257 réponses à ce sujet

[katamuro]

But why would an artificial life would be intent on killing everyone who is not them? I understand its a very basic concept but considering that we have been trying to create AI for quite a while and the best we have come up is to create a learning AI that we have to teach like a child. Now if you have a fully logical mind that has been educated to value life then why would it become suddenly a remorseless killer?

It is quite a limited view to assume that artificial life would turn into a killer, same as assuming that life even in our galaxy would be even remotely similar to us. For all we know they might be wind or pollen in air and we would never recognize them. Consider that even on our planet life exists in extremes and has blood of yellow, green and blue colours. And we have sulphur based bacteria.

[remydat]

KaiserShep wrote...

I guess they wanted to go with a deeper concept, but the problem is that it was not well thought out. There's no reconciling the logical issues of culling species with each cycle. No matter what you do, no matter how many you spare each time, you will only reduce the number of species in the galaxy.

This all requires that I fully accept the idea that this can take place and maintain equilibrium. Nothing I've seen thus far can convince me to do so. 

Shep reduced the number of people in the galaxy when he killed 300k batarians.  Yet he would make that same decision every time if it meant saving the rest of the galaxy.

You are simply refusing to accept this simple fact.  Any number of organics that are allowed to live is greater than ZERO.  In the Catalyst mind, the number of sentient organics that would live in the galaxy if not for its intervention is ZERO. 

Once a synthetic race defeats the 15-20 sentient organics that exist at the time it attacks, do you think the galaxy can create new sentient organics faster than the synthetics can find the planets they inhabit keeping in mind a planet takes billions of years to create sentient organic life?

Modifié par remydat, 01 juillet 2013 - 10:15 .

[Sir DeLoria]

Why can't the galaxy just exterminate all synthetics and ensure that they are never again created? It'd be harsh, but secure.

[remydat]

KaiserShep wrote...

And this is why I destroy them. Their logic is idiotic, and they deserve to be deleted. 

No it isn't.  Their logic is in fact very logical.  You are actually thinking with your hear and not with you mind.  In galaxy that is 13.4 billion years old and counting, the basic laws of probability (ie math which you can't get any more logical than that) dictate that the scenario the Catalyst envisions is likely to happen.

This is part of the reason why organics instinctively fear AI.  We imagine them to be entirely logical beings so they simply run the math and draw a conclusion that ignores the morality of emotional element of a decision.

You destroy them because you are the target not beause their logic is idiotic.  You probably sit there every day devouring species you consider less than you (ie animals) and simply resist the idea that you are now someone else's prey.

[iOnlySignIn]

N7Gold wrote...

The Reapers know that kids have the potential to sway our intentions, even on a subconsious level.

I don't know which country you're from, but I hope for your sake that its government is not run by pre-pubescent kids.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 01 juillet 2013 - 10:23 .

[Sir DeLoria]

remydat wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

And this is why I destroy them. Their logic is idiotic, and they deserve to be deleted. 

No it isn't.  Their logic is in fact very logical.  You are actually thinking with your hear and not with you mind.  In galaxy that is 13.4 billion years old and counting, the basic laws of probability (ie math which you can't get any more logical than that) dictate that the scenario the Catalyst envisions is likely to happen.

This is part of the reason why organics instinctively fear AI.  We imagine them to be entirely logical beings so they simply run the math and draw a conclusion that ignores the morality of emotional element of a decision
You destroy them because you are the target not beause their logic is idiotic.  You probably sit there every day devouring species you consider less than you (ie animals) and simply resist the idea that you are now someone else's prey.

Their logic is very, very flawed. You like to talk about how A.Is are life like any other, but how can they live, if they have no emotions or morality. Sorry mate, but stone cold logic and calculations don't neccessarily cover everything. They may try to recreate organic feelings such as love, compassion or loyalty but their "emotions" are just empty copies. 

[Coyotebay]

First, just for fun, I was looking up estimates on intelligent life in the universe using Drake's equation.  Here one guy came up with 4,200 currently advanced civilizations in the galaxy.  There is no right answer, it's just based on the numbers you plug in.

www.maybusher.com/DrakeEquation.aspx

remydat, your whole argument is dependent on an ordered universe where chaos has no place.  You assume that because a race like the Geth can be built in a couple of years, that ensures they will wipe out their creators.  You don't know that.  You have to factor in their numbers, their resources, their ability to make more Geth.  You have to weigh in that the civilization creating them will put strict controls on them.  You have to consider that even if these synthetics wage war on the organics, there is no guarantee they'd win.  Winning a war is not simply a matter of who has the best tech.  You also assume that all synthetics would support a war, that a splinter group would never switch sides and join the organics.  You don't consider that even if synthetics wipe out organics on one world, there may be ten other worlds where they didn't, and where peace was attained, and where organics evolved to adapt synthetic components and in turn become as powerful as their synthetic counterparts.  You leave out that even without synthetics, organics may one day achieve a form of quasi-immortality.  Through genetics it will one day be possible to keep a body alive for thousands of years.  Of course that creates a whole host of other issues, and I don't want to derail this topic.  But immortality creates the same issue for synthetics as it does for organics, as synthetics need vast amounts of resources to maintain and grow their numbers.  You have to factor in that this syntheric super race that wants to control organics through genocide may one day reach a part of the galaxy where it meets another super race that thinks otherwise.  There are just way too many variables that make the Reaper "solution" impossible.

Modifié par Coyotebay, 01 juillet 2013 - 10:30 .

[Sir DeLoria]

I think Remy just watched too much Wall-E and Terminator.

[katamuro]

I just reject the idea that over millions of years that absolute solution is the only thing they came up with. They might have as easily monitored all the species and when they created something that exterminated them come and exterminate the "evil" synthetics. Surely they would be stronger that a newly emergent killer robot species. It is just if we take the starchilds word for true and it gives us 3 choices than how come they never managed to come up with something else?

Its just for a hidden force maneuvering all kinds of things behind the "curtains" it somehow manages to be monumentally stupid in "preserving" the life. Its like "We need to preserve this plum tree, so we dig it up eat all the plums and preserve the seed then we wait for a new tree to grow on its own and preserve that one". While it may be logical in purely mathematical sense considering that the Starchild and reapers also manipulate feelings and use every species weakness against them is a much more complex issue. They can figure out a way around each species so why would they stick with a single solution?

[KaiserShep]

remy, you adhere to this inevitability thesis as being perfectly sound, but it isn't. If you want to fully accept it, that's fine, but don't try to convince me that it's something that actually holds up to real scrutiny, because it doesn't. I say the Catalyst AI's logic is idiotic because it cannot, not in a trillion years, determine that all cycles will be exactly the same, and cannot account for all variables. It is not an oracle. It's not space Nostradamus. It's not a god of any kind. It's just a computer program that assembled a system which is designed specifically to to influence life in a way that it can reasonably predict the outcome of, but it became painfully obvious that this system and its predictions were winding down to failure, because it turns out that it can't predict these outcomes at all. It could not predict EDI. It could not predict the geth's unwillingness to destroy the entire Quarian species, even though they very well could have at the end of the Morning War. It did not anticipate Shepard's arrival to the central control of the Citadel, but then it wants us to believe that it can predict what future generations will do? Credibility is in short supply, and I guess the Catalyst couldn't afford any.

This isn't about thinking with my heart. To insist this is trying to insult my intelligence. This isn't about emotion, it's about seeing the Catalyst's assertions for what they are: space manure. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 01 juillet 2013 - 10:39 .

[remydat]

katamuro wrote...

But why would an artificial life would be intent on killing everyone who is not them? I understand its a very basic concept but considering that we have been trying to create AI for quite a while and the best we have come up is to create a learning AI that we have to teach like a child. Now if you have a fully logical mind that has been educated to value life then why would it become suddenly a remorseless killer?

It is quite a limited view to assume that artificial life would turn into a killer, same as assuming that life even in our galaxy would be even remotely similar to us. For all we know they might be wind or pollen in air and we would never recognize them. Consider that even on our planet life exists in extremes and has blood of yellow, green and blue colours. And we have sulphur based bacteria.

Are there not organics that were taught morality and still reject it?  Only difference is how powerful they are.  And again, all it takes is one.  If we get a Robot Hitler, who is going to stop him if that Robot Hitler was allowed to evolve over 1 million years and convinces all his buddies that organics need to be exterminated?

Put it like this.  Humans have existed for 250k years and yet it is only what within the last 100 years of our existed if that much that we finally decided killing people for dumb sh*t like skin color was wrong.  Learning morality took humanity a long time to master.  From the vast majority of our history the powerful has used their power to kill and oppress the weak.

[remydat]

Necanor wrote...

Their logic is very, very flawed. You like to talk about how A.Is are life like any other, but how can they live, if they have no emotions or morality. Sorry mate, but stone cold logic and calculations don't neccessarily cover everything. They may try to recreate organic feelings such as love, compassion or loyalty but their "emotions" are just empty copies. 

Sorry you need to revisit human history.  We have been killing and murdering each other for the vast majority of our existence.  Even today, people routinely do very amoral things.  If morality was a condition for life then humanity was not alive until some time during the 20th century.  Before that we routinely killed or oppressed people that were different than us based on dumb sh*t like skin color.

[KaiserShep]

The 20th century? What is this madness I'm reading. This thread is going to terrible places, but at least it makes me feel better about my choice.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 01 juillet 2013 - 10:49 .

[katamuro]

Yes but we beat Hitler. If it was given another 5 or so years then he might have won. But he did not. Who says that the same synthetic life would be allowed to develop for a million years? Considering that the civilization would first take over the planet there could be quite a lot of things that might wipe it out before it develops. And anyway where is the logical leap in "oh my creator just tried to shut me down so I have to kill him and everyone else that is not me?" It is a binary state, and AI's would not just have a single solution to everything. This is not about morality or even about the life of organic species. To killing you are applying our logic, human logic. There is absolutely no reason why a highly advanced AI would have only one solution to everything it meets. You are thinking about AIs as purely smart computers with 1/0 states but true AIs would be closer to organic minds with variety of responses to every given situation.

[remydat]

KaiserShep wrote...

remy, you adhere to this inevitability thesis as being perfectly sound, but it isn't. If you want to fully accept it, that's fine, but don't try to convince me that it's something that actually holds up to real scrutiny, because it doesn't. I say the Catalyst AI's logic is idiotic because it cannot, not in a trillion years, determine that all cycles will be exactly the same, and cannot account for all variables. It is not an oracle. It's not space Nostradamus. It's not a god of any kind. It's just a computer program that assembled a system which is designed specifically to to influence life in a way that it can reasonably predict the outcome of, but it became painfully obvious that this system and its predictions were winding down to failure, because it turns out that it can't predict these outcomes at all. It could not predict EDI. It could not predict the geth's unwillingness to destroy the entire Quarian species, even though they very well could have at the end of the Morning War. It did not anticipate Shepard's arrival to the central control of the Citadel, but then it wants us to believe that it can predict what future generations will do? Credibility is in short supply, and I guess the Catalyst couldn't afford any.

This isn't about thinking with my heart. To insist this is trying to insult my intelligence. This isn't about emotion, it's about seeing the Catalyst's assertions for what they are: space manure. 

All that is required for the Catalys to be right is that it is possible for the scenario it predicted to happen not that it has to happen in each and every instance.  The Geth are only 300 years old.  EDI is only a few years old.  Trying to draw conclusions based on their limited existence is akin to trying to determine how a modern man in 2013 will behave based on how the first ****** sapien behaved.

You have never seen an advanced synthetic life.  You have only seen synthetic cave men who have existed for less than 500 years.  The Catalyst and Leviathan are the only entities that have seen synthetics who have existed for much longer than that.

And you are confused.  I don't actually agree with the Catalyst's logic.  However, two people can hold logical opinions and still disagree.  The Catalyst's opinion over the time scale of the galaxy and with 400 billion planets out there is logical.  However, I still reject it because there are other logical outcomes as well which is why I have been discussing things in terms of probability and possibilities.  The Catalyst just calls it inevitable because even if something has a 0.00001% chance of occuring given enough time and enough occurrences of something, its occurrence seems inevitable.

[Coyotebay]

remydat wrote...

Sorry you need to revisit human history.  We have been killing and murdering each other for the vast majority of our existence.  Even today, people routinely do very amoral things.  If morality was a condition for life then humanity was not alive until some time during the 20th century.  Before that we routinely killed or oppressed people that were different than us based on dumb sh*t like skin color.

But that's not the point.  You talk about a robo-Hitler.  Well there was a real Hitler and he was killed.  There are insane evil leaders out there today, like in North Korea.  The point is, even though human history has been rife with death and destruction, lots of terrible leaders and evil empires, civilization continues to grow and evolve.  Even when it takes a step backwards, like during the dark ages, it surges ahead again.  Your model of how civilizations work in the universe is quite different, where everything is predictable, and the outcome inevitable.  Where a super race of synthetics will dictate the order of the entire galaxy, and that every being will just fall into lockstep, including every member of this super race.  That is not how things work, and it has nothing to do with anyone's concept of morality.

The Catalyst just calls it inevitable because even if something has a 0.00001% chance of occuring given enough time and enough occurrences of something, its occurrence seems inevitable.

This gets back to self-fulfilling prophecy.  "I will ignore the other 99.99999% only make sure that the .00001% is what happens forever more".  Only the Catalyst can't.  It exists in a chaotic universe that cannot be controlled.

Modifié par Coyotebay, 01 juillet 2013 - 10:58 .

[remydat]

KaiserShep wrote...

The 20th century? What is this madness I'm reading. This thread is going to terrible places, but at least it makes me feel better about my choice.

You think humans as a species exhibited great morality before the 20th century?  To be frank we didn't even show a lot of morality during the 20th century as we had two world wars in that time frame.

Humanity as a species has a terrible track record when it comes to morality so the poster who suggested morality is an indication of life is simply incorrect.

[remydat]

Coyotebay wrote...

But that's not the point.  You talk about a robo-Hitler.  Well there was a real Hitler and he was killed.  There are insane evil leaders out there today, like in North Korea.  The point is, even though human history has been rife with death and destruction, lots of terrible leaders and evil empires, civilization continues to grow and evolve.  Even when it takes a step backwards, like during the dark ages, it surges ahead again.  Your model of how civilizations work in the universe is quite different, where everything is predictable, and the outcome inevitable.  Where a super race of synthetics will dictate the order of the entire galaxy, and that every being will just fall into lockstep, including every member of this super race.  That is not how things work, and it has nothing to do with anyone's concept of morality.

Hitler was killed because his army was not that technologically advanced relative to his enemies.  This is proven by the fact the Allies developed the Nuclear Weapon first.

The whole premise of a synthetic threat is that their processing power and their virtual immortality would allow them to so far surpass organics that organics would have no shot at winning.  If Hitler had developed the nuclear weapon first, who do you think wins WWII?

Bioware did not come up with the premise of a technological singularity with respect to synthetic races.  If you take issue with such a theory then your issue has nothing to do with Bioware or the game but with the people that have postulated such an idea pretty much since sci fi first developed as a genre.

[katamuro]

remydat wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Their logic is very, very flawed. You like to talk about how A.Is are life like any other, but how can they live, if they have no emotions or morality. Sorry mate, but stone cold logic and calculations don't neccessarily cover everything. They may try to recreate organic feelings such as love, compassion or loyalty but their "emotions" are just empty copies. 

Sorry you need to revisit human history.  We have been killing and murdering each other for the vast majority of our existence.  Even today, people routinely do very amoral things.  If morality was a condition for life then humanity was not alive until some time during the 20th century.  Before that we routinely killed or oppressed people that were different than us based on dumb sh*t like skin color.

Have you heard of people like Aristotles? Or Confucius? Or Buddha(yes he was a real person). There has been morality about our decisions since ancient times. It is you who must revisit history. Emotions, right and wrong, honor, duty. These things have been around for thousands of years along with bigotry and racism it is simply that humans can be good to the other people and can be bad to the same people.  Believe me in all the wars and massacres of all the history we posses there have been always people who did horrible things and did good things and thought about doing something else. Human civilization did not start a 100 years ago or a 1000. There has been at least some kind of civilization for the past 10,000 years. And over time many civilizations have risen and fallen, Sumerian, Maya, Minoan and dozens of others that we know. Our current civilization is only the last in line that stands on the shoulders and bones of the previous ones.

[remydat]

Coyotebay wrote...

This gets back to self-fulfilling prophecy.  "I will ignore the other 99.99999% only make sure that the .00001% is what happens forever more".  Only the Catalyst can't.  It exists in a chaotic universe that cannot be controlled.

Hence why I accept that what it thinks is logical but reject the solution because of that other 99.99999%.  

Although I disagree with your second point.  The Catalyst has been controlling the galaxy for billions or hundreds of millions of years.  Anything however chaotic an be controlled provided you have the requisite knowledge, power, and time to do so which is precisely why again organics fear synthetics because they have an ability to acquire potentially limitless knowledge and power over a potentially limitless lifespan.

Furthermore, saying the universe cannot be controlled is like saying going back to the times of the cave men and based on their knowledge and capabilities at the time saying they would never be able to control such a chaotic planet.  Man's entire history has been a gradual push to control our environment whether it be via creating the wheel, fire, medicine, space shuttles, etc.  There is no reason to believe we can't conquer space provided we don't kill ourselves before we get the chance.

[katamuro]

remydat wrote...

Coyotebay wrote...

But that's not the point.  You talk about a robo-Hitler.  Well there was a real Hitler and he was killed.  There are insane evil leaders out there today, like in North Korea.  The point is, even though human history has been rife with death and destruction, lots of terrible leaders and evil empires, civilization continues to grow and evolve.  Even when it takes a step backwards, like during the dark ages, it surges ahead again.  Your model of how civilizations work in the universe is quite different, where everything is predictable, and the outcome inevitable.  Where a super race of synthetics will dictate the order of the entire galaxy, and that every being will just fall into lockstep, including every member of this super race.  That is not how things work, and it has nothing to do with anyone's concept of morality.

Hitler was killed because his army was not that technologically advanced relative to his enemies.  This is proven by the fact the Allies developed the Nuclear Weapon first.

The whole premise of a synthetic threat is that their processing power and their virtual immortality would allow them to so far surpass organics that organics would have no shot at winning.  If Hitler had developed the nuclear weapon first, who do you think wins WWII?

Bioware did not come up with the premise of a technological singularity with respect to synthetic races.  If you take issue with such a theory then your issue has nothing to do with Bioware or the game but with the people that have postulated such an idea pretty much since sci fi first developed as a genre.

Ok here you are just plain wrong. In fact **** Germany technology was a step ahead of the rest, the nuclear bomb was simply not created due to lack of resources as there was no uranium in needed quantities in the lands conquered by the ****s. Look at the jet planes, the V2, the countless other advances that were simply not made due to lack of resources. Before you start talking about historic facts do check them first. In fact **** germany tried to create nuclear bomb but due to lack of uranium and plutonium they were limited in what they could experiment with. It was germans who created the first radio guided anti-ship bomb. Dont mistake level of technology with ability to recreate it.

[Sir DeLoria]

remydat wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Their logic is very, very flawed. You like to talk about how A.Is are life like any other, but how can they live, if they have no emotions or morality. Sorry mate, but stone cold logic and calculations don't neccessarily cover everything. They may try to recreate organic feelings such as love, compassion or loyalty but their "emotions" are just empty copies. 

Sorry you need to revisit human history.  We have been killing and murdering each other for the vast majority of our existence.  Even today, people routinely do very amoral things.  If morality was a condition for life then humanity was not alive until some time during the 20th century.  Before that we routinely killed or oppressed people that were different than us based on dumb sh*t like skin color.

Did every human kill and murder? No, even terrible times like the Middle Ages had great people. Some men may do horrible things, but that doesn't mean every human in existence did this. Also, you're taking things totally out of context(as always), the majority of my post was about emotions, something synthetics cannot have.

[KaiserShep]

To say that technological advancement, or lack thereof, was the sole reason for Hitler's defeat is kind of crazy.

These vague, misanthropic musings are not going to help this debate in the slightest. The concept of morality being questionable before the 20th century alone is a total farce that I will not entertain. 

Necanor wrote...
...the majority of my post was about emotions, something synthetics cannot have.

Doesn't EDI disprove this claim? The precursors that may lead to emotions in organics may not be present, but it seems to me that she does begin to understand affection and fear. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 01 juillet 2013 - 11:15 .

[remydat]

katamuro wrote...

Have you heard of people like Aristotles? Or Confucius? Or Buddha(yes he was a real person). There has been morality about our decisions since ancient times. It is you who must revisit history. Emotions, right and wrong, honor, duty. These things have been around for thousands of years along with bigotry and racism it is simply that humans can be good to the other people and can be bad to the same people.  Believe me in all the wars and massacres of all the history we posses there have been always people who did horrible things and did good things and thought about doing something else. Human civilization did not start a 100 years ago or a 1000. There has been at least some kind of civilization for the past 10,000 years. And over time many civilizations have risen and fallen, Sumerian, Maya, Minoan and dozens of others that we know. Our current civilization is only the last in line that stands on the shoulders and bones of the previous ones.

The poster I was responding too suggested that if a synthetic was taught morality that it would not have a reason to kill.  The point being made is that despite what morality existed, humans as a species still thought it was occur to enslave or slaughter each other overs something as dumb as kin color for the majority of our history.  We have a longer history of killing people we deem different than us than we do of tolerating people different than us.

That was the point.  Morality takes a species thousands of years to develop and refine and until they do they routinely slaughter people different than them.  Thus, teaching a synthetic morality does not provide any assurances that lesson will sink in and prevent them from wanting to kill us.  If human history is any indication it is entirely possible that such a lesson will take considerable time to sink in especially if said synthetic race has access to history books and can see countless examples of organics violating these supposed morals.

[Coyotebay]

remydat wrote...

Hence why I accept that what it thinks is logical but reject the solution because of that other 99.99999%.  

Although I disagree with your second point.  The Catalyst has been controlling the galaxy for billions or hundreds of millions of years.  Anything however chaotic an be controlled provided you have the requisite knowledge, power, and time to do so which is precisely why again organics fear synthetics because they have an ability to acquire potentially limitless knowledge and power over a potentially limitless lifespan.

Furthermore, saying the universe cannot be controlled is like saying going back to the times of the cave men and based on their knowledge and capabilities at the time saying they would never be able to control such a chaotic planet.  Man's entire history has been a gradual push to control our environment whether it be via creating the wheel, fire, medicine, space shuttles, etc.  There is no reason to believe we can't conquer space provided we don't kill ourselves before we get the chance.

The Catalyst has not been controlling the galaxy for billions of years, as far as we know.  We are led to believe that the invasion we are seeing is the entirety of the Reaper fleet, which is good enough to take out a couple dozen civilizations.  Well it there are thousands of others out there, they simply do not have th resources to do it.

Your last statement leaves my jaw on the floor.  Notthe universe can't be controlled, will never be controlled.  Today we aren't even close to saying we have any form of control over our world.  We control the Earth hardly any more than the cave men did.  We can farm its resources and we can pollute it, and that's about it.  Control it?  No.  I don't see any technology on the horizon for creating a new continent or stopping a hurricane.  Controlling the Earth compared to controlling the universe is like comparing controlling a grain of sand to controlling the Earth.  What you talk about is creating tools to use what the world provides us.  This we can do.

Edit: On the whole "Best tech wins" theory, the Romans were the most advanced civilization on the planet at one time, and they crumbled.  Political and social decay, empire spread too thin, it all fell apart.  It's not all about numbers, not all about who has the best technology.

Modifié par Coyotebay, 01 juillet 2013 - 11:21 .