1010 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

ThisOnesUsername wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

General TSAR wrote...

I just read your message Xilizhra, you are screwed in the head.

Dude, I gotta read this now. 

its in Ghost's Purgatory

Where is it in Ghosts Purgatory? I can't find it?

http://social.biowar...ion/29930/&p=90

[AlanC9]

Steelcan wrote...
The last thing this planet needs is MORE sapient life

It has some now?

[KaiserShep]

Xilizhra wrote...
Not, I suspect, if none of them were ever created to be used as property, simply created because, well, you want to add more life.

It doesn't matter why you produce the AI; it would still be a slave. There would still be huge limitations imposed on it by its hardware, like being unable to grow, replace its own parts, upgrade to better ones, etc.. It would be stuck where it is, no matter what preferences may manifest themselves.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 20 octobre 2013 - 02:49 .

[crimzontearz]

Mcfly616 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...
Oh, and Refuse which is BioWare's way of saying **** you to those who dislike the original endings.

Oh, please....it was not. Conventional victory was never going to happen. Let it go.

right because tying that ending to shooting the catalyst had no subtle meaning uh?

you would read into it that way lol

it requires conscious thought and specific action to tie shooting the catalyst to picking an ending, it was done for a purpose, if bioware simply did not want people to shoot the starbrat they could have disabled the gun until you stepped in front of the red tube, but they chose this venue ESPECIALLY after so many videos depicting it on YouTube


 
Pray tell....why?

[Xilizhra]

KaiserShep wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Not, I suspect, if none of them were ever created to be used as property, simply created because, well, you want to add more life.

It doesn't matter why you produce the AI; it would still be a slave. It would be constrained to the environments imposed on it by its hardware, like being unable to grow, replace its own parts, upgrade to better ones, etc.. It would be stuck where it is, no matter what preferences may manifest themselves.

Noted. Then provisions for that should be made. Why could one not replace its own parts or upgrade to better ones? The body could be designed for greater flexibility than a human one in terms of being able to reach the areas that require replacement parts... or they could be partnered? Have wirelessly controlled drones do the work necessary?

[David7204]

Not if it's hardware allows it mobility. Which would almost certainly be trivial by the time AI is developed.

[Cainhurst Crow]

This is why we should never create machines which can process information of their own choosing without any input or assisstance from a human.

It's bad practice and design.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 20 octobre 2013 - 02:56 .

[David7204]

And why is that?

[Br3admax]

David7204 wrote...

And why is that?

Why would you ever make anything that as all of your strengths and none of your weaknesses? Pray tell what about that sounds intelligent in the slightest? 

[wolfhowwl]

<----------- my face when I read what Xil wrote

[David7204]

That sounds like common sense to me. I would certainly hope my children have all of my strengths and none of my weaknesses.

Modifié par David7204, 20 octobre 2013 - 03:01 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

That sounds like common sense to me. I would certainly hope my children have all of my strengths and none of my weaknesses.

So you want your children to be AIs?

[Obadiah]

KaiserShep wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Undoubtedly, but a vital one. What precedent are you worried about?

Basically, we would be rewriting the basis upon which we define what constitutes a life, which is not something to be taken lightly. This goes back to your answer to whether or not someone should go to prison for dismantling a laptop with an AI on it. How do you define what constitutes life? How do you determine whether or not a person should have their own way of life forfeit because they shut down or dismantled equipment that they acquired legally, which only served to the apparent detriment of what is essentially a manufactured set of code? Let's say a man had an AI-equipped robot walking around the house. Let's say that the robot's power source began to malfunction, and the man just didn't want to pay the price of replacing it? Should this be criminal neglect? Why? For all intents and purposes, both the man and the robot in this scenario would be slave to the cost of constant maintenance required to keep it running indefinitely, especially since the robot has no actual expiration date. It will just stop working as far too many things break down to be repaired.

Reminds me of that junkyard scene in AI (I think it was a junkyard?) where the kid robot discovers all these other discarded AI robots in various states of direpair trying to survive.

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...

it requires conscious thought and specific action to tie shooting the catalyst to picking an ending, it was done for a purpose, if bioware simply did not want people to shoot the starbrat they could have disabled the gun until you stepped in front of the red tube, but they chose this venue ESPECIALLY after so many videos depicting it on YouTube
 
Pray tell....why?

They did need a way for the player to Refuse if he didn't do so during the dialogue.

I'm also not convinced that Bio guys spent a lot of time looting at videos, though I suppose they should have. I had no idea people were making their Shepards act like fools until after the EC shipped.

[Br3admax]

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That sounds like common sense to me. I would certainly hope my children have all of my strengths and none of my weaknesses.

So you want your children to be AIs?

I suppose that being of a different group with similar needs and disires, will end badly, is not a part of common sense. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

That sounds like common sense to me. I would certainly hope my children have all of my strengths and none of my weaknesses.

Those robots aren't your children. They're a seperate specis who, without any means of control, could and would destroy us for the sake of survival.

[crimzontearz]

AlanC9 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

it requires conscious thought and specific action to tie shooting the catalyst to picking an ending, it was done for a purpose, if bioware simply did not want people to shoot the starbrat they could have disabled the gun until you stepped in front of the red tube, but they chose this venue ESPECIALLY after so many videos depicting it on YouTube
 
Pray tell....why?

They did need a way for the player to Refuse if he didn't do so during the dialogue.

no, no they did not

[AlanC9]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That sounds like common sense to me. I would certainly hope my children have all of my strengths and none of my weaknesses.

Those robots aren't your children. They're a seperate specis who, without any means of control, could and would destroy us for the sake of survival.

If thry feel they need to do that, we probably deserve it.

[Br3admax]

AlanC9 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That sounds like common sense to me. I would certainly hope my children have all of my strengths and none of my weaknesses.

Those robots aren't your children. They're a seperate specis who, without any means of control, could and would destroy us for the sake of survival.

If thry feel they need to do that, we probably deserve it.

We certainly do deserve destruction after making such a monumentally stupid mistake. 

[David7204]

Hmm. Interesting that despite hating the Catalyst and proclaiming how stupid he is, you're agreeing with him entirely now.

So he's not stupid after all, then?

Modifié par David7204, 20 octobre 2013 - 03:12 .

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...

They did need a way for the player to Refuse if he didn't do so during the dialogue.

no, no they did not

You think it would be OK to trap players into one of the three endings instead of letting them trigger Refuse? Really?

Not everybody plays with a walkthrough open in another window.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 octobre 2013 - 03:13 .

[KaiserShep]

David7204 wrote...

And why is that?

A mass produced product that can manifest its own personal preferences would be monumentally bad design, for the same reason why we don't want our cars to go faster or slower on their own, or our microwave to cook something for 20 minutes rather than 20 seconds.

[AlanC9]

KaiserShep wrote...
A mass produced product that can manifest its own personal preferences would be monumentally bad design, for the same reason why we don't want our cars to go faster or slower on their own, or our microwave to cook something for 20 minutes rather than 20 seconds.

What's wrong with self-driving cars?

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

Hmm. Interesting that despite hating the Catalyst and proclaiming how stupid he is, you're agreeing with him entirely now.

So he's not stupid after all, then?

This doesn't have to do with the catalyst, adn more to do with looking at how much humans are dependant on technology, and thinking what would happen if this technology began demanding things from us.

[David7204]

I would absolutely want a car that can decide to go faster or slower depending on what's appropriate. In fact, that's pretty much a necessity for driverless cars. And I would be happy to have a microwave that adjusts itself depending on what it's cooking.