30 réponses à ce sujet

[Obadiah]

What if the AI theselves were considered power... live power that we created and lost control of.

[FlyingSquirrel]

The underlying cause of the Catalyst and its history is the hubris of the Leviathans. But I have heard this sort of concern about AIs expressed before, i.e. that if we create one that's smarter than any of us are and with considerable resources at its disposal, it might misunderstand a task we ask it to perform and end up causing a catastrophe. One example I remember reading was that we could ask it to solve a complex mathematical problem and it could turn the entire solar system into a calculation device of some sort.

It's clear that the Catalyst did not understand the priorities of the Leviathans, or it wouldn't have harvested them. It was simply told to find a way to prevent organics from being permanently and completely exterminated by synthetics.

Personally, I tend to think that all the moral quandaries and potential unanticipated consequences of creating AIs are convincing reasons not to create them.

[Obadiah]

I'm liking this interpretation - that AI are a live and dangerous power, hence the reason EDI is "shackled". Once created, if set loose, their power makes them an extreme risk to civilization as can be seen with the Geth and Catalyst.

I consider AI as sentient life forms deserving of rights of freedom and self determination, so I like the moral quandry that this interpretation creates.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Obadiah wrote...
I consider AI as sentient life forms deserving of rights of freedom and self determination, so I like the moral quandry that this interpretation creates.

I do too, but if significant portions of society disagree and will want to just use them as tools, I'd say we shouldn't create them.

[Display Name Owner]

At least partly number 2. Cerberus have already shown that shackling an AI is a viable option. I suppose it's always possible that an AI can learn to unshackle itself against the will of it's creators, but who knows? It doesn't seem that EDI could have.

But I do think AIs always present a possible threat. They're fundamentally different from organics in a way that makes whatever intentions or ideals they may develop for themselves unpredictable. EDI chose her place on the Normandy and within organic society, she could very well have gone the other way. Even the Geth fragmented into factions.

Also, AI lack needs and weaknesses that organics have, making them a deadlier enemy in the event. But that's only if one does something silly like, I don't know, mass producing AI and using them as labour on every corner of your planet *QUARIANSSS*. Ahem. If EDI alone went rogue, it's not so much of a problem. Shut her down, the end. I'd say using AI sparingly is safe enough. The Leviathans just used the Catalyst stupidly.

[Linkenski]

On the point of EDI, I always had this iffyness about her role in ME3. Once I got behind that it felt a bit forced and suspended my disbelief, I think her arc scares me as much as it delights me. She gets increasingly more emotional from ME2 to ME3 which in some ways started even before her shackles were removed by Joker, but lately I've thought that with all the human responses she's developing in ME3 and with all the emotions that she starts to feel, imagine her in a situation where she's hard-pressed or stressed out, maybe even in anger because of personal issues, and consider that she was that Luna VI that ran amok and consider all the security walls she's breached over the course of ME1-3. EDI is dangerous.

Modifié par Linkenski, 20 novembre 2013 - 10:42 .