1010 réponses à ce sujet

[General TSAR]

AlexMBrennan wrote...
Given that they were too dumb to try "running away" until 99% of them were dead I highly doubt that they were smart enough to have thought to include safeguards of any kind.

Hopefully future generations and other species will take note of the Morning War and ensure that AIs will never rise up and if they do, they would be utterly crushed by the superior might of organics.

Modifié par General TSAR, 23 octobre 2013 - 03:29 .

[General TSAR]

StreetMagic wrote...

The Geth were an accident. Not an intentional AI gone wrong. The Quarians didn't lack understanding about AI. I think the intention was to create nothing more than servile mechs. They thought they were being clever by designing the whole "hive mind" thing, in case they needed more computation power at times.. But like Tali says in ME1, they didn't realize just how much the Geth developed from that until it was too late.

Creating a Networked Class of Machines capable of combat and operating autonomously from their organic masters is sheer idiocy.

But anyway I talked enough about the toasters, personally I don't trust my Shepard in control of giant cuttlefish dreadnoughts, hell I don't even trust the Shepard AI to remain the defender of Humankind.

Modifié par General TSAR, 23 octobre 2013 - 03:38 .

[Br3admax]

General TSAR wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

The Geth were an accident. Not an intentional AI gone wrong. The Quarians didn't lack understanding about AI. I think the intention was to create nothing more than servile mechs. They thought they were being clever by designing the whole "hive mind" thing, in case they needed more computation power at times.. But like Tali says in ME1, they didn't realize just how much the Geth developed from that until it was too late.

Creating a Networked Class of Machines capable of combat and operating autonomously from their organic masters is sheer idiocy.

Exactly. The quarians should have seen it coming.

[Steelcan]

Br3ad wrote...

General TSAR wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

The Geth were an accident. Not an intentional AI gone wrong. The Quarians didn't lack understanding about AI. I think the intention was to create nothing more than servile mechs. They thought they were being clever by designing the whole "hive mind" thing, in case they needed more computation power at times.. But like Tali says in ME1, they didn't realize just how much the Geth developed from that until it was too late.

Creating a Networked Class of Machines capable of combat and operating autonomously from their organic masters is sheer idiocy.

Exactly. The quarians should have seen it coming.

Well they did, after it was too late

[shodiswe]

StreetMagic wrote...

shodiswe wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't know one area where I was shown that I needed AI, except (ironically) to fight the Reapers in ME2. EDI's speed was useful at the Collector Ship and things like that. But without a Collector/Reaper threat, what exactly is challenging organics so much that they need AI?

I don't think that's the issue though. In general there is this belief that organics got a magical or mysterious thing called a  soul that transcends the material existance. It's derived from several different religious ideas and observations that once a person die they change and become a lifeless corpse.

I don't mean to be rude, but you kind of lost me with this train of thought. Not sure what I was referring to had to do with "souls". The Catalyst said organics need AI and try to control them, but I'm not sure why I really need them to begin with. Why is that the only point where organics can evolve? This is a universe with biotics, after all. Yet this aspect of evolution isn't even addressed. It's just one other avenue for organics to evolve, but the Catalyst seems to see everything charted out in a singular line.. "You will make AI because you need to evolve this way. Except they will kill you. Therefore I need to harvest you before you do that."

I don't agree with the Catalysts way of seeing things or how the Mass Effect writers depict these things, all I'm saying is that changes are gradual.
Mass Effect's view is similar to that of the movie "9" where you're eventualy told that the machines who killed all people were "soulless, and thereful easily corrupted by bad influences from bad people.
While the ragdolls who were the heroes of the movie had been magicaly imbued with pieces of the soul of the scientist that created them. Mass effect seems to be going down the road that synthetics go bad when they lack a soul. Even if it's an idea that's only eluded to.
But the part of why you need technology, synthetics and other blends of technological and/or mergers commes from a slow process of need and innovation. Each step taken reveals new needs, and challenges to be overcome. Each will present multiple possibilites and roads to travel.
It's about the joyney not the destination, because the destination is ever changing til you and all your dreams die.
Humanitys journey has just began, where it ends remains to be seen, and there will be a lot of hard times ahead. There always are.

[AlanC9]

shodiswe wrote...

Mass Effect's view is similar to that of the movie "9" where you're eventualy told that the machines who killed all people were "soulless, and thereful easily corrupted by bad influences from bad people.

It's also similar to the AI/human conflict in the Hyperion Cantos, where AIs are not governed by human morals, but see parasitism as a logical way to behave. Not because of a failing of AIs as such, mind, but because of the particular history and evolution of the TechnoCore.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 octobre 2013 - 04:45 .

[KaiserShep]

General TSAR wrote...
Creating a Networked Class of Machines capable of combat and operating autonomously from their organic masters is sheer idiocy.

Technically, most of the geth were a manual labor force. The mistake the quarians made was giving them the same level of versatility as their own physiology permitted, allowing them to manipulate any machines they saw fit, namely weapons. If the geth were designed as a kind of "caste" of machines, like how our own agricultural machines can only do one specific task, like a combine compared to a tractor, they would not have been able to do anything.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 23 octobre 2013 - 04:55 .

[Br3admax]

KaiserShep wrote...

General TSAR wrote...
Creating a Networked Class of Machines capable of combat and operating autonomously from their organic masters is sheer idiocy.

Technically, most of the geth were a manual labor force. The mistake the quarians made was giving them the same level of versatility as their own physiology permitted, allowing them to manipulate any machines they saw fit, namely weapons. If the geth were designed as a kind of "caste" of machines, like how our own agricultural machines can only do one specific task, like a combine compared to a tractor, they would not have been able to do anything.

Yes, while that is true, I don't see how that disagreed with the point, exactly. 

[CronoDragoon]

Astartes Marine wrote...

...Ouch that's below the belt.  Using Optimus Prime against me, althouth Optimus said "sentient" not sapient. 

Probably because sentient is the correct word, unless we've really been arguing whether or not especially wise people are the only ones who deserve rights.

[Br3admax]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Astartes Marine wrote...

...Ouch that's below the belt.  Using Optimus Prime against me, althouth Optimus said "sentient" not sapient. 

Probably because sentient is the correct word, unless we've really been arguing whether or not especially wise people are the only ones who deserve rights.

Not really. Sapient means wise as much as ****** sapiens means wise. Get it? Sapiens, sapient. Do you get it? 

[KaiserShep]

Helps to remember that human beings, for example, are not necessarily the only sentient species on earth. Sapience is a different matter.

[CronoDragoon]

Br3ad wrote...
Not really. Sapient means wise as much as ****** sapiens means wise. Get it? Sapiens, sapient. Do you get it? 

Sapiens does mean wise, so - oh hell I give up.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 24 octobre 2013 - 12:18 .

[Br3admax]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Br3ad wrote...
Not really. Sapient means wise as much as ****** sapiens means wise. Get it? Sapiens, sapient. Do you get it? 

Sapiens does mean wise, so - oh hell I give up.

Everybody's wise compared to cattle, friend. 

[AlexMBrennan]

Get it? Sapiens, sapient. Do you get it?

Yes, whoever named the human species was rather arrogant. How is this relevant to the discussion? A more appropriate name would be Pan Narrans btw.

they would not have been able to do anything.

You do realise that these machines are fairly limited, right, thus causing people to try and make better machines? The human body just happens to be fairly efficient (e.g. able to transverse virtually any terrain or to grip tools thanks to opposable thumbs) and thus ends up as inspiration for robot designs.

[Br3admax]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Get it? Sapiens, sapient. Do you get it?

Yes, whoever named the human species was rather arrogant. How is this relevant to the discussion? A more appropriate name would be Pan Narrans btw.

So when people make up the definition of words they should cater to what you want. Right. Let me go back a few hundred years and tell them that. The discusion was about what a word meant, good job in reading though. 

[SilJeff]

I pick control because I like the idea of shepard becoming a watchful protector of the galaxy. I headcanon that he takes his reaper army to the galaxy fixing things they destroyed before shep took over, then left to dark space and are now making sure the galaxy is protected from terrible things that could come from outside the Milky Way

[Creator Limbs]

The best ending is Destroy.

[AlexMBrennan]

So when people make up the definition of words

No one made up a definition of anything - "sapiens" was a pre-existing Latin word with a pre-existing meaning and someone thought that it would be appropriate for their species; and I personally think it's a bit arrogant to call the species you belong to "the wise/the awesome/the best" (what if an even smarter species evolves in a few million years?)

As I said, the fact that some arrogant biologist named the human species "****** sapiens" is irrelevant to the meaning of the word.

[shodiswe]

AlanC9 wrote...

shodiswe wrote...

Mass Effect's view is similar to that of the movie "9" where you're eventualy told that the machines who killed all people were "soulless, and thereful easily corrupted by bad influences from bad people.

It's also similar to the AI/human conflict in the Hyperion Cantos, where AIs are not governed by human morals, but see parasitism as a logical way to behave. Not because of a failing of AIs as such, mind, but because of the particular history and evolution of the TechnoCore.

One can question how much morality governs humanity. It's one of the typicalhuman flaws to think that only other people or things that are different can be corrupt or immoral because they are different. Frankenstein, alienmovies, vampires zombies. Things that are different and lacks that very special human "spark". It's just another sign of a massive hybris in humanity to think they are special.

One typical flaw in human reasoning is the claim that everyone understands morality and has the same type of morality because they were blessed by a human soul. Something other things would lack. I would argue that it's something you learn while you learn conformity as you adapt to your environment. Some people can have certain defects often genetic that makes it hard for them to learn and understand the concept since they don't seek conformity as survival strategy. Some of these would be called psychopaths, and there are apparently different levels of psychopaths, but even psychopaths can learn the codes of morality, for them it's like studying physics or chemistry then they try to piece things together as they move along.

The Geth or any AI out there wouldn't automaticaly be any worse or more dangerous than all the other lifeforms. Unless ofcourse their life experience would be seeing others going house to house shooting them dead for no apparent reason.
What would be a danger would be their inability to understand their suroundings and other entities depending on the state of their development. Just like animals can have different levels of mental development.
I'm not sure if one can claim that humans who start mass genosides and holocausts lacked any of this, some might have, some were just afraid or conformists that adapted to the current situation in their own personal hell as they tried to survive.

I also agree with the people who pointed out the hybris of the biologists that named our own "species".

When my African gray parrot was just a few years old she stopped by a new paper that was on the floor, took a close look, looked at her ring around her leg. Her head and eye went back and forth, then she started spinning her ring slowly and keept going back and forth between the ring and the news paper.
Then she turned to look at me and asked me what the things on her ring meant. Somehow she had pieced together that those symbols looked the same and that they probably meant something. Maybe she's just very smart because she was picking her padlock when she was just a few months old and still being hand feed. At first I couldn't understand how she got out of her cage that had a padlock. Apparently she held the padlock stable with her beak while using her foot to pick the lock open.
These days she roams my home freely, I don't even bother trying to lock her in, it just makes her a very upset bird if I do.

I heard there was an orangutang that did this same thing.
Getting an African Gray parrot was very different than the small love birds and other small birds I had as a kid.

Feels like I'm getting slightly of topic here, but a lot of this topic seems to be about how valid or not other forms of life are.

Modifié par shodiswe, 24 octobre 2013 - 01:12 .

[Bizantura]

One will pick the option as close as your "conditioned self" is allowed to. That stance you will defend vehemently. In that sence controll and synthesis are more brighter fulfilling endings then destroy and refuse wich came at great cost.

[Navasha]

My explanation would be that people who pick Control like to headcanon it to mean everything will be just peachy in the end because "their" Shepard gets to be God and shape the galaxy to their own whims. They don't believe themselves to be "corruptible" by god-like power. They are Frodo when he asks Galadriel to take the Ring of Power, for surely someone as pure as her could do "great" things with it. Galadriel is wise enough to refuse "ultimate power" for she knew it would change her for the worse.

People who choose Synthesis are likely the same people who like the Qun in Dragon Age. They place very little value on individuality or overcoming problems through ones own effort and growth. They are happy to have "equality" and "peace" just given to them through no effort of their own. Even though we have seen every example of "uplifting" people and cultures before they are ready as being catastrophic. They don't want to sacrifice anything to "win". They don't truly celebrate the diversity of ideas and cultures though I expect they will claim otherwise. Synthesis is the ultimate expression of imposed conformity and that to them means equality. If everyone is forced to be exactly the same as everyone else, then true equality exists as far as they believe.

Those who choose destroy understand this is a lie. If you would allow someone to fundamentally alter who you are and how you think just for the sake of "equality" then you aren't free. You have destroyed yourself and any future the entire galaxy ever might have had.

Life is about stumbling through your failures as much as your successes. Destroy, for me, is the only ending where actual hope exists. The galaxy if finally free to pursue its OWN outcome and not one imposed by another entity.

Modifié par Navasha, 24 octobre 2013 - 01:58 .

[shodiswe]

Navasha wrote...

My explanation would be that people who pick Control like to headcanon it to mean everything will be just peachy in the end because "their" Shepard gets to be God and shape the galaxy to their own whims. They don't believe themselves to be "corruptible" by god-like power. They are Frodo when he asks Galadriel to take the Ring of Power, for surely someone as pure as her could do "great" things with it. Galadriel is wise enough to refuse "ultimate power" for she knew it would change her for the worse.

People who choose Synthesis are likely the same people who like the Qun in Dragon Age. They place very little value on individuality or overcoming problems through ones own effort and growth. They are happy to have "equality" and "peace" just given to them through no effort of their own. Even though we have seen every example of "uplifting" people and cultures before they are ready as being catastrophic. They don't want to sacrifice anything to "win". They don't truly celebrate the diversity of ideas and cultures though I expect they will claim otherwise. Synthesis is the ultimate expression of imposed conformity and that to them means equality. If everyone is forced to be exactly the same as everyone else, then true equality exists as far as they believe.

Those who choose destroy understand this is a lie. If you would allow someone to fundamentally alter who you are and how you think just for the sake of "equality" then you aren't free. You have destroyed yourself and any future the entire galaxy ever might have had.

Life is about stumbling through your failures as much as your successes. Destroy, for me, is the only ending where actual hope exists. The galaxy if finally free to pursue its OWN outcome and not one imposed by another entity.

That also sounds like a personal head cannon.

I favor Control, Synthesis comes second on my list of prefered endings.
I can't say I like the Qun in Dragon age. Also I don't think Synthesis makes everyone the same, though everyone gets an addition. I was also worried about synthesis until the EC explained that this knowledge commes with the experiences and history of the people that came up with the technology and ideas.
People arn't forced to belive but it's all there. People who learn of ideas consived by people dead since centuries or milenia are also distant from the people who concieved he ideas.

If a super genius leaves a wealth of inventions and ideas behind when hes/she dies and people find it, they will have soemtihng they wern't part of creating. The people who used the atombomb wern't the same people who invented it, they didn't really understand it even if it isn't that complicated. They just saw the results of the test and what they wanted to know and realized they wanted that power.

There is a lot of people out there who are actualy using technology, science and ideas that they don't know everything about.

What helped synthesis might be that the people who hatched the ideas are still around and shares their experiences from thousands of civilizations, to those who are interested. But like EDI said, it's not the end of the journey, there will be new ideas new goals and new discoveries. The Reneissance just started.

The EC tells us all was fine in Control, the Renegade version seemed to fancy itself a leader however which might be more problematic than the Paragon one that wasn't as facinated with power or influence, but everyone who wasn't killed before that point get's to live except for the Catalyst that's killed by the choice. People also get to stumble around and create their own failures or sucess. And get saved when their failures endangers their own existance.

There is one thing I'm certain about though, and that's that destroying the Geth isn't a path to a better more peaceful future where the conflict between synthetics and Organics can be prevented.
Anyone thinking they can prevent Synthetics from being created intentionaly or unintentionaly are merely fooling themselves and setting a dangerous presedent by choosing Destroy. ThereforDestroy is all wrong to me.
I'm not choosing Control or Synthesis because they are perfect or what I would want, but because they are much better than Destroy or Refuse.

To sum it up, I tend to pick Control over Synthesis.... And I have to pick one of those to avoid Destroy and Refuse isn't an option.

Modifié par shodiswe, 24 octobre 2013 - 03:13 .

[Br3admax]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

So when people make up the definition of words

No one made up a definition of anything - "sapiens" was a pre-existing Latin word with a pre-existing meaning and someone thought that it would be appropriate for their species; and I personally think it's a bit arrogant to call the species you belong to "the wise/the awesome/the best" (what if an even smarter species evolves in a few million years?)

As I said, the fact that some arrogant biologist named the human species "****** sapiens" is irrelevant to the meaning of the word.

1. Unless Latin is evolutionarily part of the human species, it was made up.
2. Sapient itself is from a latin root, but it is not latin itself. This word was made up.
3. You're knowledge of how evolution works is bad and it should feel bad.
4. We are not Sapiens. We are ****** sapiens, so if another sapient species somehow appears from animals, it wouldn't matter anyway. We are the only ****** species left in existence, so this point is again moot..