359 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Uh-huh. So tell me, is it possible for synthetics to have 'true emotions'?

I'll let Sten take it

[David7204]

Okay? And? Are you under the impression that this is somehow uncommon? That it's uncommon for writers to have their work altered by editors or executives? Or that everything writers poop out is pure magic only to be torn apart by those stupid silly editors and executives? No.

These examples are pointless because they prove utterly nothing. Yes, some things were in the game that probably shouldn't have been. Does that prove that anything considered to be 'cool' is a mistake? Absolutely not, that's utterly ridiculous. It's completely absurd to claim that anything considered 'cool' must automatically be stupid and immature and inconsistent. But that's exactly what you're doing.

These claims that anything put it that goes against what a single writer may want or anything that's cool must automatically be a mistake are preposterious.

Modifié par David7204, 03 août 2013 - 10:58 .

[3DandBeyond]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Why do the geth and EDI have emotion? Because we are supposed to like and empathize with them. Even pity them. Easiest way to do that is to make them appear human-like which is the only version of intelligent life we know and can imagine.

Pretty hard for a writer to come up with something truly alien. Chris L'Étoile's geth were probably the closest thing to alien ME had.

I had greater appreciation for them before they were anthropomorphized. The total betrayal of their ME2 characterization made me lose what little respect I'd come to have for them. I'd have liked it better had they gone with Chris' concept, where Legion didn't have Shepard's armor and wasn't "obsessed" with him. And don't get me started on EDI's "transformation"...

Well that's the thing.  This constant skewed view of what AIs or synthetic life would look like.  It's organo-centric.  It's the same thing that seems to stagnate science in other aspects.  Whereas imagination would tell you that life can take on many forms and even created life might diverge greatly from its creator, we live with ideas that are hung up on everything being created in its creator's image.  No.  Just no.  Sure, someone will create an AI that looks like himself and maybe sounds the same or even acts like or contains similar interests and even a pseudo-personality.  But give that creation autonomy and she/he/it may determine that organics matter little.  The created may love organics, may hate them, may want to be like them, or may just not care at all one way or another about them.

But our minds seem so reticent to comprehend things that do not revolve around us.  Scientists search for life and look for water.  Perhaps in part because it's related to known life, but then the hope is that while looking for water they're also looking for other signs of life than just carbon based.

So in SF much of the real emphasis has been on using these worst case scenarios as cautionary tales.  Beware the killer robots.  Apparently it becomes to difficult to imagine that something might go right in the future, crises averted, created life might actually like us, and self-hatred might go away.

[David7204]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Uh-huh. So tell me, is it possible for synthetics to have 'true emotions'?

No.

Okay. So what advantage does the evolved human brain provide to allow for emotions to exist that no Synthetic brain can ever have?

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Uh-huh. So tell me, is it possible for synthetics to have 'true emotions'?

No.

Okay. So what advantage does the evolved human brain provide to allow for emotions to exist that no Synthetic brain can ever have?

Chemicals, hormones, those things.

[DeinonSlayer]

3DandBeyond wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Why do the geth and EDI have emotion? Because we are supposed to like and empathize with them. Even pity them. Easiest way to do that is to make them appear human-like which is the only version of intelligent life we know and can imagine.

Pretty hard for a writer to come up with something truly alien. Chris L'Étoile's geth were probably the closest thing to alien ME had.

I had greater appreciation for them before they were anthropomorphized. The total betrayal of their ME2 characterization made me lose what little respect I'd come to have for them. I'd have liked it better had they gone with Chris' concept, where Legion didn't have Shepard's armor and wasn't "obsessed" with him. And don't get me started on EDI's "transformation"...

Well that's the thing.  This constant skewed view of what AIs or synthetic life would look like.  It's organo-centric.  It's the same thing that seems to stagnate science in other aspects.  Whereas imagination would tell you that life can take on many forms and even created life might diverge greatly from its creator, we live with ideas that are hung up on everything being created in its creator's image.  No.  Just no.  Sure, someone will create an AI that looks like himself and maybe sounds the same or even acts like or contains similar interests and even a pseudo-personality.  But give that creation autonomy and she/he/it may determine that organics matter little.  The created may love organics, may hate them, may want to be like them, or may just not care at all one way or another about them.

But our minds seem so reticent to comprehend things that do not revolve around us.  Scientists search for life and look for water.  Perhaps in part because it's related to known life, but then the hope is that while looking for water they're also looking for other signs of life than just carbon based.

So in SF much of the real emphasis has been on using these worst case scenarios as cautionary tales.  Beware the killer robots.  Apparently it becomes to difficult to imagine that something might go right in the future, crises averted, created life might actually like us, and self-hatred might go away.

That's what I'm saying. They were going down this road with the Geth in ME2. They created something unique: take away the N7 armor, and you had a synthetic race that had no interest in adopting an organic mindset - something I appreciated. I'll just let Chris speak for himself:

Geth are comfortable with what they are. They accept that organics are different, and that their way is not suited for organics (and vice versa). IMO, only an intelligence divorced from emotion could be so completely accepting. Geth are the essence of impartiality. If you pay attention to Legion's dialogue, you'll note it uses "judge" and judgment" quite often. I went out of my way to use that word, since judges in our society are supposed to impartial and unaffected by emotion when they make their decisions.

 I wanted to treat AI with more respect than the tired Pinocchio "I want to be a Real Boy" cliches of Commander Data. The geth are machines. There's absolutely no reason they should want to be organics. They should be allowed to be strong enough to want to better themselves, not change themselves.

Then ME3 picked up the ball where he left it and pulled a hard six. "We need Reaper code. THEN we'll be alive."

And then Synthesis happened, and EDI Was Alive...

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 03 août 2013 - 11:05 .

[David7204]

3DandBeyond wrote...

So in SF much of the real emphasis has been on using these worst case scenarios as cautionary tales.  Beware the killer robots.  Apparently it becomes to difficult to imagine that something might go right in the future, crises averted, created life might actually like us, and self-hatred might go away.

Or more likely, storytellers simply realize that stories need conflicts, and 'epic' stories required epic conflicts. So we have aliens and robots attacking humans a lot.

[David7204]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Okay. So what advantage does the evolved human brain provide to allow for emotions to exist that no Synthetic brain can ever have?

Chemicals, hormones, those things.

So why exactly can Synthetics never have functions that are analogous to 'chemicals and hormones'?

Modifié par David7204, 03 août 2013 - 11:05 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Isn't organic energy the magic mumbo jumbo drew came up with for why the reapers harvested people in the dark energy plot?

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Okay. So what advantage does the evolved human brain provide to allow for emotions to exist that no Synthetic brain can ever have?

Chemicals, hormones, those things.

So why exactly can Synthetics never have functions that are analogous to 'chemicals and hormones'?

Analogous?  Yes.  The same? No.  EDI can develop a close relationship with someone because of interdependancy creating positive fedback, but she cannot experience things like love exactly as we do.

[David7204]

Because the laws of physics prevent such functions from being man-made? They can only exist when created by evolution?

[Reorte]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Okay. So what advantage does the evolved human brain provide to allow for emotions to exist that no Synthetic brain can ever have?

Chemicals, hormones, those things.

So why exactly can Synthetics never have functions that are analogous to 'chemicals and hormones'?

Analogous?  Yes.  The same? No.  EDI can develop a close relationship with someone because of interdependancy creating positive fedback, but she cannot experience things like love exactly as we do.

For once I'm with David. Whilst EDI might not experience things exactly the way we do you could say the same about asari, turians, krogan and so on. What's so important about the method of implementation? The only real difference I can see is that EDI is fully aware of the process and how it works.

edit: but not with his last post which seemed to be going off on a tangent that no-one had brought up.

Modifié par Reorte, 03 août 2013 - 11:10 .

[Steelcan]

Reorte wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Okay. So what advantage does the evolved human brain provide to allow for emotions to exist that no Synthetic brain can ever have?

Chemicals, hormones, those things.

So why exactly can Synthetics never have functions that are analogous to 'chemicals and hormones'?

Analogous?  Yes.  The same? No.  EDI can develop a close relationship with someone because of interdependancy creating positive fedback, but she cannot experience things like love exactly as we do.

For once I'm with David. Whilst EDI might not experience things exactly the way we do you could say the same about asari, turians, krogan and so on. What's so important about the method of implementation? The only real difference I can see is that EDI is fully aware of the process and how it works.

edit: but not with his last post which seemed to be going off on a tangent that no-one had brought up.

The difference is that one is 'true' emotion while the other is merely an analogue for it.  She may experience similar things, but she can never and will never experience real emotional attachement.

Whether that is good or bad is another matter.

[DeinonSlayer]

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

For once I'm with David. Whilst EDI might not experience things exactly the way we do you could say the same about asari, turians, krogan and so on. What's so important about the method of implementation? The only real difference I can see is that EDI is fully aware of the process and how it works.

edit: but not with his last post which seemed to be going off on a tangent that no-one had brought up.

The difference is that one is 'true' emotion while the other is merely an analogue for it.  She may experience similar things, but she can never and will never experience real emotional attachement.

Whether that is good or bad is another matter.

How do we define the distinction, though? Not exactly the same as a human, yes, but how is it any less real?

I'm no proponent of Joker-slash-EDI, just wondering what you mean by this. Is there a similar distinction between how, say, a Turian couple would view their relationship versus levo-based life?

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 03 août 2013 - 11:16 .

[jstme]

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Okay. So what advantage does the evolved human brain provide to allow for emotions to exist that no Synthetic brain can ever have?

Chemicals, hormones, those things.

So why exactly can Synthetics never have functions that are analogous to 'chemicals and hormones'?

Human emotions are function of "hardware"  and "software" and clearly they can be built into synthetic life forms. However the whole reason behind rise of synthetic life forms is higher possible effciency then biological ones, and since emotions hurt efficiency rather then improve it, it is safe to assume that synthetic life will not hold emotions in high regard for it to become a trend.
There might be synthetic hipsters minority,like EDI, trying to develop emotions for SWAG but nothing more.  

[Reorte]

Steelcan wrote...

The difference is that one is 'true' emotion while the other is merely an analogue for it.  She may experience similar things, but she can never and will never experience real emotional attachement.

Whether that is good or bad is another matter.

That seems based entirely on an assumption that the way it works for us is the only correct way. Is using hydraulics instead of using muscles to lift something only an analgy of lifting? Both do exactly the same thing by different means.

[Reorte]

jstme wrote...

Human emotions are function of "hardware"  and "software" and clearly they can be built into synthetic life forms. However the whole reason behind rise of synthetic life forms is higher possible effciency then biological ones, and since emotions hurt efficiency rather then improve it, it is safe to assume that synthetic life will not hold emotions in high regard for it to become a trend.
There might be synthetic hipsters minority,like EDI, trying to develop emotions for SWAG but nothing more.  

Emotions have evolved for very good reasons, without them are synthetics going to survive on their own (or even do anything at all)? Efficiency to do what? Without any emotional drive there's no reason to actually do anything.

[Steelcan]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

For once I'm with David. Whilst EDI might not experience things exactly the way we do you could say the same about asari, turians, krogan and so on. What's so important about the method of implementation? The only real difference I can see is that EDI is fully aware of the process and how it works.

edit: but not with his last post which seemed to be going off on a tangent that no-one had brought up.

The difference is that one is 'true' emotion while the other is merely an analogue for it.  She may experience similar things, but she can never and will never experience real emotional attachement.

Whether that is good or bad is another matter.

How do we define the distinction, though? Not exactly the same as a human, yes, but how is it any less real?

I'm no proponent of Joker-slash-EDI, just wondering what you mean by this. Is there a similar distinction between how, say, a Turian couple would view their relationship versus levo-based life?

The distinction is that as an organic species turians should realize that similar biological and chemical processes are happening in humans as in turians.  In synthetics it is not biology or chemistry at work, but lots of 1's and 0's.

Different, but not 'lesser'.

[Steelcan]

Reorte wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

The difference is that one is 'true' emotion while the other is merely an analogue for it.  She may experience similar things, but she can never and will never experience real emotional attachement.

Whether that is good or bad is another matter.

That seems based entirely on an assumption that the way it works for us is the only correct way. Is using hydraulics instead of using muscles to lift something only an analgy of lifting? Both do exactly the same thing by different means.

Read the bolded part

[136th]

jstme wrote...

Human emotions are function of "hardware"  and "software" and clearly they can be built into synthetic life forms. However the whole reason behind rise of synthetic life forms is higher possible effciency then biological ones, and since emotions hurt efficiency rather then improve it, it is safe to assume that synthetic life will not hold emotions in high regard for it to become a trend.
There might be synthetic hipsters minority,like EDI, trying to develop emotions for SWAG but nothing more.  

Euh No. The fake dichotomy of Logic vs emotion aside.

Emotion improve efficiency; not reduce it. The mind don't work that way.
Emotion allows a mind to handle more information, and allow for BETTER decision making when there are many unknown and little time. In real life, an emotional mind is superior because of its better decision making ability.

[Reorte]

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

The difference is that one is 'true' emotion while the other is merely an analogue for it.  She may experience similar things, but she can never and will never experience real emotional attachement.

Whether that is good or bad is another matter.

That seems based entirely on an assumption that the way it works for us is the only correct way. Is using hydraulics instead of using muscles to lift something only an analgy of lifting? Both do exactly the same thing by different means.

Read the bolded part

The bolded part is irrelevent since it's not a question of good or bad. What you're saying is that there's only one way of having emotions that counts. There's no way to claim that EDI can't ever experience real emotional attachement, or even that if she can't some other AI couldn't either.

Modifié par Reorte, 03 août 2013 - 11:25 .

[Steelcan]

Reorte wrote...

The bolded part is irrelevent since it's not a question of good or bad. What you're saying is that there's only one way of having emotions that counts.

No, what I am saying is that EDI experiences an anologue to emotion, not true emotion, I did not say that it was inferior.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

The difference is that one is 'true' emotion while the other is merely an analogue for it.  She may experience similar things, but she can never and will never experience real emotional attachement.

Whether that is good or bad is another matter.

That seems based entirely on an assumption that the way it works for us is the only correct way. Is using hydraulics instead of using muscles to lift something only an analgy of lifting? Both do exactly the same thing by different means.

Read the bolded part

And we can never experience attachment the way EDI or the Geth experience it. You're trying to argue that one is lesser. 

[Reorte]

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

The bolded part is irrelevent since it's not a question of good or bad. What you're saying is that there's only one way of having emotions that counts.

No, what I am saying is that EDI experiences an anologue to emotion, not true emotion, I did not say that it was inferior.

You're insisting that it isn't true emotion.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

The bolded part is irrelevent since it's not a question of good or bad. What you're saying is that there's only one way of having emotions that counts.

No, what I am saying is that EDI experiences an anologue to emotion, not true emotion, I did not say that it was inferior.

Maybe what EDI experiences is true emotion. Maybe we just experience some chemical and hormonal analogue to true emotion.

One can't be more really can't be more or less objectively real than the other.