935 réponses à ce sujet

[Argolas]

remydat wrote...

Try to follow along.  We were discussing a Super AI being created post destroy or post synthesis.  In a post destroy world where you exterminated all synthetics, that Super AI is more likely to conclude you are a risk than a post synthesis world where it sees organics and synthetics working together.

There are no such creatures in a post-synthesis world. We only have shiny green synthepeople.

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

Robert,

This just seems like one long confused post. I never said anything was inevitable. I said all the choices had risks and the risk of destroy was the Super AI. The Calalyst makes this clear in the game as it says the peace won't last and the chaos will return. I am not claiming he is 100% correct. I am claiming, it is a real risk whether you choose to admit it or not.

If Super AI is created in Synthesis, sure there is a risk it goes Rogue but I don't see why it would. First in Destroy, all synthetics were eliminated so that organics may live without the horror of their existence. In synthesis, organics join with synthetics and work together. So why would it conclude organics are a threat in synthesis? Even if it did, it is a much lower risk because unlike destroy we have not given it any evidence to make such a conclusion. Further even if it did, we would have other synthetic races that we are working with to hep us like the Geth and EDI.

So again, you seem confused by the point being made. Destroy gives a perfectly logical reason for a Super AI to conclude organics will always be a threat to it and to kill them. Synthesis gives a perfectly logical reason that organics and synthetics can work out their issues together. We are both speculating and anything can happen but the risk is obviously lower in a world where I did not decide to exterminate synthetics.

Yet again, you never say it's inevitable, but then claim that it's inevitable.  You can't even get out of a post w/out implying it will happen.  It seems as if you're now saying that it's indeed "not going to happen in your game" with your pet AI, right?  Despite the same people, building the same AI?  Your warped logic, once again, precludes information about how the war started and ended, although, I suppose you didn't ignore it, you just dismissed it with "it's not going to care".  But now, it's suddenly going to care, and just blow off being mad?  That's the problem with rogue AIs, they don't need a reason, hell, you as much as said this, didn't you?  Or rather, you said reasons didn't matter.

Here's the problem with your scenario, understanding does not mean acceptance, or agreement.  I understand that, to assuage your conscience about the geth, you decided that it was far better to genetically rape the entire galaxy.  I neither agree, nor accept the premise.  You are, as I have said countless times, free to choose it, but that does not mean that I have to accept or agree with your rationale, or your choice, and I obviously don't.  I'm sure, to keep this in the game, that the Krogan now understand why the Salarians developed the Genophage, and why the Turians used it, but do you suppose they all agree with it?  Do you suppose they accept it?  I know, the first month or so after the end, where we see slides, it appears everything is butterflies and rainbows.  Here's the pro tip of the week, it pretty much looks like that for Control, and Destroy, well, it has some butterflies, the rainbows are going to take time.  Once the dust settles, and people get over the shock of being genetically altered, what's going to happen then?  I know, I know, that won't happen in my game...

[Rip504]

remydat wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

"WhhaaaT?"

How is a Synthetic vs Organic conflict "obviously" a lower risk of happening in a universe with Synthetics vs a universe without Synthetics? Also as well of the awareness Organics now have concerning such a conflict and the potential dangers of creating Synthetics. The Reapers.

Try to follow along.  We were discussing a Super AI being created post destroy or post synthesis.  In a post destroy world where you exterminated all synthetics, that Super AI is more likely to conclude you are a risk than a post synthesis world where it sees organics and synthetics working together.

So you would agree or disagree within the context of the endings that Destroy holds a lower risk of Synthetic vs Organic conflict over the others ?. As I am not talking about a fabricated and speculated Super A.I. .

 "Try to follow along" I am not talking about a fabricated super A.I. Also that is how you are writing this fabricated A.I. to concluded the ending events of ME3. It could also conclude it was needed in order to Destroy the Reapers once and for all. Then open up peaceful relations. When you write it a certain way and dictate the events of course it benefits what you are saying. No it is not obvious. It is only obvious in your predetermined set terms.

[remydat]

Argolas wrote...

There are no such creatures in a post-synthesis world. We only have shiny green synthepeople.

If this AI did not exist when Synthesis occured then unless it is born from a parent then it would not be affected by synthesis.

Rip504 wrote...

So you would agree or disagree within the context of the endings that Destroy holds a lower risk of Synthetic vs Organic conflict over the others ?. As I am not talking about a fabricated and speculated Super A.I. .

 "Try to follow along" I am not talking about a fabricated super A.I. Also that is how you are writing this fabricated A.I. to concluded the ending events of ME3. It could also conclude it was needed in order to Destroy the Reapers once and for all. Then open up peaceful relations. When you write it a certain way and dictate the events of course it benefits what you are saying. No it is not obvious. It is only obvious in your predetermined set terms.

If you want to bring up a new idea then ask a question.  Responding with WHAAT and then acting like my post was made in the context you introduce in your post makes no sense.

And I am in no position to say one way or another really.  In a post Destroy role, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that organics will continue to create AI and that conflict will continue.  The Catalyst makes this clear.  That doesn't mean it is 100% certain but it is certainly enough of a possibility that it cannot simply be dismissed.

I think you are confusing my making a statement about probability with me claiming something as fact.  It is more probable in a post destroy world for a new AI created to perceive organics as a threat because they killed all synthetics.  It is less probable that a new AI created in a post synthesis world would reach the same conclusion because in that world synthetics and organics are working together.  That statement of probability does not mean it is impossible for the AI in a post destroy world to conclude destroy was necessary nor does it mean it is impossible for the new AI in a post synthetic world to conclude organics are a threat.  The point is relative to each other Destroy gives them more evidence to reach that conclusion because logically, it is more probable for any species to perceive a threat when their entire species was exterminated versus a situation where their species is working together with another species.  That has nothing to do with mass effect and is just simple logic.

Modifié par remydat, 20 avril 2013 - 02:41 .

[remydat]

Robert,

Again, you guys keep confusing statements of probability with facts or 100% certainty.  The Catalyst's logic makes sense.  It may be possible ie greater than 0% chance of happening, it may be probably ie greater than 50% chance of happening but that does not mean it is inevitable ie 100% chance of happening. 

In a post destroy world, I think it is more likely ie the percentage is greater that a New AI would conclude organics are a threat based on the fact organics exterminated them all.  In a post synthesis world I think it is less of a chance ie a lower percentage that a new AI would see organics as a threat when they are working with the Geth.  However, unlike the Catalyst I don't believe this is inevitable ie 100%.  I have no real idea where in the range from 0%-100% these outcomes lie.  So when I say I don't think something is inevitable that is because I don't think the probability of occurence is 100%.  That does not mean I don't think it is not possible ie probability of occurence is 0%.

So your problem is this.  It doesn't matter the reasons for destroy in the above.  No matter the reasons and no matter how logical they may be the simply fact that organics destroyed all synthetics means it is likely always going to be a higher percentage chance a New AI would consider them a threat when compared to synthesis where no synthetic dies.  The only thing those reasons do is change it from say a 70% chance to a 30% but it does not drop the percentage below the percentage in a world in which synthetics were not exterminated.  And I am not saying those percentages are accurate.  I am using them as an example.  I have no basis to determine an accurate percentage which is why I stuck to the statement that whatever the percentage is, it undoubtedly will be higher in a post destroy world.

And you remain confused.  I have said repeatedly in this thread and others Synthesis is not a Utopia.   I have said it to you I believe that there is no guarantee a Krogan hybrid will just be cool with a Turian or Salarian hybrid.  So I am not sure why you keep acting like I think everything will be fine.  So you seem to be creating a strawman to argue with.  And yes I prefer genetically raping everyone equally than I do literally killiing a particular group of people.  They are both ****ty choices but I go with the choice in which no one else has to die.  As I said if all of the people who may complain would happily accept their own deaths so that everyone could not be genetically raped then fine, let's do that.  However, it is easy to cry about genetic rape when the species on the chopping block is not your own.  I wouldn't kill humanity to prevent genetic rape so morally I am not going to visit that fate upon another species just because they happen not to be humanity.

[Rip504]

remydat wrote...


And I am in no position to say one way or another really.  In a post Destroy role, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that organics will continue to create AI and that conflict will continue.  The Catalyst makes this clear.  That doesn't mean it is 100% certain but it is certainly enough of a possibility that it cannot simply be dismissed.

I think you are confusing my making a statement about probability with me claiming something as fact.  It is more probable in a post destroy world for a new AI created to perceive organics as a threat because they killed all synthetics.  It is less probable that a new AI created in a post synthesis world would reach the same conclusion because in that world synthetics and organics are working together.  That statement of probability does not mean it is impossible for the AI in a post destroy world to conclude destroy was necessary nor does it mean it is impossible for the new AI in a post synthetic world to conclude organics are a threat.  The point is relative to each other Destroy gives them more evidence to reach that conclusion because logically, it is more probable for any species to perceive a threat when their entire species was exterminated versus a situation where their species is working together with another species.  That has nothing to do with mass effect and is just simple logic.

Well it is on you to follow along,as you stated. Your lack of comprehending my statements is not me not making sense. It is you misunderstanding what had been stated. Did I in any way comment on a super A.I.? No I did not. My statement directly stated a universe with Synthetics vs a universe without synthetics. Period.

No I am not,especially when I state the word... POTENTIAL... I think you are intentionally missing the context to help your case.

The Synthetics would have to exist in the Destroy ending universe before it is ever a "real" potential. As you are stating that the New A.I. that I do not wish to discuss because it is completely fabricated and has no base or foundation to determine how it may or may not feel, will learn and make a decision based off of past events. Not the current situation of the Galaxy at the time.  Well Organics can also learn from their past,hence no synthetic races with laws against the creation of synthetics means they are less likely to have a conflict with a race that does not exist. In synthesis and control these synthetic races do exist.

The A.I. shown in the Citadel has no history nor anything to pull information about on how they became to exist. So within the entire existence of the ME universe I can only think of three A.I.s,two of which were created by mistake,and the third was created out of fear of the Reapers. EDI was created to effectively combat the Reapers/Collectors. Geth were a mistake.

You are mistaking collateral damage with intent. They are not the same. So I state again In a universe which NO synthetics exist and their creation is against the law and we now have the examples of the Catalyst,Reapers,and Geth to learn from is the conflict "obviously" a higher risk vs a universe that in which the Synthetics do exist and the laws may potentially be lifted?

Modifié par Rip504, 20 avril 2013 - 03:11 .

[remydat]

Rip504

No, you responded to my post that was discussing the Super AI and then proceeded to go off on a tangent.  So I told you to follow along because your response acted like the tangent you choose was the original discussion I was having.  It was not.  If you want to go off on a tangent then say so instead of acting like my original post was in reference to this tangent I did not know existed when I made the statement.

And no they don't have to exist in the destroy ending for it to be real potential.  The game shows organics continually creating synthetics and continually going to war with them.  The game has the Catalyst tell me that peace will not last and the chaos will return.  I am well within my rights to think then that it is possible not inevitable that this threat will occur again.

Here is the gist of your question below.  Notice the bold.  The word obviously was used in my original post in relation to the original scenario being discussed.  You using that word and putting it in quotes is disingenuous because it gives the impression that my original use of the word was talking about the scenario you presented below which it was not.  When you correct the below question and ask it in good faith, you will get an answer. 

You are mistaking collateral damage with intent. They are not the same. So I state again In a universe which NO synthetics exist and their creation is against the law and we now have the examples of the Catalyst,Reapers,and Geth to learn from is the conflict "obviously" a higher risk vs a universe that in which the Synthetics do exist and the laws may potentially be lifted?

[silverexile17s]

remydat wrote...

Silver,

So your grand evidence is a still photo where Geth and Quarians appear in the same pic together? Hmmm, no Silver. All that proves is that they are on friendlier terms perhaps because as the Catalyst said, they can better understand each other. Is there a hidden message somewhere that says culture is blended?

OMG, Geth and Quarians are talking. Holy sh*t their cultures are compeltely and uttlerly destroyed now because they are talking, lol. Really dude? They were talking and were chilling out in Quarian suits pre-ending.

I actually HAVE evidence to back up what I say.
Do you not see the differences? They are evolving seperately in those pictures, compaired to being blended together into a single one like as seen in the Synthesis pic.

And AGAIN, I present a question from Robertthebard that you repeatedly ignored:
What proof do you have that the Catalyst is being 100% honest with us? What logical Reason is there to suddenly trust the Reapers?

And AGAIN, that's just a temperorary thing. The geth are helping the quarians re-aclimitize to Rannoch faster then normal. It's not a perminate arrangement, as diolouge between Liara and Tali about quarian/geth relations reveals.
And talking is one thing. Merging both into the same cities with zero qualms is another. And again, if they can "suddenly understand each-other perfectly", then isn't that the alteration of all culture to be fundementally the same? The very thing you said Synthesis WOULDN'T do?

LoL, you are again all over the place. Chalk up another conrtidiction for, as Robertthebard said, the king of double-standards.

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

Robert,

Again, you guys keep confusing statements of probability with facts or 100% certainty.  The Catalyst's logic makes sense.  It may be possible ie greater than 0% chance of happening, it may be probably ie greater than 50% chance of happening but that does not mean it is inevitable ie 100% chance of happening. 

In a post destroy world, I think it is more likely ie the percentage is greater that a New AI would conclude organics are a threat based on the fact organics exterminated them all.  In a post synthesis world I think it is less of a chance ie a lower percentage that a new AI would see organics as a threat when they are working with the Geth.  However, unlike the Catalyst I don't believe this is inevitable ie 100%.  I have no real idea where in the range from 0%-100% these outcomes lie.  So when I say I don't think something is inevitable that is because I don't think the probability of occurence is 100%.  That does not mean I don't think it is not possible ie probability of occurence is 0%.

So your problem is this.  It doesn't matter the reasons for destroy in the above.  No matter the reasons and no matter how logical they may be the simply fact that organics destroyed all synthetics means it is likely always going to be a higher percentage chance a New AI would consider them a threat when compared to synthesis where no synthetic dies.  The only thing those reasons do is change it from say a 70% chance to a 30% but it does not drop the percentage below the percentage in a world in which synthetics were not exterminated.  And I am not saying those percentages are accurate.  I am using them as an example.  I have no basis to determine an accurate percentage which is why I stuck to the statement that whatever the percentage is, it undoubtedly will be higher in a post destroy world.

And you remain confused.  I have said repeatedly in this thread and others Synthesis is not a Utopia.   I have said it to you I believe that there is no guarantee a Krogan hybrid will just be cool with a Turian or Salarian hybrid.  So I am not sure why you keep acting like I think everything will be fine.  So you seem to be creating a strawman to argue with.  And yes I prefer genetically raping everyone equally than I do literally killiing a particular group of people.  They are both ****ty choices but I go with the choice in which no one else has to die.  As I said if all of the people who may complain would happily accept their own deaths so that everyone could not be genetically raped then fine, let's do that.  However, it is easy to cry about genetic rape when the species on the chopping block is not your own.  I wouldn't kill humanity to prevent genetic rape so morally I am not going to visit that fate upon another species just because they happen not to be humanity.

My problem is this:  Given all the available facts, your AI is going hostile.  So it's going to completely disregard the fact that it doesn't know there were options.  It's going to disregard the fact that several of the home worlds for advanced species were very nearly flying fireballs to say "it's all the organic's fault".  There is no other option for it because you are not allowing other options with tidbits like "it's not going to care that organics were, by the very definition of the world, being decimated by the hour, it's only going to care that organics killed synthetics".  Frankly, if a scientist built a VI that couldn't assimilate all the available data, I'd shoot the scientist, and I said VI for a reason, if it hasn't evolved the capacity to reason that destroying the Reapers was self defense, it's not evolved into an AI.  It's intelligence is still virtual, and supplied largely by organic input, very much like a modern computer.  Modern computers are stupid.  If you don't tell them what to do, they don't do anything.  Your "AI" isn't any better.

There is no confusion, on my part.  You are waving your AI around like an "I win" button.  You have, much like the OP, chosen to ignore the facts that would be in evidence so that you can scream "you people are monsters" from the highest peaks.  Only the OP decided it was more fun to change the conditions of the ending.  Note, not plural, just Destroy, for more justification, and you are riding his coat tails like you were born to it.  I guess it's time for me to do the same thing to you you like to do to me:  Show me where it says the Catalyst was right and we're going to create your super AI.    Skip to 8:00 for the beginning of the Catalyst dialog.  Destroy ending is at 14:48 for the explanation.  20:30 for shooting the tube and the slides.  I'm not looking for your head canon, I'm looking for evidence from the video.

[robertthebard]

silverexile17s wrote...

remydat wrote...

Silver,

So your grand evidence is a still photo where Geth and Quarians appear in the same pic together? Hmmm, no Silver. All that proves is that they are on friendlier terms perhaps because as the Catalyst said, they can better understand each other. Is there a hidden message somewhere that says culture is blended?

OMG, Geth and Quarians are talking. Holy sh*t their cultures are compeltely and uttlerly destroyed now because they are talking, lol. Really dude? They were talking and were chilling out in Quarian suits pre-ending.

I actually HAVE evidence to back up what I say.
Do you not see the differences? They are evolving seperately in those pictures, compaired to being blended together into a single one like as seen in the Synthesis pic.

And AGAIN, I present a question from Robertthebard that you repeatedly ignored:
What proof do you have that the Catalyst is being 100% honest with us? What logical Reason is there to suddenly trust the Reapers?

And AGAIN, that's just a temperorary thing. The geth are helping the quarians re-aclimitize to Rannoch faster then normal. It's not a perminate arrangement, as diolouge between Liara and Tali about quarian/geth relations reveals.
And talking is one thing. Merging both into the same cities with zero qualms is another. And again, if they can "suddenly understand each-other perfectly", then isn't that the alteration of all culture to be fundementally the same? The very thing you said Synthesis WOULDN'T do?

LoL, you are again all over the place. Chalk up another conrtidiction for, as Robertthebard said, the king of double-standards.

I didn't coin that phrase.  I did, however, point out that we are being trolled, and epicly trolled at that.  What I have come to understand is that, if it's contradictory, or doesn't add up with his view, it's wrong.  This is complicated by his narrow view, which includes that while he claims his AI isn't inevitable, it has to go that way, because, and as much as I hate reading this here on BSN, it's the only statement that fits, reasons.  They are never clear, as you can see, and tend to come right back to that AI, despite his claims that it's probable.  He will contradict himself on it in the same post, and I've called him on it more than once, only to be ignored.

His answer to my request for proof for his theory from the video will be the Catalyst.  It's the only time it comes up.  So he'll latch onto it with both hands, and swing it like a claymore.  Like his AI, he will completely ignore it if Shepard had managed to broker peace because we can't point that out in the video, which is a point of contention for most of the people still around, even if they didn't choose Destroy.  Like his AI, he will ignore how we ended up in this war with the Reapers, and will likely say something to the effect that it's not a war, but the harvest, and will brandish that like it was a good thing.  I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't take the same position as the guy that posted that graphic from katoku(?), that wound up claiming that all the synthetics we met in ME 1 and 2 were either neutral or friendly.

He will then come back to how, even though it's only probable, his AI will be mad that Shepard Destroyed synthetics(when there were other options, which the AI would have no way to know), and go on a rampage because organics cannot be trusted.  When "oh noes, you would kill EDI and the geth, even though they would have chosen other options(which they have no way to know about)" it's right back to the superAI that's mad, lolz.

[Rip504]

Rip504 wrote...

As long as it still kills all Geth,of course I would.

remydat wrote...
 but the risk is obviously lower in a world where I did not decide to exterminate synthetics.

"WhhaaaT?"

How is a Synthetic vs Organic conflict "obviously" a lower risk of happening in a universe with Synthetics vs a universe without Synthetics? Also as well of the awareness Organics now have concerning such a conflict and the potential dangers of creating Synthetics. The Reapers.

Rip504 wrote...

You are intentionally mistaking collateral damage with intent. They are not the same. So I state again In a universe which NO synthetics exist and their creation is against the law and we now have the examples of the Catalyst,Reapers,and Geth to learn from is the conflict "obviously" a higher risk vs a universe that in which the Synthetics do exist and the laws may potentially be lifted?

Yea,because those comments are not clear.

The Geth are monsters whom have killed billions,continued to kill any organics they pleased for the next 300 years,and cut all communications with any organic race. Koris offers a peaceful solution,Legion dismisses it.  The Geth have proven to be Hostile towards any and all organics for 300 years,while some Quarians have always wanted  peace or a peaceful solution. You condemn the Quarians for their crimes yet justify the Geth's crimes.

The first attempt at peaceful relations the Geth tried...worked. So if they can dismiss peaceful relations because of the 100% line,why can they not strive for peace after realizing it is a very real possibility.? Still knowing peaceful relations can be had with organics,they instead never try for peace with anyone ever. They went to the enemy of their enemy to find an ally vs the Reapers. They succeeded. Why not try to find a friend? After the possibility had become a reality? As well they hold the knowledge that not all Quarians want to kill them. Still they condemn all organics for the actions of some Organics. Not even an entire race.

The Geth were not preparing to fight the Reapers to save the Galaxy. The Geth were not working with Shepard for peaceful relations. The Geth were doing these things for self preservation. They are unconcerned with Organic life and chose Isolation. They have enemies because they chose to have enemies. One can point to a multitude of occasions in which Organics accept Synthetics.

Everything here is pre ME3 war. Yes the Geth are innocent and have done nothing to condemn their race.

If the Geth are only going to focus on the negative and the bad,then they should only expect the same treatment. In which they deserve their death. You do not make enemies out of every organic race and then condemn them,it is the Geth's fault.
You can scream to the high heaven that the Quarians started the war and laws are in place to forbid the creation of A.I. life. As you have 186 times before and will probably do again,yet it still does not change how the Geth chose to respond or their hostile actions.

Modifié par Rip504, 20 avril 2013 - 05:23 .

[The Twilight God]

remydat wrote...



1. Who said his flesh was burning? Who says once you enter the beam you can exit it? When I go to the conduit my flesh does not burn and once it starts teleporting me I can just walk out. So you are making assumptions not in the game. Shep seems to merely disintegrate not burn up. Don't think burning up makes sense if the intent is to use his essence.

2. There is no evidence once he enters the chamber he still has access to comms. He talks to hacket before the catalyst brings him to this chamber. He never talks to anyone else after so again this is an assumption. Further there no one has seen this chamber so how is EDI going to tell him about something she knows nothing about. What is Shep going to say? I see red blue and white light explain to be what they mean despite you having never seen them.

3. There is no reason for there not to be marauders and such there. If you can have EDI talking to him then I can say marauders should be up there in the event he doesn't lime shep's choice. In the end all we are doing is head canon.

4. I am qualified to form my own opinion. I have seen organics attacj synthetixs because they exist. I have seen the cold hard logic of a machine when it decides an organic is a threat and kills billions of them. So whether a particular synthetic agrees or not is irrelevant. The conclusion is entirely logical. TThere is no example of organics and synthetics not coming into conflict and just like some organics can have extreme views so can sone synthetics.

5. No Leviathan says there was no mistake. It is doing what it was told to do. Theit purpose not beinf fulfilled is Leviathan saying their solution is not ideal and so they used the harvest both as a solution and an experiment to find a better solution. The catalyst knows its solution is imperfect hence why it says it has tried synthesis before.

So no you have refuted nothing. You have simply stated your opinion which you are free to have. None of it changes my opinion. You asked why I accept what he says and I told you.

1. What are you even talking about? Quote what I posted and explain to how anything you are saying has to do with what I posted. As I said, you are clearly BSing here.

2. Are you trying to prove a negative with the coms comment?

Anyway, the same way EDI helped Shepard with the collector ship and base. Both being things no non-collectors had seen.

3. Headcanoning what exactly? Reread what I posted and get on subject. All that was said is that if there was a marauder or brute or whatever up there, and it didn't hurt Shepard; that alone would be a reason to trust it as it has an actual means to stop Shepard or force him into Control or Synthesis and wouldn't need deception.

4. You are making blind assumptions about the Kid's honesty. You don't know what it has or hasn't seen. You're just arbitrarily making up hypotheticals.

There is an example given by Javik of organics and synthetics not coming into conflict (Zha'til), but in fact living together - SYNTHESIZED - in peace. AND THE REAPERS SCREWED THEM OVER ANYWAY. Like the Heretics, the all out genocidal aggression is in every instance initiated by the Reapers themselves. The Geth let the Quarians live and did not pursue their extermination. Along comes the Reapers to instigate just that. The very thing they duped you into thinking they want to prevent.

5. We've been over this. They said THEY made no mistake in wanting to preserve their thralls. That has nothing to do with the Intelligence/Reapers going off and doing their own thing outside of the Leviathans' initial intent. They EXPLICITLY state that the Intelligence is not abiding by their mandate and that they do not know what it's ultimate goals are. This is a fact. You are intentionally lying to yourself and me to not have to face this reality.

I have refuted EVERYTHING you have put forth. You simply chose to ignore what you don't want to hear. Fine. This is my last reply concerning the above as I have no intent to continue speaking to a wall. You've already admitted you're wrong by admitting you have no reason to trust the Kid.

The Twilight God wrote...

remydat wrote...

I see plenty to trust the Catalsyt. You don't  

Please, share with us your reasons for trusting it seeing as you have plenty apparently.

Please, enlighten us about the many reasons we should blindly put our absolute trust in the "Reaper Ambassador"

Your reply:

remydat wrote...

*cricket sounds*

Exactly.
 
You were wrong. You admit it. Case closed.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 20 avril 2013 - 07:19 .

[Reorte]

The whole AI thing, by being something that is at least theoretically possible in the real world, has to stand up to real world logic much more than game "logic" in order for me to take any claims seriously. So if the Catalyst says anything that's really pushing its luck in contradiction to that then screw it.

Only a fairly dim AI would see the destruction of the Reapers with the side effect of some dead AIs as an attack on AIs. A clever one would be more concerned about a bunch of organics who would leave open the door to worse destruction, or actually impose something grotesque, as a bigger threat.

[robertthebard]

Reorte wrote...

The whole AI thing, by being something that is at least theoretically possible in the real world, has to stand up to real world logic much more than game "logic" in order for me to take any claims seriously. So if the Catalyst says anything that's really pushing its luck in contradiction to that then screw it.

Only a fairly dim AI would see the destruction of the Reapers with the side effect of some dead AIs as an attack on AIs. A clever one would be more concerned about a bunch of organics who would leave open the door to worse destruction, or actually impose something grotesque, as a bigger threat.

This will garner the "it won't care about why organics killed synthetics, just that it did" scenario I got when I posted similar previously.  The AI was manufactured in a vacuum, evidently, it has no knowledge of the Morning War, or the period between the Morning War and the death of the Reapers/EDI/Geth.  It evidently doesn't know about the Reapers, and that the entire galaxy's space faring races were on the brink of extinction.  It just sees one thing in the entire history, which, considering the source, and why it's concept was invented makes a lot of sense.  It's merely a justification to say "you people are monsters".

[remydat]

silverexile17s wrote...

I actually HAVE evidence to back up what I say.
Do you not see the differences? They are evolving seperately in those pictures, compaired to being blended together into a single one like as seen in the Synthesis pic.

And AGAIN, I present a question from Robertthebard that you repeatedly ignored:
What proof do you have that the Catalyst is being 100% honest with us? What logical Reason is there to suddenly trust the Reapers?

And AGAIN, that's just a temperorary thing. The geth are helping the quarians re-aclimitize to Rannoch faster then normal. It's not a perminate arrangement, as diolouge between Liara and Tali about quarian/geth relations reveals.
And talking is one thing. Merging both into the same cities with zero qualms is another. And again, if they can "suddenly understand each-other perfectly", then isn't that the alteration of all culture to be fundementally the same? The very thing you said Synthesis WOULDN'T do?

LoL, you are again all over the place. Chalk up another conrtidiction for, as Robertthebard said, the king of double-standards.

That is not evidence.  It is a still photo in which Geth and Quarians are talking.  No where does it say their cultures have been blended together or destroyed.  That is your interpretation of a still photo. 

I already answered Twilight about the Catalyst about why I believe him although I never claimed my belief in him is absolute ie 100%.  It is possible he is lying, I simply don't think he is.

I can understand someone without merging cultures with them.  Again, that is just you choosing to think cultures have been merged or destroyed. Nothing in the game says this.  The games says they SHARE.  Even the Reapers SHARE the knowledge of the cultures that came before. 

Find me anything in the game that says Culture is destroyed or merged.  I don't want an interpretation from a still photo.  I want something that says it.  Nothing does.

[remydat]

robertthebard wrote...

My problem is this:  Given all the available facts, your AI is going hostile.  So it's going to completely disregard the fact that it doesn't know there were options.  It's going to disregard the fact that several of the home worlds for advanced species were very nearly flying fireballs to say "it's all the organic's fault".  There is no other option for it because you are not allowing other options with tidbits like "it's not going to care that organics were, by the very definition of the world, being decimated by the hour, it's only going to care that organics killed synthetics".  Frankly, if a scientist built a VI that couldn't assimilate all the available data, I'd shoot the scientist, and I said VI for a reason, if it hasn't evolved the capacity to reason that destroying the Reapers was self defense, it's not evolved into an AI.  It's intelligence is still virtual, and supplied largely by organic input, very much like a modern computer.  Modern computers are stupid.  If you don't tell them what to do, they don't do anything.  Your "AI" isn't any better.

There is no confusion, on my part.  You are waving your AI around like an "I win" button.  You have, much like the OP, chosen to ignore the facts that would be in evidence so that you can scream "you people are monsters" from the highest peaks.  Only the OP decided it was more fun to change the conditions of the ending.  Note, not plural, just Destroy, for more justification, and you are riding his coat tails like you were born to it.  I guess it's time for me to do the same thing to you you like to do to me:  Show me where it says the Catalyst was right and we're going to create your super AI.    Skip to 8:00 for the beginning of the Catalyst dialog.  Destroy ending is at 14:48 for the explanation.  20:30 for shooting the tube and the slides.  I'm not looking for your head canon, I'm looking for evidence from the video.

If the US dropped a bomb to kill Bin Laden and it killed every single person in someone's family or, how do you think that affects them?  They may understand completely why the US did it but that does not mean every single person they love magically comes back to life because they understand.  Some humans might accept that and others might not and want revenge or consider the U.S. a threat.  You are acting like the people affected by collateral damge should just sit their happily and accept it.  That is not how life works. 

And no where have I called anyone monsters.  Again, you are creating straw men.  You are the one throwing genocide and genetic rape around to me implying I am a monster, lol.  I provided evidence of your posts that said it.  I asked you to provide a post where I did the same and you have yet to so it is the height of hypocrisy to claim someone is calling you a monster when you can't find a post in which I said this while at the same time calling their decisions genocide and genetic rape.  So your protests about this are incredibly disingenuous. 

Catalyst:  But the peace won't last. Soon your children will create synthetics and then the chaos will come back.

You see the bold.  Those children are born post harvest when organic civilization is potentially more advanced than previous cycles because they survived the harvest.  It is entirely logical then that the AI created will be more advanced.  Again, this was the point of the harvest.  To prevent organics from living too long that they created AI that would surpass them.

Modifié par remydat, 20 avril 2013 - 04:34 .

[remydat]

Rip504 wrote...

"WhhaaaT?"

How is a Synthetic vs Organic conflict "obviously" a lower risk of happening in a universe with Synthetics vs a universe without Synthetics? Also as well of the awareness Organics now have concerning such a conflict and the potential dangers of creating Synthetics. The Reapers.

Your entire question here is misleading.  I used the term obviously in the context of my scenario ie a world where an AI is created post ending.  You then respond asking me how is conflict obviously a lower risk in a scenario I never discussed.  By phrasing the question the way you did, it implies my statement about something obviously being a lower risk was discusing the scenario you just introduced with this post.  It was not.  That is what makes the question bull.  If you want to ask that question then don't lift statements made by me under different scenarios because it makes your question misleading.

Rip504 wrote...

You are intentionally mistaking collateral damage with intent. They are not the same. So I state again In a universe which NO synthetics exist and their creation is against the law and we now have the examples of the Catalyst,Reapers,and Geth to learn from is the conflict "obviously" a higher risk vs a universe that in which the Synthetics do exist and the laws may potentially be lifted?

Same deal above, you keep refering and putting in quotes the term obviously which was said in a different context.  Misleading question.  You are clearly capable of asking an honest question and when you do so I can answer that honest question.  Just like below, the conditions to get an answer have been communicated to you.  Up to you whether you want to comply or whether you want to continue to ask a misleading question.

Koris asked what the conditions for peace were.  Legion said he needed to see more data.  The Quarian response was to give them more data by attacking again when they thought they can win.  100% record in tact.  When you ask how peace can be achieved and then disregard the response to continue to research a weapon that will allow you to destroy your enemy then you are not negotiating in good faith.

Modifié par remydat, 20 avril 2013 - 04:45 .

[remydat]

Twilight

1. So when he grabs the control prongs and sees electricity-like arcs burning off his flesh (and the intense pain) he isn't going to stop right there and call BS on the Kid? Or when he looks down that bottomless pit Death Star chasm, he isn't going to wonder if the fall or the freaking laser beam is going to obliterate him?

I see nothing in the synthesis scene that proves his flesh is burning off or he is under intense pain.  Can you link vids to this please?  You are assuming something. 

2. Not trying to prove anything as this is all opinion by both of us.  EDI had experience based on the first Collector Ship mision where she received data from Shep.  There were consoles and control panels that allowed access and uploading of data.  What data is Shep going to send her that will allow her to analyze anything?  There is no console that provides access to upload data?  What is Shep going to say, I see a blue, red and white, which one do I pick?  And again, you are assuming he can even reach her.  He talks to now one when he reaches the Catalyst.  No one. 

3. See above, Shep never communicates with anyone while with the Catalyst.  So you are assuming he could because it is not in the game that he was able to.  So if you can make that assumption then one can question that if the Catalyst was so concerned about Shep picking Destroy he would simply have maruaders, brutes and the like around in the event Shep heads towards the destroy option.  Why wouldn't he if he doesn't want Shep to choose destroy?  So you saying if Marauders were there you would trust it is odd to me when logically the only reason they are not there is because the Catalyst didn't want them there.  If he did, he could have had an army of them there.

4.  I know it is mentioned on the wiki that the Reapers were responsible for subjugating the zha'til but Javik simply says here that the AI seized the Zha'til.  Is there a codex or other conversation where this is blamed on the Reaprs that I missed?  In any event, there was also the Metacon War during the Prothean Cycle so conflicts with synthetics have occurred every cycle and synthetics have presumably killed billions of people.  All of these conflicts involve PRIMITIVE AI not the Advanced AI the harvest was created to prevent.  The Geth don't even become fully evolved until the RC and once they do, they pretty much rip the Quarians to shreads.  So imagine what happens when organics survive the harvest and create an AI that is already fully evolved?  And again, we are talking POSSIBILITY not INEVITABILITY.

5. Leviathan - To solve this problem, we created an intelligence with the mandate to PRESERVE LIFE AT ANY COST.  There was no mistake it still serves its purpose.

The purpose or mandate was to preserve life at any cost.  Leviathan admits it still serves it's purpose. Leviathan was simply stupid and gave it sh*tty programing.

So you have refuted nothing.  You have given your opinion which I disagree with.  You asked why I believe the Catalyst, I have told you.  Telling me why you don't believe him refutes nothing.

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

My problem is this:  Given all the available facts, your AI is going hostile.  So it's going to completely disregard the fact that it doesn't know there were options.  It's going to disregard the fact that several of the home worlds for advanced species were very nearly flying fireballs to say "it's all the organic's fault".  There is no other option for it because you are not allowing other options with tidbits like "it's not going to care that organics were, by the very definition of the world, being decimated by the hour, it's only going to care that organics killed synthetics".  Frankly, if a scientist built a VI that couldn't assimilate all the available data, I'd shoot the scientist, and I said VI for a reason, if it hasn't evolved the capacity to reason that destroying the Reapers was self defense, it's not evolved into an AI.  It's intelligence is still virtual, and supplied largely by organic input, very much like a modern computer.  Modern computers are stupid.  If you don't tell them what to do, they don't do anything.  Your "AI" isn't any better.

There is no confusion, on my part.  You are waving your AI around like an "I win" button.  You have, much like the OP, chosen to ignore the facts that would be in evidence so that you can scream "you people are monsters" from the highest peaks.  Only the OP decided it was more fun to change the conditions of the ending.  Note, not plural, just Destroy, for more justification, and you are riding his coat tails like you were born to it.  I guess it's time for me to do the same thing to you you like to do to me:  Show me where it says the Catalyst was right and we're going to create your super AI.    Skip to 8:00 for the beginning of the Catalyst dialog.  Destroy ending is at 14:48 for the explanation.  20:30 for shooting the tube and the slides.  I'm not looking for your head canon, I'm looking for evidence from the video.

If the US dropped a bomb to kill Bin Laden and it killed every single person in someone's family or, how do you think that affects them?  They may understand completely why the US did it but that does not mean every single person they love magically comes back to life because they understand.  Some humans might accept that and others might not and want revenge or consider the U.S. a threat.  You are acting like the people affected by collateral damge should just sit their happily and accept it.  That is not how life works. 

And no where have I called anyone monsters.  Again, you are creating straw men.  You are the one throwing genocide and genetic rape around to me implying I am a monster, lol.  I provided evidence of your posts that said it.  I asked you to provide a post where I did the same and you have yet to so it is the height of hypocrisy to claim someone is calling you a monster when you can't find a post in which I said this while at the same time calling their decisions genocide and genetic rape.  So your protests about this are incredibly disingenuous. 

Catalyst:  But the peace won't last. Soon your children will create synthetics and then the chaos will come back.

You see the bold.  Those children are born post harvest when organic civilization is potentially more advanced than previous cycles because they survived the harvest.  It is entirely logical then that the AI created will be more advanced.  Again, this was the point of the harvest.  To prevent organics from living too long that they created AI that would surpass them.

Sorry, this isn't my topic, I'm just responding to it.  If it's a strawman, then this it belongs to the op:

PirateMouse wrote...

Here's a question for those who picked Destroy ...

Would you still pick Destroy if it required you to kill all quarians?

All asari?

All turians?

All humans?

All organics?

How far are you really prepared to go? How far does the end justify the means for you?

That, is the strawman.  This is the justification for: you people are monsters.  You subscribe to this belief as well, as you support it every time you say "but the EDI and the geth died".  You support it every time you wave your AI around.

Yes, how did I know that you would go straight to "but the Catalyst said ...".  It said a lot of things.  Since you like to metagame, it also said that the beam could kill Shepard too, since Shepard was part Synthetic.  Guess what, since we're discussing metagame; the Catalyst was wrong on high EMS Destroy.  Shepard didn't die from the beam.  I wonder what else it could have been wrong about?  I mean, it's metagame right?  I don't have to pull information just from the video, the breath scene is called "Shepard Lives".  It was also wrong about us not being able to keep our own forms, since in Destroy and Control, we actually do keep our own forms.  Yep, it's a font of reliable information, isn't it?  Tell me then, since it's so reliable, why was it you didn't pick Refuse again?  I mean, you evidently agree with it 100%, so wouldn't your logical choice have been Refuse?  No, wait for it, you only choose to believe what it says when it supports your cause.  Because if you truly believed it, you would believe that it was correct on maintaining the cycles, unless, of course, this is why you chose Synthesis?  So it would be justified in harvesting the entire galaxy?

I guess I asked for the poor analogy by bringing up what would have happened if they'd bombed Bin Laden, so, I'm just going to reply this way:  The people harboring him are just as guilty as he was.  It's not like it's a big secret that anyone was looking for him.  Here, if you aid and abet a murderer, you are an accessory after the fact, and can be charged just as if you'd pulled the trigger yourself.  Their family's can be mad, and my question would simply be "are you here to turn yourself in for aiding and abetting a known terrorist?", and see how willing they are to die for their belief that harboring him was the right thing to do.  Shocker isn't it?  That I believe a criminal should pay for their crimes, and that anyone helping them should pay just as much.  Like I said, I don't have a pacifistic world view, if you can't bear to suffer the consequences, then don't commit the crime.  My personal opinion about Bin Laden is that they should have had a public execution, broadcast on all the networks for the terrorists of the world to see.  It's really too bad we were denied that.

[remydat]

Robert

So you claim I said stuff and when challenged you produce something someone else said and say I support it.  That is just bull.  I said I don't pick destroy because it kills EDI and the Geth.  That is my personal choice.  That has nothing to do with what Pirate or you said because I am not Pirate or you.  Find me something where I called you a monster or your claim is just bull.  You said synthesis is genocide and genetic rape.  You straight up said that.  I don't have to go looking for posts for other people.  Those are your words.  So your stance here is just hypocritical.

And no it is not metagame because the Catalyst says it in the game.  You either believe him or you don't.  I believe he is telling me what he thinks to be true.  That does not mean I have to agree with his conclusion about THE FUTURE.  I don't agree it is inevitable ie 100% certain.  I agree it is possible because I have seen and lived the history and see the conflict.  So again, you are confused.  I believe you are telling me what you think is the truth.  That doesn't mean I agree with you 100% because my perspective is different than yours.  So you seem lost regarding this point.

The problem is two fold.  First, in war not every person killed has aided and abetted the enemy.  The Geth and EDI are fighting against the Reapers.  They agreed to help you.  So you did not kill people aiding and abetting the enemy.  You basically blow up up allies willingly in order to kill Bin Laden.  This would be like the US deciding to blow up British or French soldiers in order to kill bin laden.  The British and French may understand why you did it but some of them are likely to still consider you a threat because of what you did.

Second, your logic applies to the enemy as well.  Organics have aided and abetted the Council Laws that say synthetics should not exist and the Quarians who tried to destroy them twice because they freely accept the Council's rules, trade with them, engage with them, and do nothing when the Quarians attack.  So you are free to kill those that aid and abet the enemy but then the enemy is free to retaliate.  That is how it generally works.  

But again, if the Geth and EDI were allies of the Reapers then I would not hesistate to kill them.  They are not.  I am the US and they are the British or French and we are fighting a war on terror.  I don't just kill them when I have other alternatives.  You are free to choose otherwise as I have said.  I have no interest or desire to label you anything because of your choice.  I simply disagree with it as is my right.  You seem to think anyone that disagrees with you must mean they think you are a monster which is more a reflection of your issues.  I made no such statements so you had to go find someone else's post and try to attribute them to me all the while saying I have committed genocide and genetic rape, lol.  Hypocritical much?

Modifié par remydat, 20 avril 2013 - 07:49 .

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

Robert

So you claim I said stuff and when challenged you produce something someone else said and say I support it.  That is just bull.  I said I don't pick destroy because it kills EDI and the Geth.  That is my personal choice.  That has nothing to do with what Pirate or you said because I am not Pirate or you.  Find me something where I called you a monster or your claim is just bull.  You said synthesis is genocide and genetic rape.  You straight up said that.  I don't have to go looking for posts for other people.  Those are your words.  So your stance here is just hypocritical.

oooo, struck a nerve, but the quoted post is in response to your claim of strawman.  Of course, I pointed that out immediately after I posted the other quote.  Reading comprehension is essential in a media where reading is required for communication.

And no it is not metagame because the Catalyst says it in the game.  You either believe him or you don't.  I believe he is telling me what he thinks to be true.  That does not mean I have to agree with his conclusion about THE FUTURE.  I don't agree it is inevitable ie 100% certain.  I agree it is possible because I have seen and lived the history and see the conflict.  So again, you are confused.  I believe you are telling me what you think is the truth.  That doesn't mean I agree with you 100% because my perspective is different than yours.  So you seem lost regarding this point.

Any time you reference material from after your choice to support your choice, it is metagaming.  It is obvious to me that you don't have a clue what you're talking about here, but, how many times have you instructed me to watch what EDI says in the video to defend your choice?  Since EDI doesn't say anything until after your choice, you are relying on metagame knowledge.

The problem is two fold.  First, in war not every person killed has aided and abetted the enemy.  The Geth and EDI are fighting against the Reapers.  They agreed to help you.  So you did not kill people aiding and abetting the enemy.  You basically blow up up allies willingly in order to kill Bin Laden.  This would be like the US deciding to blow up British or French soldiers in order to kill bin laden.  The British and French may understand why you did it but some of them are likely to still consider you a threat because of what you did.

Second, your logic applies to the enemy as well.  Organics have aided and abetted the Council Laws that say synthetics should not exist and the Quarians who tried to destroy them twice because they freely accept the Council's rules, trade with them, engage with them, and do nothing when the Quarians attack.  So you are free to kill those that aid and abet the enemy but then the enemy is free to retaliate.  That is how it generally works.  

But again, if the Geth and EDI were allies of the Reapers then I would not hesistate to kill them.  They are not.  I am the US and they are the British or French and we are fighting a war on terror.  I don't just kill them when I have other alternatives.  You are free to choose otherwise as I have said.  I have no interest or desire to label you anything because of your choice.  I simply disagree with it as is my right.  You seem to think anyone that disagrees with you must mean they think you are a monster which is more a reflection of your issues.  I made no such statements so you had to go find someone else's post and try to attribute them to me all the while saying I have committed genocide and genetic rape, lol.  Hypocritical much?

Again, reading comprehension is essential in a media that requires reading, so read my post again, and maybe try again?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

So, here we are on page 34. Remy is saying that unless Shepard chooses one of the two Reaper solutions of Control or Synthesis, we organics should instead all just simply end the conflict, just line up and agree to be harvested for the good of the galaxy; otherwise organics in the Milky Way galaxy are completely doomed to be overrun by synthetics in the future. That is the gist of his entire argument.

Is this the bottom line?

[remydat]

Robert,

It is a strawman because I never said it. You made a claim about me personally suggesting you are a monster and then couldn't defend said claim. Showing me that one time in band camp someone else said something does not prove you did not create a straw man when you made a claim about me not Pirate.

The Catalyst says Peace will not last and that the chaos will return before I make my choice so no metagame was involved. The statement I quoted occurs before a decision was made.

I read your post and responded. The Geth and EDI are allies. Telling me about people aiding and abetting the enemy is irrelevant since the Geth and EDI are allies.

[remydat]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

So, here we are on page 34. Remy is saying that unless Shepard chooses one of the two Reaper solutions of Control or Synthesis, we organics should instead all just simply end the conflict, just line up and agree to be harvested for the good of the galaxy; otherwise organics in the Milky Way galaxy are completely doomed to be overrun by synthetics in the future. That is the gist of his entire argument.

Is this the bottom line?

No I am saying I don't personally see them as Reaper solutions so I have no problem picking them.  I have said you are free to make your own decision based on your own conclusions.  The only people trying to force a decision on others are the folks on the Destroy side of things.  Once again, you are free to make your own decision and I am free to make mine.  Your side of the argument has a penchant for trying to pretend I said things I didn't.

[robertthebard]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

So, here we are on page 34. Remy is saying that unless Shepard chooses one of the two Reaper solutions of Control or Synthesis, we organics should instead all just simply end the conflict, just line up and agree to be harvested for the good of the galaxy; otherwise organics in the Milky Way galaxy are completely doomed to be overrun by synthetics in the future. That is the gist of his entire argument.

Is this the bottom line?

You forgot this recent development of accusing people of creating strawmen to cover up his red herring AI.