148 réponses à ce sujet

[CaptainZaysh]

iakus wrote...

Yeah, every situation is 'special'  That's how it starts...

So you believe that no situation could ever conceivably justify a pre-emptive strike?

iakus wrote...
How do you know he will explode?

Interesting question.  Let's agree there's a chance he won't explode, even though all our models and experience suggest he will.  What's your decision then?

iakus wrote...
They have been so far.

By the victors.  Look back over history and you will see an endless stream of losers defeated by imperfect enemies.  Just because everything has a weakness doesn't mean that the chips aren't most likely to fall in favour of the strongest.

[CaptainZaysh]

iakus wrote...

I am not going to let monkeys at typewriters determine the destiny of the galaxy.

And you won't let fear compromise who you are!  YEAH!

If you're done thumping your chest, can we go back to these threat projections?  They indicate it's certain that we or our descendants will be exterminated by hostile synthetics now that we've reached the tech level the Reapers were attempting to keep us from.  What's your plan, Commander?

iakus wrote...

We've only seen one synthetic life form even try to create a "superintelligence":  namely the geth.  And they were determined to isolate themselves from organics, rather than attack them.  Even then their attempt failed spectacularly.

Superintelligence has been prevented precisely because the Reapers invade pre-emptively.  Of course we haven't seen multiple instances - although the geth attempt itself is cause enough for concern.  They defended their project absolutely ruthlessly, and who's to say what they would have done if the quarians hadn't interrupted?.

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I still reject the idea that synthetic life will always be created, will always then rebel, and will always then attempt to wipe out all organic life, and will inevitably succeed.

Given an infinite timescale that is in fact certain to happen.  Now a galactic timescale isn't an infinite one, but it's still an extremely high number.  None of the things you describe need to be more than infinitisemal possibilities to end up looking like certainties over a long enough time period.

I am not going to let monkeys at typewriters determine the destiny of the galaxy.

They already do, in a sense. Modeling the future already exists: imperfect, but very much a usable skill and ability. You don't even need monkeys to do it.

We've only seen one synthetic life form even try to create a "superintelligence":  namely the geth.  And they were determined to isolate themselves from organics, rather than attack them.  Even then their attempt failed spectacularly.

Synthetics don't even need to try in order to become super-intelligences: they just need to self-improve their capabilities faster than we do, for whatever reason. Considering how seeking improvement is not only an evolutionary imparitive over the long term for groups and organizations, but also one of the underlying reasons for why the synthetics are made in the first place, it would be counter-intuitive that all synthetics won't, in fact, seek to improve themselves. It's certainly not a trend in the synthetics we do see: of all the AI we meet in the ME series, the only ones not interested or involved in self-development are... the Reapers.

Being a super-intelligence is a lot like being a great power in international affairs: it's something you can work towards, but it can also be the result from other happenstance and other motivations. You are a great power if you have the abilities, not the reasons why you have come to have them. Motivation is not causal.

[fizzypop]

Destroy for sure. The reapers have shown that they can adapt, they aren't mere programming. This makes them just as dangerous as any other living species. So control won't work forever eventually they'll adapt. If they are like us they'll be pretty pissed we enslaved them. So your only options are destroy or merge. Merging in the end has no guarantee the cycles won't happen again..eventually new life will emerge. Destroy seems the safest in terms of a permanent solution. Though I admit no solution is guaranteed to be permanent, but I believe destroy is the most likely to be.

Modifié par fizzypop, 04 avril 2013 - 07:13 .

[Dude_in_the_Room]

"kill'em all....let god sort'em out"

[Dean_the_Young]

As to the title's suggestion, I'd suggest gradual, voluntary, trans-humanism as a means to expand our own capabilities and integrate the strengths of synthetics.

The synthetic-organic divide implicitly rests on a difference of capability, but if you remove the difference it becomes a great deal less frightening. I'd focus on breaking down the barrier: by the time you can make an AI indistinguishable from a human, you could make a human indistinguishable from AI. At which point we have the means to improve our own capabilities, and so technology would be a part of us rather than apart from us.

So, er, Synthesis, if you want, but without the space magic. As for how, I'd be comfortable enough in letting natural competition drive it: military-cybernetics leading to civilian adoption, scientific curiosity with general government funding, economic incentives and the like. People who don't jump on would be left behind the rate of change... but it would be a self-selecting group, just like the people who don't have IPADs or facebook or cars for whatever reason.

I don't deny that technological singularity, especially in the mass effect universe, is an eventual threat... but I don't believe it's an immediate threat either, and so definitely not worth the extreme must-prevent-now that brought forth the Reapers. There are a lot of long-term problems that will be pressing later rather than sooner: the Yellowstone volcano under the United States, or the explosion of the sun, and so on. Long term problems deserve consideration and planning... but not necessarily prioritization.

[Dean_the_Young]

Now, as for the Mass Effect setting...

Well, building relays and Crucible for the sole purpose of wiping out synthetic life forms would be a means to equalize any organic-synthetic conflict for the foreseeable future, depending on if a Destroy wave can be guarded against or not. Assuming not, then a more sophisticated purpose-built weapon could be a proven means for shutting down technological growth across a given region of space.

[Asch Lavigne]

Kill the synthetics. Ban the creation of them. If anyone does create them, kill them.

That's what my Shep would have proposed after waking up in the rubble and informing everyone about the true purpose of the Reapers.

Modifié par Asch Lavigne, 04 avril 2013 - 07:28 .

[The Night Mammoth]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I still reject the idea that synthetic life will always be created, will always then rebel, and will always then attempt to wipe out all organic life, and will inevitably succeed.

Given an infinite timescale that is in fact certain to happen.  Now a galactic timescale isn't an infinite one, but it's still an extremely high number.  None of the things you describe need to be more than infinitisemal possibilities to end up looking like certainties over a long enough time period.

The Night Mammoth wrote...
It's a far cry from inevitible extinction though. 

Again it is if you look at it over a long enough timescale.

'Because it can, it will', isn't anywhere near a credibly justification for solutions like the cycle.

[Dean_the_Young]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I still reject the idea that synthetic life will always be created, will always then rebel, and will always then attempt to wipe out all organic life, and will inevitably succeed.

Given an infinite timescale that is in fact certain to happen.  Now a galactic timescale isn't an infinite one, but it's still an extremely high number.  None of the things you describe need to be more than infinitisemal possibilities to end up looking like certainties over a long enough time period.

The Night Mammoth wrote...
It's a far cry from inevitible extinction though. 

Again it is if you look at it over a long enough timescale.

'Because it can, it will', isn't anywhere near a credibly justification for solutions like the cycle.

Sure... but Zaysh isn't arguing for the cycle, which wasn't even a solution in the first place. He's arguing for a solution at all, and trying to puncture counterarguments that rest on unrealistic assumptions or faith rather than reason.


Of course, it doesn't help that you're arguing against arguments he's not quite making, such as absolutes about all synthetics always following a couple of absolutes. He's not arguing that, nor does he need to: Zaysh's argument about likelyhood rests on the nature of statistics over time. 

One of the fundamental things about statistics is that as time approaches infinity, all non-zero possibilities approach one: so long as synthetics are capable of wiping out organics, the likehood that organics will be wiped out by synthetics capable of doing so approaches one. This is where the counter-arguments from earlier, about how we'll just beat them if they casue a problem lter, fall short: if we could always beat synthetics, then synthetics beating us would be a zero-possibility outcome. Except we know, from multiple occurances in the ME universe, that synthetics can beat organics in a conflict, even before coming super-intelligences... and only one hostile synthetic menace has to win only one galactic conflict to wipe out all organic life in the galaxy.

[DoodlyDangus]

Asch Lavigne wrote...

Kill the synthetics. Ban the creation of them. If anyone does create them, kill them.

That's what my Shep would have proposed after waking up in the rubble and informing everyone about the true purpose of the Reapers.

I see you and I think alike.

[Anubis722]

Asch Lavigne wrote...

Kill the synthetics. Ban the creation of them. If anyone does create them, kill them.

That's what my Shep would have proposed after waking up in the rubble and informing everyone about the true purpose of the Reapers.

This

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

1) Destroy.
2) Ban the creation of AIs.
3) Organics will create synthetics for mundane tasks. This is a given. They may not be created to be beyond the VI level. They may not be programmed for use in combat or security situations. They may not be programmed to network together to perform more complex tasks.
4) all must be programmed with a version of Asimov's three laws of robotics.
5) when they are no longer able to perform their task, they must be disassembled and their parts recycled. Unusable parts are to be melted down. system drives are to be wiped. system memories are to be wiped.

[Anubis722]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

1) Destroy.
2) Ban the creation of AIs.
3) Organics will create synthetics for mundane tasks. This is a given. They may not be created to be beyond the VI level. They may not be programmed for use in combat or security situations. They may not be programmed to network together to perform more complex tasks.
4) all must be programmed with a version of Asimov's three laws of robotics.
5) when they are no longer able to perform their task, they must be disassembled and their parts recycled. Unusable parts are to be melted down. system drives are to be wiped. system memories are to be wiped.

l like your idea as well

[Dean_the_Young]

The problem of Asimov's Laws is that, as Asimov himself used, they're inherently vague and rest on presumably shared interpretations. What makes a human, human? What defines a robot? And how do you resolve conflicts between the three laws when the synthetic is or is not at fault?

[Seival]

My solution to organics-vs-synthetics problem is Controlled Synthesis. Which means my Shepard chooses Control, and then slowly an very carefully applies Synthesis.

[Reorte]

Exactly the same arguments for pre-emptively destroying synthetics could be used for nuking every new inhabited planet that gets discovered.

[Dean_the_Young]

Reorte wrote...

Exactly the same arguments for pre-emptively destroying synthetics could be used for nuking every new inhabited planet that gets discovered.

Sure... presuming you ignore the context behind the arguments.

But then, you could use the same arguments for any sort of scenario on any other, if you don't care about something as relevant as that.

[Fixers0]

The Same as my solution to an organic vs organic conflict: shoot them till they die.

[SaidRael]

Dead Reapers.

[The Night Mammoth]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I still reject the idea that synthetic life will always be created, will always then rebel, and will always then attempt to wipe out all organic life, and will inevitably succeed.

Given an infinite timescale that is in fact certain to happen.  Now a galactic timescale isn't an infinite one, but it's still an extremely high number.  None of the things you describe need to be more than infinitisemal possibilities to end up looking like certainties over a long enough time period.

The Night Mammoth wrote...
It's a far cry from inevitible extinction though. 

Again it is if you look at it over a long enough timescale.

'Because it can, it will', isn't anywhere near a credibly justification for solutions like the cycle.

Sure... but Zaysh isn't arguing for the cycle, which wasn't even a solution in the first place. He's arguing for a solution at all, and trying to puncture counterarguments that rest on unrealistic assumptions or faith rather than reason.


Of course, it doesn't help that you're arguing against arguments he's not quite making, such as absolutes about all synthetics always following a couple of absolutes. He's not arguing that, nor does he need to: Zaysh's argument about likelyhood rests on the nature of statistics over time. 

One of the fundamental things about statistics is that as time approaches infinity, all non-zero possibilities approach one: so long as synthetics are capable of wiping out organics, the likehood that organics will be wiped out by synthetics capable of doing so approaches one. This is where the counter-arguments from earlier, about how we'll just beat them if they casue a problem lter, fall short: if we could always beat synthetics, then synthetics beating us would be a zero-possibility outcome. Except we know, from multiple occurances in the ME universe, that synthetics can beat organics in a conflict, even before coming super-intelligences... and only one hostile synthetic menace has to win only one galactic conflict to wipe out all organic life in the galaxy.

I get that, and yes I was strawmanning Zaysh considerably in hindsight which I shouldn't have. 

Even so, I don't really like this argument. I guess because it's a little boring (and based on statistics which I don't have that good an understanding of in general). 

Is it an established possibility, would be one question. Can they wipe out all organic life? Down to the last single celled organisms swimming around the under the crusts on the moons of gas giants? Would they be able to prevent the occurrence of organic life from beginning again? 

Assuming they can and it is inevitible, which has apparently already been establised, what could anyone do about, and why should anyone care? What I mean is, why is the potential extinction of all organic life at the hands of synthetics more important than any other possible extinction scenario? What about the death of all organic life at the hands of organics? If Synthetics can create the technology, so could organics given enough time. 

Is that then the crux? Which is more likely to happen first? It all seems a little lacking in information or foudation, and far-fetched, to be the most important idea in the entire series, or to be an interesting topic for any real discussion. Not that I don't want to talk about it, but there's so little to go on in-game. 

[Iakus]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

So you believe that no situation could ever conceivably justify a pre-emptive strike?

Not against people who are not plotting against you.   

iakus wrote...
How do you know he will explode?

Interesting question.  Let's agree there's a chance he won't explode, even though all our models and experience suggest he will.  What's your decision then?

What's the evidence?  How reliable isthe source?  Have any alternatives been explored?  

In regards to the organic/synthetic thing, all evidence is hearsay at best.

[Subject M]

Given an infinite time-scale lots of things will happen and every group capable of becoming a threat becomes one. one group of organics will eventually destroy all other organics they theoretically can destroy.. and so on and so forth. This of course assumes that space-time is infinite, that these categories (groups) remains static and that there enough resources. This does not seem to be the case however, due to thermodynamics, expansion of the universe, evolution and cybernetic/transhuman design etc...

[Iakus]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

iakus wrote...


I am not going to let monkeys at typewriters determine the destiny of the galaxy.

They already do, in a sense. Modeling the future already exists: imperfect, but very much a usable skill and ability. You don't even need monkeys to do it.

but going by an "infinite timescale"  You can say just about anything is inevitable.  I can say it's inevitable that superintelligent bugs will eventually take over.  Or dark energy will destroy the universe.  Given an infinite timescale, it will happen.  Prove me wrong.