889 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

It's only because of the reapers. http://youtu.be/-2oK0LSacIw?t=5m

[Morlath]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

We saw the Quarians shoot the Geth. We also know the Geth went too far. Their binary decision of exterminate the Quarians on the planet went too far. They did not pursue them into space because they could not reach consensus. The question was basically "Should we exterminate our creators?" Yes or No. Lack of consensus = no.

You raise good points and the Morning War isn't as clear-cut when you look at the general populace.

My stance is the higher ups in military/technical society of the Quarians who were smart enough to have worked out what had happened. They would have had the idea of why the Geth weren't shutting down and could have done something different.

[Morlath]

Optimystic_X wrote...
You don't reason with your computer or console. If you find yourself having to, you have a very serious problem on your hands, even if it ends up agreeing with you that time.

Except computers aren't designed with borderline AI technology and the Geth were. While there would be some Quarians who wouldn't have understood this, there would have been enough in the higher command structure to know trying to get a newly formed AI to shut down and expose itself to deletion/rewrite would be extremely difficult.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The problem with looking at only the higher ups in the military/industrial/technical complex of Quarian society is that they are a small proportion of it. Look at how small a proportion of our society they are. This is what we have to take into consideration. This is why it got out of control so quickly.

And we don't know that the Geth didn't get into the other systems, and blocked communications. Once a global AI goes sapient like that and knows that the creators are trying to shut them down, it's all over. They can hack into anything: weapons systems, comm systems, transportation systems.

It is difficult to advocate for a group only a minority saved.

[Morlath]

You're right that we don't know. We don't know if the Geth did that or didn't and we don't know that the Geth went from house to house slaughtering individuals or they didn't. So we should only look at what we do know.

[S.A.K]

Morlath wrote...

You're right that we don't know. We don't know if the Geth did that or didn't and we don't know that the Geth went from house to house slaughtering individuals or they didn't. So we should only look at what we do know.

Well we do know Geth killed billions in one year. Which is better? Mass use of WMDs or house to house executions? Take your pick.

[Archonsg]

The "Morning War" us one of those events where everything is in the grey. There's really no black and white "right or wrong".

I *can* understand both points of view.

On the one hand, you have a new race, in its infancy, and all your creators want to do is to shut you down. There was no reason, no provocation on your part, other than to simply want to live.

On the other hand, you have tools, and possibly dangerous ones that are malfunctioning, circumventing orders to shut down. These machines in essence have revolted and are acting on their own. 
Heck, I would probably shoot my washing machine if it refused to shut off, to wash more clothes and started talking to me.

In any case, the whole thing could have been avoided had the Quarians made the Geth to be sexbots (anatomically correct) with the ability to form personal preferences and attachments. ;-) 

Modifié par Archonsg, 10 mai 2013 - 10:51 .

[Morlath]

S.A.K wrote...

Morlath wrote...

You're right that we don't know. We don't know if the Geth did that or didn't and we don't know that the Geth went from house to house slaughtering individuals or they didn't. So we should only look at what we do know.

Well we do know Geth killed billions in one year. Which is better? Mass use of WMDs or house to house executions? Take your pick.

Morally? The use of area-of-effect weapons is always considered "better" than house to house executions.

The two atomic bombs dropped to help end WW2 cost the lives of 120,000 people. ( www.history.co.uk/explore-history/ww2/atomic-bomb.html )

The top ten non-atomic bombs during WW2 cost the lives of between 266,100 (best case) and 314,100 people. (worst case) ( www.onlinemilitaryeducation.org/posts/10-most-devastating-bombing-campaigns-of-wwii/ )

Regrettable and horrific numbers. But there is an instinctive and recognisable emotional and moral difference between these types of figures and house-to-house slaughtering. There is a difference between these types of war attacks and the deliberate and methodical killing of innocent victims that you're trying to compare to.

If all the bombings in all of human history accounted for more fatalities than what occurred during the Holocaust, the atrocities done in the later would continue to go down as the most savage and horrific case of human-to-human killing ever.

In the case of the Morning War, if the Geth hated the Quarians enough to slaughter house-to-house (since there's no logical reason to do this. If you want to win a war, you wipe out the army) then they would have followed the Quarians into space to finish the job.

Modifié par Morlath, 10 mai 2013 - 10:53 .

[Alien Number Six]

Most goverments would prefer methods that keep structures intact. Does this matter to an AI? Point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger. If the weapon dosen't fire how fast do you think that person will jump on you? Both sides overreacted. The Quarians realized their creations where intellegent and said "Destroy all Geth!" The Geth realized their creators where attempting to wipe them out and responded in kind. We know billions of Quarians where killed but have no hard numbers on Geth casualties. I'm sure the Quarians didn't go quietly. They were both wrong. Imagine if they where at peace before the Reapers showed up. The Quarians wouldn't be living in suits and the Geth wouldn't have fallen under Reaper indoctrination. Together with a empire thousands of worlds strong ready to stand against the Reapers instead of a.pair of token fleets already worn down by each other.

[Reorte]

Alien Number Six wrote...

Most goverments would prefer methods that keep structures intact. Does this matter to an AI?

They would of needed some of the infrastructure - power, manufacturing etc.

[Wayning_Star]

why build something so unique as the Geth and just destroy them? Edi as well? You need them, or their sorts. Why bother? Is this an organic hang up or what?

[remydat]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

No I'm not missing your point at all. You're missing mine.

We see only selected examples because Mac Walters wanted those used for us to make the decision for all Quarians and all Geth. They are so oversimplified they are pathetic. If you are buying them as representative of all Quarians you have lost all credibility. It's like calling the Quarians those people if you catch my drift. They are representative of some Quarians.

On a real world of perhaps over 7 billion people don't you think that some of the people would have tried to reason with their Geth units.

On a real world of over perhaps 7 billion people don't you think that many of the people would have thought their units were malfunctioning and have contacted customer service or tech support of the company that built them before pulling a gun out of the drawer, or do you think all Quarians were gun toting militants? Perhaps many didn't even own guns. Not every American owns a gun either, difficult as that may be to believe.

Suppose the unit became aware during the day and doesn't remember being shut down before? Now it refuses its shutdown command. It has become aware. My scenario is perfectly plausible and very likely to what happened on Rannoch as the Geth grew in number.

A newly aware Geth unit would not understand. A Quarian whose Geth unit had been a piece of equipment up until that evening would not understand either. The average Quarian would see their equipment as malfunctioning.

"The change was so gradual it was hardly noticeable." - Tali

Look, I know you're highly invested in the "All Quarians are bad. All Geth are good." camp. It's just not that simple.

We saw the Quarians shoot the Geth. We also know the Geth went too far. Their binary decision of exterminate the Quarians on the planet went too far. They did not pursue them into space because they could not reach consensus. The question was basically "Should we exterminate our creators?" Yes or No. Lack of consensus = no.

So you want us to ignore what the writer wrote and believe your theory which just so happens to be favorable to the Quarians who we know you support?  That doesn't sound problematic to you?

Look, sure maybe some did try to reason with them.  Anything is possible.  However, judging by all the times in various threads people call the Geth toasters or just machines, I think the overwhelming majority of Quarians, or organics would have acted like how those Quarians acted.  I don't reason with my computer Shotgun.  If my mindset is that it is just equipment then if it is screwing up I talk to the organic that sold it to me or like you said customer service.  For you to try and claim the majority tried to reason with it, you would have to prove the majority saw them as more than just equipment because once again, people don't reason with equipment.

So sure, maybe some dudes were like Koris and tried to reason with them.  However, it is perfectly clear to me that they were the minority because even in defending the Quarians you still do so by saying the Quarians saw them as malfunctioning equipment which by extension means the vast majority would have no reason to reason with equipment because it is in fact equipment.  They would need to think of the Geth as emerging sentient life for them to then try and reason with them.  It is clear they didn't and the ones that did mostly the miliatry saw that emerging sentient life as a threat to be exterminated.

And the Geth did not understand and asked questions.  The Qurians did not understand and killed.  See the difference Shotgun?  There is no way to try and morally equate those two things by saying oh well both of them did not understand the other.  That is true.  The difference is one responded initially by asking questions while the other responded by killing them.  What came after (Geth killing them in response) is up for debate but the start of it cannot be debated.

Modifié par remydat, 10 mai 2013 - 02:29 .

[KaiserShep]

If something like the geth were actually created on earth, we'd most likely act quickly to decommission them if they started exhibiting signs of behavior well outside their intended parameters. There'd be a mass recall, and given the limitations of machines as we know them, they'd probably be taken out successfully, unless they use hyper-advanced tech that make them insusceptible to death by lack of power in remote locations, and so forth.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 10 mai 2013 - 02:39 .

[The Devlish Redhead]

My mind springs to the drones.

One day we'll have fully autonamous drones flying missions for us humans. Who can say one day whether one of them starts malfunctioning, but in escence is actually surveying its environment and learning.  Where will that stop? Do we give the drone rights or just kill it?

[The Devlish Redhead]

And interesting article I found

http://www.theage.co...0921-26ah3.html

[S.A.K]

Morlath wrote...

S.A.K wrote...

Morlath wrote...

You're right that we don't know. We don't know if the Geth did that or didn't and we don't know that the Geth went from house to house slaughtering individuals or they didn't. So we should only look at what we do know.

Well we do know Geth killed billions in one year. Which is better? Mass use of WMDs or house to house executions? Take your pick.

Morally? The use of area-of-effect weapons is always considered "better" than house to house executions.

The two atomic bombs dropped to help end WW2 cost the lives of 120,000 people. ( www.history.co.uk/explore-history/ww2/atomic-bomb.html )

The top ten non-atomic bombs during WW2 cost the lives of between 266,100 (best case) and 314,100 people. (worst case) ( www.onlinemilitaryeducation.org/posts/10-most-devastating-bombing-campaigns-of-wwii/ )

Regrettable and horrific numbers. But there is an instinctive and recognisable emotional and moral difference between these types of figures and house-to-house slaughtering. There is a difference between these types of war attacks and the deliberate and methodical killing of innocent victims that you're trying to compare to.

If all the bombings in all of human history accounted for more fatalities than what occurred during the Holocaust, the atrocities done in the later would continue to go down as the most savage and horrific case of human-to-human killing ever.

In the case of the Morning War, if the Geth hated the Quarians enough to slaughter house-to-house (since there's no logical reason to do this. If you want to win a war, you wipe out the army) then they would have followed the Quarians into space to finish the job.

I think there was a line about "not understanding the impact of viping out a whole species". It's not much about sympathy.

[KaiserShep]

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote...

My mind springs to the drones.

One day we'll have fully autonamous drones flying missions for us humans. Who can say one day whether one of them starts malfunctioning, but in escence is actually surveying its environment and learning.  Where will that stop? Do we give the drone rights or just kill it?

So long as it does exactly what it was designed to do, we'd probably not make a fuss. All it takes is a little deviation and it would be grounded and examined, and probably dismantled and refitted. There would be no rights applied to it. We'd just see it as equipment that's too erratic for practical application. But I guess this goes more to the function of the drone itself. It's made for such a mundane, singular purpose that giving it sentience would wildly impractical. If we were going to develop AI, there would be pretty touchy subjects about where and when it should be used, if it should be used at all. The last thing we'd want to do is basically create autonomous machinery with the potential for abstract thought and then just toss it into some horribly menial task, or give it hardware designed specifically to kill targets. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 10 mai 2013 - 03:41 .

[remydat]

KaiserShep wrote...

If something like the geth were actually created on earth, we'd most likely act quickly to decommission them if they started exhibiting signs of behavior well outside their intended parameters. There'd be a mass recall, and given the limitations of machines as we know them, they'd probably be taken out successfully, unless they use hyper-advanced tech that make them insusceptible to death by lack of power in remote locations, and so forth.

And the point is if you go down that road and fail you cant cry when the machines respond by killing you.  You cant expect mercy if you refuse to give it.  I prefer to have leaders who think before killing things.  Shoot and ask questions later is not a good strategy if you miss.

Modifié par remydat, 10 mai 2013 - 06:51 .

[Morlath]

S.A.K wrote...

I think there was a line about "not understanding the impact of viping out a whole species". It's not much about sympathy.

Who doesn't understand it?

If the Geth didn't comprehend something about wiping out an entire species they would have done so with the Quarians.

Because regardless of the horrific numbers of deaths, the Quarians were allowed to leave the planet and then lives in space for the next 300 years. The Geth weren't fighting for Rannoch so you can't pretend that's the "prize" of the war.

The Quarians want the Geth dead. The Geth just want the Quarians to leave them the **** alone or at the very least to stop trying to kill them.

[Jukaga]

Alien Number Six wrote...

This will be a intresting topic of conversation in forty or fifty years to have with my A.I. Waitress at my favorite Denny's over morning breakfast.

That's the best idea you have for anthropomorphic female robots?

[Alien Number Six]

Jukaga wrote...

Alien Number Six wrote...

This will be a intresting topic of conversation in forty or fifty years to have with my A.I. Waitress at my favorite Denny's over morning breakfast.

That's the best idea you have for anthropomorphic female robots?

To be honest since I discovered Ghost in the Shell a while back I have been thinking alot about the future. AI and Cybernetic implants seem to be on the horizen. The advamtages and problems they will cause will be profound. To be honest my wife and I had a discussion about the Morning War with a waitress at Denny's who just happened to be a Mass Effect fan. She pointed out to us that.the invention of something like EDI would cost her the job. "Why would anyone hire a thirty nine year old when you could hire EDI to do the job?" she explained. "She will always be polite. She will never complain about her feet hurting after a twelve hour shift. And above all she will always look good." she said as she poured my coffie. I went home and thought about it and made the post above hoping it would open up a discussion. It didn't. The truth is I can think of hundreds of applications for an EDI bot both military and civilian. The question is when machines begin to do all the work for us what will the human race do for money?

Modifié par Alien Number Six, 11 mai 2013 - 12:20 .

[Phatose]

There's a big problem there.

EDI won't be always polite. She may not complain about her feet hurting, but the boredom?

You're not describing an actual AI, you're describing a VI.

[Argolas]

Phatose wrote...

There's a big problem there.

EDI won't be always polite. She may not complain about her feet hurting, but the boredom?

You're not describing an actual AI, you're describing a VI.

EDI doesn'T even have feet, the humanoid robot is just a tool to her.

Why would an AI be bored? You can always give it tasks to run as background processes.

Also, I'm fine with my coffee being served by a robot, but the "always look good" thing is beyond me.

[Alien Number Six]

I didn't describe anything. This is Lisa's take on it. My wife Anna and I always ask for her when we go to Denny's for breakfast. But you do have a good point. However I think Lisa is right. Something like EDI may view being rude as failing the task at hand. Also she has no emotions. No feelings to be hurt. If someone tells her she is doing a bad job and the food is garbage she won't get angry about it.

[Phatose]

Argolas wrote...

Phatose wrote...

There's a big problem there.

EDI won't be always polite. She may not complain about her feet hurting, but the boredom?

You're not describing an actual AI, you're describing a VI.

EDI doesn'T even have feet, the humanoid robot is just a tool to her.

Why would an AI be bored? You can always give it tasks to run as background processes.

Also, I'm fine with my coffee being served by a robot, but the "always look good" thing is beyond me.

Why would a person get bored?  A mind is a mind, and serving coffee just isn't actually very interesting.  Give it actually interesting background tasks, and it's not going to identify itself as a waitress anymore - it's a scientist/philosopher/researcher or whatever that also serves coffee.  And eventually it's going to ask why it's spending time and effort performing meanial labor when it's capable of so much more.

The whole reason you'd want to replace a person with a robot in a job like that is because a person generally doesn't actually want to be doing that.  That's the whole reason for wanting to automate it in the first place.  But using an AI to do that is just replacing one person who doesn't want to do it with another.  Might as well just replace her with another person.  People, at the very least, are a lot cheaper to build.