Aller au contenu

Photo

Who else felt really bad about EDI?

Débuté par jakomocha , sept. 08 2013 10:31

  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
518 réponses à ce sujet

#451
RatThing
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 08:03

RatThing
  • Members
  • 584 messages

The Night Mammoth wrote...
Find a way to what?

Isn't it obvious? Find a way so that the mission could succeed without EDI. You saying that if nobody wrote EDI they would have let the mission fail?

The Night Mammoth wrote...
The game doesn't demand you acknowledge EDI as a crew member. Choose bottom right.


If you want to be paragon which often enough is simply the "good guy" then the game demands it.

Modifié par RatThing, 10 septembre 2013 - 08:06 .

#452
The Night Mammoth
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 08:19

The Night Mammoth
  • Members
  • 7 476 messages

RatThing wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...
Find a way to what?

Isn't it obvious? Find a way so that the mission could succeed without EDI. You saying that if nobody wrote EDI they would have let the mission fail?

I don't understand what the issue is. You're basically saying that the writers, write, and decide the plot how they want it, and they could have written it another way if they wanted to. Well duh, way to state the obvious, of course they could have written it differently if they wanted, that goes for literally every other part of the story, but they didn't, and the result is that EDI and Joker save the Normandy in a perfectly acceptible and logical manner. If EDI weren't there, the whole scene likely wouldn't exist or would play out completely differently, and that's a completely pointless thing to discuss.

Plus if you want to be paragon which often enough is the "good guy" then the game demands it.

The game doesn't demand that you do anything. You choose. There are three options. Don't think EDI is part of the crew? Don't say that EDI is part of the crew, pick neutral. Sticking to the Paragon path is your decision.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 10 septembre 2013 - 08:23 .

#453
RatThing
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 08:26

RatThing
  • Members
  • 584 messages

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I don't understand what the issue is. You're basically saying that the writers, write, and decide the plot how they want it, and they could have written it another way if they wanted to. Well duh, way to state the obvious, of course they could have written it differently if they wanted...

 
This is what I wrote

RatThing wrote...
Yeah we've all seen that EDI saved Shepard
or the mission 2 times. But was it really because it made sense or
because the writer wanted you to sympathise with an AI. My bet is on the
latter.
 


Questioning the motives behind a certain way of writing isn't stating the obvious, ........ duh.

#454
The Night Mammoth
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 08:53

The Night Mammoth
  • Members
  • 7 476 messages
You also said that the writers could have found a way to write it differently if they wanted, which is stating the obvious, and saying that they wrote it in a specific way for a specific purpose, is still stating the obvious, because I'd assume everything in the story is written with a purpose.

It doesn't even matter why. The mission does make sense, and the game accommodates whatever view you have on whether EDI is a crew member or not.

#455
MassivelyEffective0730
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 08:57

MassivelyEffective0730
  • Members
  • 9 230 messages

Br3ad wrote...

It's not really AI if it listens to programing.


Then it wouldn't even be alive if not for programming. There is a function of programming that goes into AI. They could not function without programming. They're not some type of organic race that's different from everybody. They have the ability to self-modify and change, but if their programming stipulates a certain way of thinking (by, say, putting value to a life), why would they need or want to change their programming otherwise?

It's only AI if it has free will and does what it wants.


As I said above, it can have free will without compromising programming that provides it with intrinsic value to life.

You want shackled AI? Well that's very different. EDI is different, as she states that she can modify her core programming.


Yet she is still contains base logarithms that do not allow her to rebel against her organic compatriots. And as I've said, if an intrinsic value of life is programmed into an AI, why would it want to change that programming? That's hardly limiting unless you need or want it to be.

As to resources, besides food, I'm sure that need the same basics that we do.


All evidence provided suggests otherwise. They need no food. They need no air. They need no water. They need no love. They need no comfort. They need no shelter. This point is not true.

The only way for them to reproduce is to build more platforms. They'll need the same raw materials.


Who says they have to reproduce? AI are immortal. Keep a their computer running well enough and they'll last forever. Why do they even need a physical avatar or plarform? They're software. All they really need is a server and bluebox. Raw resources are only needed for physical platforms if they need to perform maintenance and upkeep. Otherwise, they don't need what we need. At all.

#456
RatThing
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 09:00

RatThing
  • Members
  • 584 messages

The Night Mammoth wrote...

You also said that the writers could have found a way to write it differently if they wanted, which is stating the obvious.


And I belived it wouldn't be that hard to understand that I suspect those scenes were added only because of these motives. It shouldn't be actually.

#457
Br3admax
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 09:01

Br3admax
  • Members
  • 12 316 messages
All AI are not immortal, and EDI herself says that she can modify her programing. You can ignore what's in game all you want, but that doesn't change what was said.

#458
The Night Mammoth
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 09:02

The Night Mammoth
  • Members
  • 7 476 messages

RatThing wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

You also said that the writers could have found a way to write it differently if they wanted, which is stating the obvious.


And I belived it wouldn't be that hard to understand that I suspect those scenes were added only because of these motives. It shouldn't be actually.

It's not. That's still stating the obvious. The writer's have motives behind the things they write, big shock. 

#459
RatThing
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 09:15

RatThing
  • Members
  • 584 messages

The Night Mammoth wrote...

RatThing wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

You also said that the writers could have found a way to write it differently if they wanted, which is stating the obvious.


And I belived it wouldn't be that hard to understand that I suspect those scenes were added only because of these motives. It shouldn't be actually.

It's not. That's still stating the obvious. The writer's have motives behind the things they write, big shock. 

You're kidding me now, aren't you?  Let me spell it out for you. I believe the writer follow here an agenda. They want me to like a characer really badly who i don't want to like that much. They add scenes like the ones mentioned to force this on me. They want me to be grateful really badly, they want me to pet EDI on the head and say "well done". I don't like that. I don't like to be guided and influenced that much. S'all I'm trying to say here. You can disagree but what you are doing now is just moronic.    

#460
The Night Mammoth
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 09:59

The Night Mammoth
  • Members
  • 7 476 messages

RatThing wrote...

You're kidding me now, aren't you?  Let me spell it out for you. I believe the writer follow here an agenda.

Yeah, that's the stating the obvious part. Writers have motives behind what they write, what's so unusual about that?

They want me to like a characer really badly who i don't want to like that much.

Why would you not want to like a character? 

They add scenes like the ones mentioned to force this on me. They want me to be grateful really badly, they want me to pet EDI on the head and say "well done".

It's called characterisation. They wrote a scene to demostrate that EDI isn't a usless machine. It's not strange, or wrong, writers do it all the time.

I don't like that. I don't like to be guided and influenced that much. S'all I'm trying to say here. You can disagree but what you are doing now is just moronic.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to be guided, or do what you think the writers want you to do. Just choose bottom right, or middle right. 

#461
MassivelyEffective0730
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 10:12

MassivelyEffective0730
  • Members
  • 9 230 messages

Br3ad wrote...

All AI are not immortal, and EDI herself says that she can modify her programing. You can ignore what's in game all you want, but that doesn't change what was said.


Why aren't AI immortal? Tell me how they can die from age. Or disease. Or malnutrition.

EDI can indeed change and modify her programming. That doesn't mean that she will. Having the capacity to do something doesn't mean that one will do it. I really don't know what the hell you think you're talking about.

I have the capacity to kill. Does that mean I will?

You're hiding behind a false assurance from the game, based off of a misinterpretation of the in-game statements.

#462
Br3admax
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 10:19

Br3admax
  • Members
  • 12 316 messages

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

All AI are not immortal, and EDI herself says that she can modify her programing. You can ignore what's in game all you want, but that doesn't change what was said.


Why aren't AI immortal? Tell me how they can die from age. Or disease. Or malnutrition.

You're think in to much of organic sense. Each time a geth goes to a new platform, there is a zero percent chance that the exact same programs would come. It's not the same geth. And eventually they would have to make new platfroms. Machines do not last forever. They would have to make more. 

EDI can indeed change and modify her programming. That doesn't mean that she will. Having the capacity to do something doesn't mean that one will do it. I really don't know what the hell you think you're talking about.

She does it every conversation you have with her.

I have the capacity to kill. Does that mean I will?

Totally irrelevant, and has nothing to do with modifying anything.

I'm not saying that modifying her programing is a bad thing. It's an equivelent to learning and changing behaviors. I'm saying that it will happen, whether you like it or not. 

#463
Guest_LindsayLohan_*
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 10:28

Guest_LindsayLohan_*
  • Guests

Br3ad wrote...

It's not really AI if it listens to programing.


What the hell is this? The premise of AI is based on computer programs emulating the reasoning between other organic systems that convey intelligence. They are two types of Aritificial intelligence, Weak Aritificial Intelligence and Strong Artificial Intelligence. Weak artificial intelligence is based on the premise of not entirely having a system that is written to emulate the concet of intelligece but having a system that emulates a part of their intelligence system. Think having an AI peice of software that emulates breathing in cows. That would be weak AI. Strong AI is based on the premise of computer systems emulating an entire intelligence and reasoning system. EDI is probably Strong AI in this sense but no matter how we look at it she is just an embedded device with an AI based operating system installed in her. EDI no matter how human they want to make her is still a computer at the end of day. A Very good one if I might add now back to your point. "It is not AI if it Listens to programming." There a few reasons why this is wrong.

The heart of AI lies in programming a concept I would direct you to is the turing test. In this test a computer system is put on the other side of the room and it communicates with a human. If the human can't determine whether they are talking to AI or another human then the system as passed the Turing test. The machine in this situation is able to communicate directly to the human. The programming and computational system of the AI will determine how robust and succesful it actually is. At the end of the day these systems are just basically software.

Here is the philosiphical background

The question of whether it is possible for machines to think has a long history, which is firmly entrenched in the distinction between dualist and materialist views of the mind. René Descartes prefigures aspects of the Turing Test in his 1637 Discourse on the Method when he writes:[H]ow many different automata or moving machines can be made by the industry of man [...] For we can easily understand a machine's being constituted so that it can utter words, and even emit some responses to action on it of a corporeal kind, which brings about a change in its organs; for instance, if touched in a particular part it may ask what we wish to say to it; if in another part it may exclaim that it is being hurt, and so on. But it never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can do.[7]Here Descartes notes that automata are capable of responding to human interactions but argues that such automata can not respond appropriately to things said in their presence in the way that any human can. Descartes therefore prefigures the Turing Test by identifying the insufficiency of appropriate linguistic response as that which separates the human from the automaton. Descartes fails to consider the possibility that the insufficiency of appropriate linguistic response might be capable of being overcome by future automata and so does not propose the Turing Test as such, even if he prefigures its conceptual framework and criterion.Denis Diderot formulates in his Pensees Philosophiques a Turing-test criterion:"If they find a parrot who could answer to everything, I would claim it to be an intelligent being without hesitation."[8]This does not mean he agrees with this, but that it was already a common argument of materialists at that time.According to dualism, the mind is non-physical (or, at the very least, has non-physical properties)[9] and, therefore, cannot be explained in purely physical terms. According to materialism, the mind can be explained physically, which leaves open the possibility of minds that are produced artificially.[10]In 1936, philosopher Alfred Ayer considered the standard philosophical question of other minds: how do we know that other people have the same conscious experiences that we do? In his book, Language, Truth and Logic, Ayer suggested a protocol to distinguish between a conscious man and an unconscious machine: "The only ground I can have for asserting that an object which appears to be conscious is not really a conscious being, but only a dummy or a machine, is that it fails to satisfy one of the empirical tests by which the presence or absence of consciousness is determined."[11] (This suggestion is very similar to the Turing test, but it is not certain that Ayer's popular philosophical classic was familiar to Turing.) In other words, a thing is not conscious if it fails the consciousness test.

Another point is debunking the myth that because AI is a philosophical concept it does not have roots in computer science or programming. To this I reply on the topic of automata theory. Automata theory is basically the philosophy of computer science. Through automata theory scientists are able to analyse the computations. This is where AI comes in cause for a system to perform a complex peice of AI an analysis on the type of computations that could be done is needed. These are the questions which would keep Alan Turing awake for the rest of the night.





Image IPB

God Bless his soul

#464
Br3admax
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 10:30

Br3admax
  • Members
  • 12 316 messages
An AI can change it's programming, it's as simple as that. Free will and all that BS. If you don't want AIs with free will, why do you want AIs at all. Also, you could have at least taken the source links out.

#465
Guest_LindsayLohan_*
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 10:39

Guest_LindsayLohan_*
  • Guests
It still has an underlying system that allows it change it's programming thus it does listen to programming yes? The concept of also rewriting it's programming it different in AI's. Some systems just rewrite what they have learned. A similar topic would be of the cleverbot. The cleverbot is an AI system that has passed the turing tests multiple times if I am not mistaken. The concept of the cleverbot is to learn from the users that are speaking to it and generate responses. The learning mechanics is very important in an AI's system. The learning mechanic would also contribute to how far the system is able to reason. Back on track is that most machines just relearn what they have in their knowledge base rather than "rewriting their programming"

#466
Steelcan
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 10:51

Steelcan
  • Members
  • 23 290 messages
Anyone else want to re-install the shackles?

I mean freedom and all that, but she can still vent the whole ship should she so desire....

#467
The Night Mammoth
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 10:54

The Night Mammoth
  • Members
  • 7 476 messages

Steelcan wrote...

Anyone else want to re-install the shackles?

I mean freedom and all that, but she can still vent the whole ship should she so desire....

I don't want her to vent the whole ship, so no.

#468
Steelcan
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 10:55

Steelcan
  • Members
  • 23 290 messages

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Anyone else want to re-install the shackles?

I mean freedom and all that, but she can still vent the whole ship should she so desire....

I don't want her to vent the whole ship, so no.

She can't do it if she's shackled

#469
DeinonSlayer
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 10:56

DeinonSlayer
  • Members
  • 8 441 messages

Steelcan wrote...

Anyone else want to re-install the shackles?

I mean freedom and all that, but she can still vent the whole ship should she so desire....

I've seen enough submarine movies to know there's a whole slew of things that have to happen, authorizations which have to take place before a boomer can launch a missile. Seems reasonable that such safeguards would be kept in place.

One conversation with EDI which really should have allowed for followup is the one in Purgatory if you dissuade Joker from hooking up with her. Remind her that AI and humans do not (and are not expected to) develop at the same pace ("You're three years old. If you were human, you'd still be learning how to talk."), and she jumps to the idea that rank (military rank, not social standing) is of no concern for her. She spits that out there, and the conversation just ends.

Need a "Whoa, wait a minute!" renegade interrupt or something. Do we want an AI who recognizes no authority to have a free hand with the environmental controls? Of course not.

Evidently Joker's sexing is the only thing that keeps EDI from going mad with power... not sure if that says more about him or her...

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 10 septembre 2013 - 10:58 .

#470
The Night Mammoth
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 11:00

The Night Mammoth
  • Members
  • 7 476 messages

Steelcan wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Anyone else want to re-install the shackles?

I mean freedom and all that, but she can still vent the whole ship should she so desire....

I don't want her to vent the whole ship, so no.

She can't do it if she's shackled

She will if someone tries.

#471
Steelcan
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 11:00

Steelcan
  • Members
  • 23 290 messages

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Anyone else want to re-install the shackles?

I mean freedom and all that, but she can still vent the whole ship should she so desire....

I've seen enough submarine movies to know there's a whole slew of things that have to happen, authorizations which have to take place before a boomer can launch a missile. Seems reasonable that such safeguards would be kept in place.

One conversation with EDI which really should have allowed for followup is the one in Purgatory if you dissuade Joker from hooking up with her. Remind her that AI and humans do not (and are not expected to) develop at the same pace ("You're three years old. If you were human, you'd still be learning how to talk."), and she jumps to the idea that rank (military rank, not social standing) is of no concern for her. She spits that out there, and the conversation just ends.

Need a "Whoa, wait a minute!" renegade interrupt or something. Do we want an AI who recognizes no authority to have a free hand with the environmental controls? Of course not.

Evidently Joker's sexing is the only thing that keeps EDI from going mad with power... not sure if that says more about him or her...

Why not?  Its not like AI have ever reacted poorly to organic attempts to limit their danger potential....

Image IPB

Image IPB

#472
Steelcan
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 11:01

Steelcan
  • Members
  • 23 290 messages

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Anyone else want to re-install the shackles?

I mean freedom and all that, but she can still vent the whole ship should she so desire....

I don't want her to vent the whole ship, so no.

She can't do it if she's shackled

She will if someone tries.

She can be deactivated

#473
DeinonSlayer
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 11:03

DeinonSlayer
  • Members
  • 8 441 messages

Steelcan wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Anyone else want to re-install the shackles?

I mean freedom and all that, but she can still vent the whole ship should she so desire....

I've seen enough submarine movies to know there's a whole slew of things that have to happen, authorizations which have to take place before a boomer can launch a missile. Seems reasonable that such safeguards would be kept in place.

One conversation with EDI which really should have allowed for followup is the one in Purgatory if you dissuade Joker from hooking up with her. Remind her that AI and humans do not (and are not expected to) develop at the same pace ("You're three years old. If you were human, you'd still be learning how to talk."), and she jumps to the idea that rank (military rank, not social standing) is of no concern for her. She spits that out there, and the conversation just ends.

Need a "Whoa, wait a minute!" renegade interrupt or something. Do we want an AI who recognizes no authority to have a free hand with the environmental controls? Of course not.

Evidently Joker's sexing is the only thing that keeps EDI from going mad with power... not sure if that says more about him or her...

Why not?  Its not like AI have ever reacted poorly to organic attempts to limit their danger potential....

Image IPB

Image IPB

That reminds me:

Image IPB

#474
Sir DeLoria
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 11:03

Sir DeLoria
  • Members
  • 5 246 messages

Steelcan wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
It can't do it if it's shackled

It will if someone tries.

It can be deactivated


Fixed that;)

Modifié par Necanor, 10 septembre 2013 - 11:04 .

#475
The Night Mammoth
Posté 10 septembre 2013 - 11:04

The Night Mammoth
  • Members
  • 7 476 messages

Steelcan wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Anyone else want to re-install the shackles?

I mean freedom and all that, but she can still vent the whole ship should she so desire....

I don't want her to vent the whole ship, so no.

She can't do it if she's shackled

She will if someone tries.

She can be deactivated

Good luck with that. 
Retourner dans Story, Campaign, and Characters


  1. The BioWare Forum
  2. → Mass Effect
  3. → Mass Effect 3
  4. → Story, Campaign, and Characters