1010 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I would suggest you get used to the reality of your life depending very directly on software. Driverless cars are going to start popping up here and there within a decade. And they'll become commonplace not long after. And as you know, cars are everywhere. And they will be accidents. And people will die. And there will be opposition, but it's not going to last.

It's completely awesome how you have industrial insider knowledge. 

It's not too difficult to deduce this though, really. Look at the tech currently involved with automated parallel parking and reversal awareness.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...
The point that has been attempted is that making AI is stupid because technology is sometimes imperfect and dangerous, and we should never gamble our lives with it.

What's the point of creating a sapient, intelligent, introspective from an ontological perspective being, when a hyper advanced computer that doesn't have the sapience, intelligence, and introspection as the AI gets the job done perfectly on its own?

[Deathsaurer]

dreamgazer wrote...

Deathsaurer wrote...

Driverless cars I'm perfectly fine with. A computer that can have an intelligent debate with me I am not.

How about a driverless car that disputes the best way to drive with you (speed, route, yellow lights)?

That's really skating the line. If it's actually self aware I'd be very against the idea. There are already enough problems accepting other countries/religions/ethnic groups on this planet we don't need sapient computers added to the mix.

[Steelcan]

dreamgazer wrote...

Deathsaurer wrote...

Driverless cars I'm perfectly fine with. A computer that can have an intelligent debate with me I am not.

How about a driverless car that disputes the best way to drive with you (speed, route, yellow lights)?

[David7204]

I have to drive five hours every time I want to go home on a rather unattractive road. I would love the opportunity to be able to sleep through the whole thing. Drag myself out of bed at 5 in the morning, get in the car and crash, arrive refreshed at 10.

Modifié par David7204, 20 octobre 2013 - 03:59 .

[Argentoid]

Hey, I'm happy with Destroy.

[Mathias]

Destroyers/Refusers tend to be the ones that understand what unmitigated bull the ending is, and is there way of saying "nope screw you, I'm not gonna entertain this nonsense."

[KaiserShep]

David7204 wrote...

I have to drive five hours every time I want to go home on a rather unattractive road. I would love the opportunity to be able to sleep through the whole. Drag myself out of bed at 5 in the morning, get in the car and crash, arrive refreshed at 10.

Sure, but you don't really need an AI for that. You just need a reliable, sophisticated computer system that can accomplish this in relative safety. What you don't want, is something that may decide that you really should get a burger, and you wake up parked in the lot of Sonic.

[David7204]

Kaiser, perhaps you could explain to me why people prefer to have relationships with other people and not just dating sims?

After all, a dating sim will only do what it's programmed to do. Is that not exactly what people want?

Modifié par David7204, 20 octobre 2013 - 04:01 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

I have to drive five hours every time I want to go home on a rather unattractive road. I would love the opportunity to be able to sleep through the whole thing. Drag myself out of bed at 5 in the morning, get in the car and crash, arrive refreshed at 10.

Or you could just take a train. Much cheaper for a ticket without paying for gas.

[Br3admax]

David7204 wrote...

I have to drive five hours every time I want to go home on a rather unattractive road. I would love the opportunity to be able to sleep through the whole thing. Drag myself out of bed at 5 in the morning, get in the car and crash, arrive refreshed at 10.

#Responsible 

[David7204]

This is America. Ain't no trains.

[spirosz]

David7204 wrote...

This is America. Ain't no trains.

You were built from trains. 

[dreamgazer]

KaiserShep wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I have to drive five hours every time I want to go home on a rather unattractive road. I would love the opportunity to be able to sleep through the whole. Drag myself out of bed at 5 in the morning, get in the car and crash, arrive refreshed at 10.

Sure, but you don't really need an AI for that. You just need a reliable, sophisticated computer system that can accomplish this in relative safety. What you don't want, is something that may decide that you really should get a burger, and you wake up parked in the lot of Sonic.

Exactly. It should be parked at Five Guys instead.

[Br3admax]

spirosz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

This is America. Ain't no trains.

You were built from trains. 

Ironic from a guy who lives in Texas, isn't it? 

[Steelcan]

dreamgazer wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I have to drive five hours every time I want to go home on a rather unattractive road. I would love the opportunity to be able to sleep through the whole. Drag myself out of bed at 5 in the morning, get in the car and crash, arrive refreshed at 10.

Sure, but you don't really need an AI for that. You just need a reliable, sophisticated computer system that can accomplish this in relative safety. What you don't want, is something that may decide that you really should get a burger, and you wake up parked in the lot of Sonic.

Exactly. It should be parked at Five Guys instead.

if its a burger you want can't  beat dem five guys

[KaiserShep]

dreamgazer wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I have to drive five hours every time I want to go home on a rather unattractive road. I would love the opportunity to be able to sleep through the whole. Drag myself out of bed at 5 in the morning, get in the car and crash, arrive refreshed at 10.

Sure, but you don't really need an AI for that. You just need a reliable, sophisticated computer system that can accomplish this in relative safety. What you don't want, is something that may decide that you really should get a burger, and you wake up parked in the lot of Sonic.

Exactly. It should be parked at Five Guys instead.

I like this human. He understands.

[Hazegurl]

spirosz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

This is America. Ain't no trains.

You were built from trains. 

LOL! I actually had to think about this for a moment. My mind is in the gutter tonight.

Anyway, I'm happy with Destroy and I think Refusal is bada** (even though I never pick it). I think the player agreeing with the Reaper kid has a lot to do with the acceptance of the other two endings.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 20 octobre 2013 - 04:33 .

[Ieldra]

Here's a question about a specific matter where some Destroyers appear to be unhappy compared with those who choose Synthesis or Control:

I've seen quite a few Destroyers complain that they don't get to see their Shepard in the epilogue. Why is that? Whenever I read such complaints, I want to answer: "Hey, *your* Shepard gets to live! Stop complaining, damn it" Yet I rarely see complaints from those who choose Synthesis about their Shepard not surviving, even though most of us would rather have them survive, while some Destroyers go on and on ad nauseam about not being given canonical confirmation that their Shepard survives when exactly that happens.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 octobre 2013 - 07:29 .

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Here's a question about a specific matter where some Destroyers appear to be unhappy compared with those who choose Synthesis or Control:

I've seen quite a few Destroyers complain that they don't get to see their Shepard in the epilogue. Why is that? Whenever I read such complaints, I want to answer: "Hey, *your* Shepard gets to live! Stop complaining, damn it" Yet I rarely see complaints from those who choose Synthesis about their Shepard not surviving, even though most of us would rather have them survive, while some Destroyers go on and on ad nauseam about not being given canonical confirmation that their Shepard survives when exactly that happens.

SHep clearly dies in Synthesis, Clearly transcends in Control but in destroy in the one varaint where it isn't presumed he/she is dead they went for the laughable well it could just as well be his last breath. If your going to have an ending that includes shep surviving(which should always be the case in a choice based game) it should be folowed through properly in the epilogue.

[David7204]

That is incredibly crappy journalism. That quote (very clearly, I might add) refers to Walter White from Breaking Bad. Not to Shepard. Whoever wrote that garbage should be fired.

[wright1978]

jtav wrote...

This is something I've noticed since the EC's release. Those who choose Destroy and Refuse tend to speak of their ending as the best of a bad lot. Those who choose Control and Synthesis tend to be more enthusiastic about their ending choice and be more accepting of the ending scenario overall. Why is that? Is it a case of the minority opinion having to be able to defend itself more ably? Or do Synth/Control people want something different from the ending than Destroy/Refuse?

Gutteral hatred for the fact you have to side with the reaper general to get an ending that doesn't involve the death of everyone(refuse).

Gutteral hatred that the least horrendous of these appeasement options involves destroying a bunch of your allies based on the insane beliefs of said reaper general.

I think people who like control/synthesis either have no problem with the catalyst or if they do have a problem, they get their preferred thematic ending without an upfront price such as the geth/edi to pay as well as having less severe damage to the relay network. And just in case their might possibly be a positive for destroy they refused to countenance a variant where shep expressly survives. He/she has to be possibly dying an agonising tortorous death too.

[KaiserShep]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Here's a question about a specific matter where some Destroyers appear to be unhappy compared with those who choose Synthesis or Control:

I've seen quite a few Destroyers complain that they don't get to see their Shepard in the epilogue. Why is that? Whenever I read such complaints, I want to answer: "Hey, *your* Shepard gets to live! Stop complaining, damn it" Yet I rarely see complaints from those who choose Synthesis about their Shepard not surviving, even though most of us would rather have them survive, while some Destroyers go on and on ad nauseam about not being given canonical confirmation that their Shepard survives when exactly that happens.

Well to be fair, those who pick Control or Synthesis pretty much come to terms with Shepard's death the moment they take the walk down that pathway. There's no real what-ifs or weird cliffhangers regarding his/her fate, and you get the memorial scene to seal the deal and pretty much bring that story to a complete close. While I don't think BioWare should have created a whole song and dance around Destroy and go the full 9 like having Shepard getting a medal in some long drawn out epilogue, I think the breath scene would have played to the player's optimism a bit more with just the tiniest detail, like, say, a searchlight over the rubble, or even radio chatter before cutting to the credits. I accept the scene as pretty much confirmation of survival, otherwise the scene would be absolutely pointless to show, but it's not hard to see why people have trouble accepting it as it is. It requires a bit more effort, and of course, requires putting aside some of the imagery we get beforehand, like walking into an explosion, then of course, the big fiery burst we see from the middle of the Citadel just before cutting to the first relay scene.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 20 octobre 2013 - 08:04 .