA. The Reapers are just a Noah's ark containing the DNA of all life. Synthetics do not have the concept of right or wrong.

[Ultranovae]

Well, in a way I think you're right at least as far a most if the BSN goes.
The catalyst is trying it explain to Shepard that no matter how many times momentary peace between organics and synthetics or how many times the organics have seemingly turned the tide against the synthetics, the conflict between creators and created always ends up in the destruction of the creators. In time, synthetics would annihilate all organic life even the possibility for new life.
The cycles were created not to prevent the current destruction of current life, but to manage the destruction so as to prevent the complete annihilation of all possible life.
The catalyst has seen it happen again and again. He's got the data to back it. We lack the experience and perspective.
Although, if the catalyst is giving us the chance to destroy the reapers it's because it considers this cycle is different and will be different from the others as long as the current batch of synthetics is destroyed. Wy he couldn't simply call them off and police wars between organics and synthetics I suppose it's because oh ****, plot hole! Nurse!

[78stonewobble]

Fistleaf wrote...

The Reapers are just following instructions: preserve organic life = preserve organic DNA. The Reapers are just a Noah's ark containing the DNA of all life. Synthetics do not have the concept of right or wrong.

No they're not quite doing that.

They are only taking the dna and/or, as some think, the consciousnesses from organics that have developed to a certain point.

They leave certain beings and civilisations alone. For the next cycle.

EDIT and PS: 

I don't necessarily agree with synthetics not having a concept of right and wrong.

Granted, a synthetic that is only pre-programmed and cannot improve it's thinking (eg. learn) will only have whatever concept of right and wrong that it was programmed with.

An artificial intelligence on the other hand that is capable of forming new thoughts could theoretically and easily form it's own concepts of right and wrong.

Though it's definitions would not necessarily be the same as ours.

Even among humans there is a variety of interpretations of right and wrong.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 19 janvier 2013 - 02:11 .

[78stonewobble]

Ultranovae wrote...

Well, in a way I think you're right at least as far a most if the BSN goes.
The catalyst is trying it explain to Shepard that no matter how many times momentary peace between organics and synthetics or how many times the organics have seemingly turned the tide against the synthetics, the conflict between creators and created always ends up in the destruction of the creators. In time, synthetics would annihilate all organic life even the possibility for new life.
The cycles were created not to prevent the current destruction of current life, but to manage the destruction so as to prevent the complete annihilation of all possible life.
The catalyst has seen it happen again and again. He's got the data to back it. We lack the experience and perspective.
Although, if the catalyst is giving us the chance to destroy the reapers it's because it considers this cycle is different and will be different from the others as long as the current batch of synthetics is destroyed. Wy he couldn't simply call them off and police wars between organics and synthetics I suppose it's because oh ****, plot hole! Nurse!

He supposedly have observational data to back it up.

We only have his testament to the fact.

All other indications are that he is wrong.

Indeed, if it had happened, even once, that AI's could develop into something unimaginably powerfull AND something that, for completely arbitrary non-rational reasons to eradicate all organics. From bacteria to blue whales on every planet, moon, asteroid, rock, space dust flake in the galaxy.

Then, there would be only that AI left. There wouldn't be any bacteria left to develop into leviathans to develop the reapers.

There are organics in the me universe and thus they have never been wiped out. IE. the catalyst must presuambly be lying.

Unless the supposedly godly and evil AI just left the universe alone and let life develop all over again (or left large parts of it alone). Meaning that what the reapers are trying to prevent isn't that bad. Then it was just an evolution where organics lost or maybe it was a natural side to evolution.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 19 janvier 2013 - 01:43 .

[thehomeworld]

Ok so Sovereign says we're each a nation independent with free thought and will

The kid says he controls them and they're mindless AI that doesn't' sound like independent, free thinking machines.

Sov says their motives and logic transcend our own

The kids circular logic is so horrible it shuts down the brain processing abilities so score one for the kid. I was made to stop machines from killing their makers so I killed my makers and then I sent my machines back every 50K to kill organics cuz if I dont' kill them their machines will.

Harbi says shep will be his in mind and body. This displays Harbi having a will and agenda of his own.

Star kid lets shep kill or control them soooo shep can actually have Harbi's mind and body!

Sov says you live because we allow it and you'll end because we demand it

Kid allows you to kill him, control them, or join them doesn't sound like he's allowing or demanding much.

Sov reached out on his own to get the geth to his side the geth identify him as Nazara not the catalyst or star brat

Sov was on a solo mission to get into the citadel so why didn't the kid just let his own machine he woke up come in?

There are way more examples where the kid is a retcon of all retcons.