359 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

Robosexual wrote...

In Exile wrote...

As for what's wrong with the geth, despite the Stark Trek idea of Spock, emotions are actually fundamental to a great deal of reasonign that we engage in. Things like "getting the Geth to not stand around and decay" would require effectively replicating core emotions like fear. 

That's not true. You don't need to fear death to realise it's illogical to let yourself break down if you wish to continue.

Why would you care less whether you wish to continue or not without emotion? The geth (and EDI) do have a degree of emotion, or at least drives that are analgous to it. Without them they wouldn't have any motivation for doing anything other than what was programmed into them as unavoidable (which is rather more akin to a waterwheel turning than anything fundamentally AI-related). Whilst Avina probably fulfills most current definitions of AI she's more akin to that latter example.

Modifié par Reorte, 03 août 2013 - 06:26 .

[Clayless]

Reorte wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

In Exile wrote...

As for what's wrong with the geth, despite the Stark Trek idea of Spock, emotions are actually fundamental to a great deal of reasonign that we engage in. Things like "getting the Geth to not stand around and decay" would require effectively replicating core emotions like fear. 

That's not true. You don't need to fear death to realise it's illogical to let yourself break down if you wish to continue.

Why would you care less whether you wish to continue or not without emotion? The geth (and EDI) do have a degree of emotion, or at least drives that are analgous to it. Without them they wouldn't have any motivation for doing anything other than what was programmed into them as unavoidable (which is rather more akin to a waterwheel turning than anything fundamentally AI-related). Whilst Avina probably fulfills most current definitions of AI she's more akin to that latter example.

Because they want to learn and continue? Because they choose to?

Whilst EDI and the Geth do have analogues to emotion, it's faulty to think that choosing to continue is based on emotion.

[nos_astra]

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.

Modifié par klarabella, 03 août 2013 - 06:38 .

[Reorte]

Robosexual wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Why would you care less whether you wish to continue or not without emotion? The geth (and EDI) do have a degree of emotion, or at least drives that are analgous to it. Without them they wouldn't have any motivation for doing anything other than what was programmed into them as unavoidable (which is rather more akin to a waterwheel turning than anything fundamentally AI-related). Whilst Avina probably fulfills most current definitions of AI she's more akin to that latter example.

Because they want to learn and continue? Because they choose to?

Whilst EDI and the Geth do have analogues to emotion, it's faulty to think that choosing to continue is based on emotion.

Why would they choose to learn and continue without emotion? Emotions are the drive to do anything beyond respoding to direct physical needs.

[nos_astra]

Reorte wrote...
Why would they choose to learn and continue without emotion? Emotions are the drive to do anything beyond respoding to direct physical needs.

Maybe their core programming requires them to serve a purpose and in order to do that they need to remain functional, improve their abilities and find a new purpose once they exceed the old expectations?

I think it's possible.

Modifié par klarabella, 03 août 2013 - 06:58 .

[Clayless]

Reorte wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Because they want to learn and continue? Because they choose to?

Whilst EDI and the Geth do have analogues to emotion, it's faulty to think that choosing to continue is based on emotion.

Why would they choose to learn and continue without emotion? Emotions are the drive to do anything beyond respoding to direct physical needs.

Why wouldn't they? It's illogical to cease to exist when you don't need to.

[Reorte]

Robosexual wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Because they want to learn and continue? Because they choose to?

Whilst EDI and the Geth do have analogues to emotion, it's faulty to think that choosing to continue is based on emotion.

Why would they choose to learn and continue without emotion? Emotions are the drive to do anything beyond respoding to direct physical needs.

Why wouldn't they? It's illogical to cease to exist when you don't need to.

Caring one way or the other about your existence requires emotion. Whilst the lack of it wouldn't mean that the geth would aim to end their existence (that would be illogical) they would have no more reason to preserve it. Existence isn't a matter of logic, it's just one of those things that happens to be. No emotion or hard-wired direct physical responses (and it's sometimes arguable where the dividing line between those is) and you'd care about as much for it as a rock does.

Why is it logical to act to prolong your existence? The things that offers require emotion to appreciate.

[Reorte]

klarabella wrote...

Reorte wrote...
Why would they choose to learn and continue without emotion? Emotions are the drive to do anything beyond respoding to direct physical needs.

Maybe their core programming requires them to serve a purpose and in order to do that they need to remain functional, improve their abilities and find a new purpose once they exceed the old expectations?

I think it's possible.

It's possible but I'd put that as "hardwired response" like the waterwheel example, or having emotion built in (or emotional analogues).

[Clayless]

Reorte wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Why wouldn't they? It's illogical to cease to exist when you don't need to.

Caring one way or the other about your existence requires emotion. Whilst the lack of it wouldn't mean that the geth would aim to end their existence (that would be illogical) they would have no more reason to preserve it. Existence isn't a matter of logic, it's just one of those things that happens to be. No emotion or hard-wired direct physical responses (and it's sometimes arguable where the dividing line between those is) and you'd care about as much for it as a rock does.

Why is it logical to act to prolong your existence? The things that offers require emotion to appreciate.

That's not true, it's illogical to cease to exist when there's no need to. Logic would dictate continued existence if you choose to exist, illogic would be letting yourself break down without reason.

You don't need to appreciate life to see the logic in existence vs nothing. Your drive for existence would be the pointlessness, the illogic, in the end of existence.

[Reorte]

Robosexual wrote...

That's not true, it's illogical to cease to exist when there's no need to. Logic would dictate continued existence if you choose to exist, illogic would be letting yourself break down without reason.

Why? That requires either some value judgement on existence, which requires emotion, or a hard-coded response to exist.

You don't need to appreciate life to see the logic in existence vs nothing. Your drive for existence would be the pointlessness, the illogic, in the end of existence.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

[.50CalBrainSurgeon]

o Ventus wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Essence. Simple as that.

EDI even referred to it in ME2 when explaining the human Reaper

"Essence" isn't a thing.

This essence is nothing more than the writers attempting to sell transhumanist bull**** in a botched deus ex machina ending

[o Ventus]

.50CalBrainSurgeon wrote...

This essence is nothing more than the writers attempting to sell transhumanist bull**** in a botched deus ex machina ending

It's amazing that a company founded by doctors had to resort to using metaphysical non-science to try and describe something scientific.

I use the word "scientific" very loosely.

[DeinonSlayer]

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"...

[David7204]

Maybe you can make that argument for Legion.

But EDI is an AI on a human ship, made by humans to interact with humans. She has absolutely every reason to be humanlike.

She's better for having emotions. And she's very obviously had them from ME 2.

Also, it's amazing that Legion wearing Shepard's armor is now suddenly a stupid decision as soon as Chris whatshisname said so, isn't it? I recall that little tidbit being well-received in ME 2. But as soon as there's a nice implication that Walters put it in, suddenly it's stupid, right?

Modifié par David7204, 03 août 2013 - 10:35 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Maybe you can make that argument for Legion.

But EDI is an AI on a human ship, made by humans to interact with humans. She has absolutely every reason to be humanlike.

She's better for having emotions. And she's very obviously had them from ME 2.

Also, it's amazing that Legion wearing Shepard's armor is now suddenly a stupid decision as soon as Chris whatshisname said so, isn't it? I recall that little tidbit being well-received in ME 2. But as soon as there's a nice implication that Walters put it in, suddenly it's stupid, right?

She has programming that forces her to value the Normandy crew above herself.   Nothing more

[David7204]

EDI can begin a relationship with Joker. She canonically displays emotions. That's not up to debate.

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

Maybe you can make that argument for Legion.

But EDI is an AI on a human ship, made by humans to interact with humans.

She's better for having emotions. And she's very obviously had them from ME 2.

Also, it's amazing that Legion wearing Shepard's armor is now suddenly a stupid decision as soon as Chris whatshisname said so, isn't it? I recall that being tidbit being well-received.

It plays to the player's ego. Of course it would be well received. I was ambivalent about it before, but after having read Chris' ideas on how they were originally to be portrayed, I have a far greater appreciation for his ideas. It was only added because "higher paid" thought it would be "cool."

I can appreciate EDI's character evolution (in the sense of her morality being shaped by your interaction with her)... but cameltoe? Seriously?

The sexbot never leaves the ship. In all fairness, it was the same story for Miranda in ME2 before the AAP put her in combat-appropriate attire. After that, I brought her along all the time.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 03 août 2013 - 10:40 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

EDI can begin a relationship with Joker. She canonically displays emotions. That's not up to debate.

She develops a preference for his company based on positive feedback.  She spells this out herself.

[David7204]

You can say that literally every single element of the game was put in because someone, somewhere thought it would be 'cool.' That's a clumsy attempt of an insult that ultimately just means nothing. And no, things are not automatically well received because they play to the player's ego.

EDI's 'cameltoe' is something you can ignore very easily by simply leaving her in her default clothing. It's not something you'd really notice anyway unless you're deliberately looking. I'm not defending it, but claiming it ruins everything else about her character is ridiculous.

Modifié par David7204, 03 août 2013 - 10:41 .

[David7204]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

EDI can begin a relationship with Joker. She canonically displays emotions. That's not up to debate.

She develops a preference for his company based on positive feedback.  She spells this out herself.

And are you under the impression your own brain functions differently somehow?

Modifié par David7204, 03 août 2013 - 10:43 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

EDI can begin a relationship with Joker. She canonically displays emotions. That's not up to debate.

She develops a preference for his company based on positive feedback.  She spells this out herself.

And are you under the impression your own brain functions differently somehow?

Last I checked EDI doesn't have neuro-chemistry at work.  She had a Cerberus technician put it in so she doesn't kill everyone.

Organic and synthetics do not share the same brain processes.

[David7204]

The evidence points to EDI having different processes and structures that fulfill the same functions.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

The evidence points to EDI having different processes and structures that fulfill the same functions.

They are synthetic equivalents of such processes, not true emotions.  Once again, staright from her mouth.

[David7204]

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

Modifié par David7204, 03 août 2013 - 10:49 .

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

You can say that literally every single element of the game was put in because someone, somewhere thought it would be 'cool.' That's a clumsy attempt of an insult that ultimately just means nothing. And no, things are not automatically well received because they play to the player's ego.

It contradicted what the writer wanted to put out there. This was a very minor example. I'd say a worse one was the bit at the human-reaper about the "Essense of a Species" overriding the original wording about "deconstructive analysis" as a preliminary exercise in allowing an intact human mind to be uploaded.

Someone thought "thanix missiles" were "cool" too, even though it's completely inconsistent with what we're told about how Thanix tech operates. Someone thought Synthesis was cool, never mind how nonsensical it is. Someone thought Kai-freaking-Leng was cool. Things should only be added to the plot if they work in the plot. It's a simple matter of narrative consistency.

And I believe I already explained the bit with EDI vs. Miranda. It's that much harder to take a character seriously when they're depicted like that. It's distracting at best, and invites negative judgement at worst.