187 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

I have a problem. If you asked me whether a hypothetical AI was alive, I would tell you no. Life is by definition organic and the AI is just a really fancy computer program. But can Shepard believe this? Without being a bigot? I don't believe in aliens, but a Shepard who disbelieves it is insane. The devs seem to push "synthetics are people too" pretty darn hard. So is there space to believe they aren't or is it one of the ways the ME-verse differs from ours?

[Steelcan]

You can be outright hostile to synthetic life in ME1/2 in ME3 this was largely axed.

However you don't ever HAVE to admit that they are alive, but I agree the writer's intent was rather clear, we are supposed to see synthetics as the same as humans.

If you want to be anti-synthetic you have to do it through actions.

[angol fear]

Actually, your definition of "life" is very limited (if you use a dictionary or the "common sense" to understand this, it will always be very basic!).

[GreyLycanTrope]

Steelcan wrote...
If you want to be anti-synthetic you have to do it through actions.

What about the convo between Adams and Chakwas outside the medbay? I remember you being able to support Chakwas' claim that the synthetics aren't really alive.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 05 décembre 2013 - 02:51 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I don't understand how anyone can deny the existence of alien life, but that's a conversation for another time.

The real question isn't whether or not synthetics are alive or not. The real question is: Why does artificial intelligence and synthetic sapience need to exist in the first place? I believe that sapient intelligent life (AI) is a lot different than other types of synthetics (organs, VI, etc.) Oddly enough, Miranda counts IMO as a synthetic organic. She's fully organic, but her physiology is uniquely structured (along with Oriana) due to her being artificially concieved and perfected.

The catalyst changes his definition of synthetic in the choices between destroy and synthesis. As in, the synthetic that the Catalyst is using in destroy does not have the same meaning in synthesis.

Here's my analysis on the problem.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 05 décembre 2013 - 02:37 .

[Br3admax]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
If you want to be anti-synthetic you have to do it through actions.

What about the convo between Adams and Chakwas outside the medbay? I remember you being able to support Chakwas' claim that they're synthetics aren't really alive.

Too bad even Shepard forgot this conversation. 

[Br3admax]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I don't understand how anyone can deny the existence of alien life, but that's a conversation for another time.

Not that there is any conclusive evidence either way, so I don't see how anyone can accept it either. 

[Wulfram]

Whether or not they constitute life is fairly meaningless semantics.

I think it would be very hard to sensibly argue that Liara, Shepard, the Rachni, Grunt and Vorcha are all entitled to the same sort of rights, but the Geth and EDI are not.

Modifié par Wulfram, 05 décembre 2013 - 02:56 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Br3ad wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I don't understand how anyone can deny the existence of alien life, but that's a conversation for another time.

Not that there is any conclusive evidence either way, so I don't see how anyone can accept it either. 

I guess it depends on what you mean when you say alien life. Galaxy's a big place, if one assumes the existance of life on Earth is a random occurance due to specific conditions the odds of some form of life elsewhere whether microbe or other are very well within the realm of possiblity.

[Br3admax]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I don't understand how anyone can deny the existence of alien life, but that's a conversation for another time.

Not that there is any conclusive evidence either way, so I don't see how anyone can accept it either. 

I guess it depends on what you mean when you say alien life. Galaxy's a big place, if one assumes the existance of life on Earth is a random occurance due to specific conditions the odds of some form of life elsewhere whether microbe or other are very well within the realm of possiblity.

Everything is possible, this even highly, however stating it as a definite truth and that it is undeniable in your mind is the exact opposite of what an advocate of science should do. 

[Jorji Costava]

These are all points I've made elsewhere on these boards, but I'll repeat them here, since they seem relevant:

For better or worse, this issue looks like another case of paragon bias. Sure, Shepard can say that synthetics aren't alive, but I think the tendency to approach this issue as though it's settled by Shepard's beliefs is a mistake. Shepard can believe a lot of false things: You can believe that Shiala is too dangerous to let live in ME1, but we know from a meta-game point of view that that's just false. You can believe that Jacob is the right guy to send through the vents, but that's clearly not the case.

Synthetics are able to communicate intelligently, engage in complex behaviors, etc. They seem to exhibit creativity and ingenuity (heck, the whole business about thermal clips is that it's supposed to be a Geth innovation). Some of them exhibit religious impulses, and EDI even has a sense of humor. That's a substantial amount of evidence in favor of the "synthetics are 'alive'" view to dismiss outright.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
I have a problem. If you asked me whether a hypothetical AI was alive, I would tell you no. Life is by definition organic and the AI is just a really fancy computer program. But can Shepard believe this? Without being a bigot? I don't believe in aliens, but a Shepard who disbelieves it is insane. The devs seem to push "synthetics are people too" pretty darn hard. So is there space to believe they aren't or is it one of the ways the ME-verse differs from ours?

I don't think the ME universe is different from our own in this, since I think that AI can exist with the same kind of mental and physical complexity as an organic individual - and, if you want, the same kind of "free will". I don't see any reason why intelligent life has to be organic.

As for an in-universe belief: within the ME trilogy, you can, for instance, agree with Chakwas that organics have a fundamental quality synthetics lack, so it's a claim acknowledged in-world, but in the end it's nothing more than a philosophical statement claiming value through an arbitrary distinction, since by everything you can actually observe synthetics are quite as alive as organics. While in the real world, the matter is simply undecided since we lack the ability to build systems of the necessary complexity, within the MEU I would classify a belief that synthetics are less valid lifeforms as racist.

Edit:
As for a thematic message: maybe it's possible to avoid the message  that synthetics are people if you sell Legion in ME2 and have to content with the unnamed geth platform in ME3. I'd still think the position is racist in-world, but you may be able to prevent the story itself from taking a position you would want to avoid.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 décembre 2013 - 03:12 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Not to get OT but Massive only said you can't flatly deny the existence of aliens, I think he just means you can't deny the possibility.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

As I said, I simply believe that there is no point for AI to exist. What do you really have to gain from an AI that a hyper-advanced non-sentient computer can't already do?

[Br3admax]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Not to get OT but Massive only said you can't flatly deny the existence of aliens, I think he just means you can't deny the possibility.

Well not to stay off-topic, well kindda, but the OP said that they don't believe in it, which Massively responded to. The OP didn't deny the possibility, though they might not believe in the possibility, it simply wasn't presented.


Anyway, as to the current conversation, I agree. There is really no point in making robots even marginally as intelligent, sapient-wise, as humans. Such things are not needed and only lead to ill consequences. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 05 décembre 2013 - 03:16 .

[Ieldra]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
As I said, I simply believe that there is no point for AI to exist. What do you really have to gain from an AI that a hyper-advanced non-sentient computer can't already do?

That's a different problem. The original question is: if AI do exist, can you plausibly deny them the attribute "alive"? I think you can't.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Ieldra2 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
As I said, I simply believe that there is no point for AI to exist. What do you really have to gain from an AI that a hyper-advanced non-sentient computer can't already do?

That's a different problem. The original question is: if AI do exist, can you plausibly deny them the attribute "alive"? I think you can't.

I know. It comes down to how you define life. I agree with you, but I also believe that there really is no reason to make a machine that is alive.

[Wulfram]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

As I said, I simply believe that there is no point for AI to exist. What do you really have to gain from an AI that a hyper-advanced non-sentient computer can't already do?

If you give a computer a sufficiently high level of intelligence, sentience, or at least something close enough to be difficult to distinguish, may be difficult to avoid.

[pelojian]

AIs don't get old, sick or die, they can adapt from one occurrence or example, they dont have to sleep and can be left running for an indefinite amount of time, can perform complex tasks that cant be delegated to non-sentient programs.

whether an AI is alive or not is irrelevant. if an AI is capable of independent thought and action just like organics they should be afforded equal rights.

something 'not alive' capable of doing the same things a sentient lifeform can do being undeserving of the same rights as a sentient lifeform is an ignorant argument.

is a dog alive? yes
do we afford dogs equal rights to humans? no

both are alive yet they don't have the same rights.

[Br3admax]

pelojian wrote...

AIs don't get old, sick or die, they can adapt from one occurrence or example, they dont have to sleep and can be left running for an indefinite amount of time, can perform complex tasks that cant be delegated to non-sentient programs.

whether an AI is alive or not is irrelevant. if an AI is capable of independent thought and action just like organics they should be afforded equal rights.

something 'not alive' capable of doing the same things a sentient lifeform can do being undeserving of the same rights as a sentient lifeform is an ignorant argument.

is a dog alive? yes
do we afford dogs equal rights to humans? no

both are alive yet they don't have the same rights.

I don't even agree with most of the arguments for AI, but is a dog sentient? No. 

[Ieldra]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
As I said, I simply believe that there is no point for AI to exist. What do you really have to gain from an AI that a hyper-advanced non-sentient computer can't already do?

That's a different problem. The original question is: if AI do exist, can you plausibly deny them the attribute "alive"? I think you can't.

I know. It comes down to how you define life. I agree with you, but I also believe that there really is no reason to make a machine that is alive.

Well....in most stories, AIs become self-aware by accident. Prime example: EDI. More examples: the geth.

[Br3admax]

Ieldra2 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
As I said, I simply believe that there is no point for AI to exist. What do you really have to gain from an AI that a hyper-advanced non-sentient computer can't already do?

That's a different problem. The original question is: if AI do exist, can you plausibly deny them the attribute "alive"? I think you can't.

I know. It comes down to how you define life. I agree with you, but I also believe that there really is no reason to make a machine that is alive.

Well....in most stories, AIs become self-aware by accident. Prime example: EDI. More examples: the geth.

EDI was made sapient, self-aware is not the subject here, and the geth were a bunch of connected processors, which would obiviously lead to a more intelligent group.

Modifié par Br3ad, 05 décembre 2013 - 04:06 .

[Obadiah]

OP, I'm sure the Synthetics won't have a problem with your definition.