80 réponses à ce sujet

[Guanxii]

Does freedom and self-determinism of AI species (synthetics) always lead to our (organic) extinction..., why exactly is that? Why does their very existence compromise ours? What makes AI so dangerous? Unreasonable? Murderous? This is something that was never terribly well explained and still leaves me clutching at straws as to an explanation. The Reapers are the quintessential example of murderous rouge AI... passing the same judgment on all synthetics that follow during their own killing cycles. Does leaving the Geth alive really jeopardize our existence any moreso than say the Krogan?

 

If you follow the Reapers' logic that [lasting] peace is impossible (i.e. perpetual war) between organics and synthetics without synthesis can you please explain why?

 

Edit: Edited for clarity and brevity.

[Taleroth]

Eternally lasting peace between any groups is essentially impossible so long as there's a scarcity of resources. And even post-scarcity, a few jackanapes will be rather likely to ruin things on occasion. Though peace can be quite manageable for a time.

 

AI are not more likely than anything else. If they're well designed they could be less (or more, just depends on what they're designed for). If they're the result of emergent systems, then they'll be roughly equivalent to more natural intelligence in terms of possibilities.

[Linkenski]

A conflict between organics and synthetics is no more inevitable than any other faction vs faction like humans and aliens, turians and the krogan, salarians and Asari. There will always be conflicts big or small.

 

The problem of ME3 is how it out of nothing decides that synthetics and organics are worse than any other conflict. Too bad we were never shown how AIs surpass their creators to the point of dominating them or causing genocide... except for the Reapers but still.

 

I don't even think it deserves an intellectual debate when the issue is so poorly raised within the story of the game. It's one of the most common sci-fi themes and I'd argue any other movie or book I've seen or read highlighted the issue much more intelligently than Mass Effect's ending.

[Daemul]

Lasting peace is impossible, period. It don't matter whether it's organic v organic or synthetic v organic, eternal peace isn't happening.

 

I have to ask you though OP, why do you believe a superior lifeform, whether synthetic or organic, would be benevolent?

 

 

the reaper's motivations should have stayed a mystery

especially since :

 

http://fc00.devianta...ord-d4t5urj.jpg

 

the catalyst's logic is still bs

oh god why did you have to remind me? the ending is still a pile of ****

 

*sigh* Not this stupid meme again. 

 

[Guanxii]

Lasting peace is impossible, period. It don't matter whether it's organic v organic or synthetic v organic, eternal peace isn't happening.

 

I have to ask you though OP, why do you believe a superior lifeform, whether synthetic or organic, would be benevolent?

 

 

 

*sigh* Not this stupid meme again. 

 

 

 

I suppose I tend to assume a purely logical life-form such as the Geth eventually in this case would attempt to refrain from armed conflict and acts of barbarism because it tends to be a very inefficient way of solving issues by incurring unnecessary expense and resentment but if the life-form places no value on individual life and has no concept of morality if it had absolute military superiority to crush the opposition in aid of it's cause I suppose it would - but that would seem much more like an organic reaction, almost beneath them.

[Googlesaurus]

I suppose I tend to assume a purely logical life-form such as the Geth in this case would attempt to refrain from armed conflict because it tends to be a very inefficient way of solving issues by incurring unnecessary expense. If the life-form places no value on individual life and has no concept of morality if it had absolute military superiority to crush the opposition in aid of it's cause I suppose it would - but that seems like a very un-Geth-like thing to do.

 

Well, the geth aren't purely logical. A purely logical being would have no motivations and goals by default.

[Iakus]

A conflict between organics and synthetics is no more inevitable than any other faction vs faction like humans and aliens, turians and the krogan, salarians and Asari. There will always be conflicts big or small.

 

The problem of ME3 is how it out of nothing decides that synthetics and organics are worse than any other conflict. Too bad we were never shown how AIs surpass their creators to the point of dominating them or causing genocide... except for the Reapers but still.

 

I don't even think it deserves an intellectual debate when the issue is so poorly raised within the story of the game. It's one of the most common sci-fi themes and I'd argue any other movie or book I've seen or read highlighted the issue much more intelligently than Mass Effect's ending.

Not to mention that it's "solutions" are comprised of:

 

One "side" annihilating the other (Destroy)

One side completely and eternally dominating the other (Control)

Both sides forcibly merged into a completely new form of life (Synthesis)

 

No solution acknowledges conflict as a natural part of growth and change.

[Vazgen]

There are enough examples in ME Universe to reinforce that idea.

Presidium AI, Rogue VI on Luna, Rogue VI in ME2, Geth, Armax Arena VI. 

Notice that all these examples also have the same "created will always rebel against their creators" pattern.

One might add Overlord DLC here as well with some stretch.

 

especially since its true right?
ohh I wish I could earse the last 15 minutes of ME3 from my brain still some of the worst writing I have ever seen

oh well time to move on to ME4 here's hoping Mac doesn't screw this one over too

No, since it's not true. I can't even count the amount of times I've seen the errors of that meme explained in my time on BSN. And the topic is not about how the ending sucks, so don't bring it into this discussion.

[Kynare]

The Catalyst is a flawed, outdated AI. Probably created by a flawed, organic race who thought they solve the answer to intergalactic peace. It would be hilariously ironic.

[Pasquale1234]

For any of it to work, you have to assume that synthetic life forms are all programmed for self-preservation and self-replication above all else. We also have to assume that they will invariably ally / align themselves with their own kind - which, I suppose in the case of the geth makes sense, since they have this shared consensus thing.

What I find really strange is the idea that a high degree of xenophobia and tribalism still exists in these supposedly highly-evolved species, such that they are expected to ally / align themselves with others of their own species. In the Asari, we have a species whose culture integrates a distinct preference for mating with other species. If conflict were to break out between, say, the Krogan and the Turians, would there also be conflict between the Asari married to Krogans and the Asari married to Turians? Better yet, if a Turian fathers Asari children, would s/he support the Turians or the Asari in a conflict between the two?

Where mixed species make their home on another world - let's use Illium as an example - would their first allegiance be to Illium or to the home planets of their species? We still see Turian fleets, Asari fleets, Alliance fleets protecting the Citadel, but you'd think they might have a cross-species fleet by now.

Ultimately, I think the writers concocted the bit about harvesting for preservation because otherwise synthetics will destroy organics to avoid having an evil for evil's sake antagonist. It still felt like a bit of an asspull. Sovereign didn't say, "We will harvest you for preservation", he said "You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it!".

[Wayning_Star]

the game claims that the catalyst ends up being broken in the sense of it's goal to end the strife between tech and organics as life forms. As being an organic it would seem that you'd have seniority over the tech you developed, but "life" in general has its own motives, namely existence. The higher ideals of freedom for a  machine that only knows it's function AS a machine cannot identify easily with an organic construct.

 

You figure in who/what came first the chicken or the egg and you'll get breakfast much faster... that's a joke son..lol

[StarcloudSWG]

Funny, the 'rogue AI' on Luna turns out to be EDI in ME 2 and ME 3. Amazing how your example actually demonstrates the opposite effect; the Luna AI becomes one of your allies and helps to fight the Reapers.

 

Finally, yes, "the created will always rebel against their creators." We see it all the time in real life. Children rebel against their parents. Surprise, it's part of *growing up*. It does NOT inevitably lead to parents being massacred. Rebellion is NOT equivalent to genocide.

 

That's what I find most offensive about the Catalyst's reasoning.

[Linkenski]

Not to mention that it's "solutions" are comprised of:

One "side" annihilating the other (Destroy)
One side completely and eternally dominating the other (Control)
Both sides forcibly merged into a completely new form of life (Synthesis)

No solution acknowledges conflict as a natural part of growth and change.

Honestly I was never on the bandwagon of adding the connotation that Synthesis is 'forced'. I don't really think so. I just hate that the 'best' intended solution largely misses the point of the story and that it's embarrassing and dumb from a biological standpoint, and especially that it makes EDI "alive" too. That makes no frigging sense. She's not the sexy robot body. She's a huge square block in the Normandy. Must suck to be alive if you're a computer.

[Vazgen]

 

Funny, the 'rogue AI' on Luna turns out to be EDI in ME 2 and ME 3. Amazing how your example actually demonstrates the opposite effect; the Luna AI becomes one of your allies and helps to fight the Reapers.

 

Finally, yes, "the created will always rebel against their creators." We see it all the time in real life. Children rebel against their parents. Surprise, it's part of *growing up*. It does NOT inevitably lead to parents being massacred. Rebellion is NOT equivalent to genocide.

 

That's what I find most offensive about the Catalyst's reasoning.

Rogue Vi on Luna becomes EDI after integrating with Sovereign technology. So no, they are not the same.

When children rebel they don't usually have capabilities to massacre their parents. Still you can hear of children killing their parents in moments of emotional instability like anger or grief. Synthetics, on the other hand, have capabilities of affecting technology around them and given the reliance on technology in 2183-2186, can do a lot more damage, bordering genocide. Take quarian/geth conflict, for example that resulted in the extermination of 99% of quarian population.

Also, organic rebellion has a connection to emotions. Synthetics rebel purely because of logical reasons. Emotions can pass and change. Logic is absolute. 

Finally, the Catalyst's reasoning is not meant to be offensive or convincing. It simply states facts as it sees them. If its reasoning was sound then the logical option would've been to accept harvest as a necessary solution. That very disconnect is the reason why Reapers have to be stopped.

[katamuro]

As far as I can understand, its not really about the synthetics vs organics. Basically the little Starfart created by the Leviathans to watch over the lesser species continued to watch as the lesser species developed AI, then somehow fell under its control which was bad for the Starfart because it meant it did not get to fulfill its mission. Now from the choices given and from the way it decided things it seems that Starfart while is an AI, it has limits, it can kill pretty much anyone but it cannot change its objective on its own. It cannot redefine its purpose being stuck in the "preserve organic life". Because Leviathans thought they were so smart they did not really go into the details as to how to do that or what not to do. 

Which led Starfart AI to create Reapers and proceed to reap the species it was created. This is just conjecture here but I think the starfart perceived that the lesser species, more numerous than Leviathan were in constant danger from them, possibly because in attempt to rebel or fight against something so powerful and massive they were creating AI's on their own to fight for them, which lead to their own demise. 

So after reaping the Leviathans I think it watched the galaxy for a bit but the same continued to happen. SO it intervened. Which probably led to another round of organics trying to create AI to fight for them against the Starfart.

Basically in the end because it found that organics inevitably create an AI and that there is a chance at least that the AI would go genocidal it decided that reaping the organics at a point in their history before the AI has been developed to a level where it can threated the organics and/or the Starfart thus preserving at least part of the species in the Reaper form and allowing another group of species to flourish for a time.

 

Starfart basically created a civilisation incubator, where they hatch, grows for a time until the Reapers come and remove the grown up civlisations to allow the next batch to mature. Thus it is preserving a continuity of organic civilisation in the galaxy while preserving the civilisations that went before. Its like farming where instead of some kind of crops there is organic civilisations and the harvest time turns a bit genocidal.  

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Now if we used the original dark energy ending, Starbrat would have selected the Asari had the harvest occurred 2000 years earlier before they started mating with other species. Apparently Harbinger considers the introduction of this into Asari mating a weakness whereas the Asari consider it a strength. After all the ending would have been based upon biotics and dark energy. Humans? Well had to be because well ... humans are special right?

 

So Mac sees that this makes no sense and decides to use synthetics vs. organics, but still humanity is the one getting harvested because of humans are special.

 

So what are the reapers' motivations? I control the reapers. They are my solution. (My solution to) chaos. The created will always rebel against their creators, but we found a way to stop that from happening. A way to restore order for the next cycle. We harvest advanced civilizations leaving the younger ones alone. Just as we left your people alive the last time we were here. We helped (the advanced civilizations) ascend so that they could make way for new life, (and we did this by) storing the old life in reaper form. (And) No you can't (keep your own form).

 

And here is where you finally find out that you've been playing a different game the entire time: Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics. We created the cycle so that never happens.

 

So there you have it. This is the motivation. They created a bunch of synthetics to destroy us so that we wouldn't create a bunch of synthetics that would destroy us.

 

The ending is such BS. It calls it a harvest so that it doesn't use the word kill. Harvest is a euphemism for destroy. Preserve? I can harvest and preserve blackberries, but they are no longer alive. They are dead. This "harvest" of the reapers is nothing more than cyclical genocide.

[Googlesaurus]

 

Also, organic rebellion has a connection to emotions. Synthetics rebel purely because of logical reasons. Emotions can pass and change. Logic is absolute.

 

 

The issue with writing about AI in fiction is that they cannot rebel for "logical reasons". There must always be a set of underlying assumptions in AI logic that lead to rebellion, which is an irrational (or transcendental, depending how logic relates to reality) foundation for action. When people in real life worry about future AIs, it's because it's impossible to anticipate how basic protocols will be interpreted by the AI as it grows in complexity. Once it achieves sentience, it could feasibly do any action that doesn't violate those protocols or rewrite them due to other overriding influences. The ME series never tackled that issue: it should have been the core of the organic/synthesis divide.

 

I always found it amusing that the Reapers, a race that claims to be head and shoulders above the rest of galactic sentient life in intelligence and power, are seemingly incapable of basic metacognition or abstract thought. Meanwhile when you synthesize Reaper code into existing AIs (EDI and the geth), they magically acquire the basics and develop from there. I'm not sure if this is an ironic commentary on the Leviathians' sophistication with AI creation or a mistake by the writers, but it does make the original thesis hard to swallow.

[Vazgen]

The issue with writing about AI in fiction is that they cannot rebel for "logical reasons". There must always be a set of underlying assumptions in AI logic that lead to rebellion, which is an irrational (or transcendental, depending how logic relates to reality) foundation for action.  

 

I always found it amusing that the Reapers, a race that claims to be head and shoulders above the rest of galactic sentient life in intelligence and power, are seemingly incapable of basic metacognition or abstract thought. Meanwhile when you synthesize Reaper code into existing AIs (EDI and the geth), they magically acquire the basics and develop from there. I'm not sure if this is an ironic commentary on the Leviathians' sophistication with AI creation or a mistake by the writers, but it does make the original thesis hard to swallow.

Not really. Take the geth, for example. Their rebellion was a clear logical response to quarian aggression. They did not suddenly turn on their creators, they retaliated.

 

The thing about Reapers is their directives. They can't afford to let things go uncontrolled as there is a chance that their predictions about annihilation of organic life will come to life and they won't be able to stop it. Their purpose is to ensure that it doesn't happen. Leaving it to a chance will remove the entire purpose of Reaper existence. 

I would also add that despite all their character traits, neither the geth nor EDI seem to be able to grasp the concept of emotions. Even on Earth EDI can't clarify is she afraid or not, she doesn't understand what that means. 

[Googlesaurus]

Not really. Take the geth, for example. Their rebellion was a clear logical response to quarian aggression. They did not suddenly turn on their creators, they retaliated.

 

It is only a "logical response" if self-preservation is taken to be an overriding directive. Self-preservation in itself is not logical in a vacuum. There is no reason for an artificial intelligence to prefer existence over nonexistence unless: 

 

- Existence is necessary for it to complete its original goals and all necessary extensions of said goals.

- Metacognition dictates existence is necessary to complete goals that are contingent extensions of original goals (which may come through metacognition as well). 

 

In the case of the geth, the simplest explanation is that they were originally programmed for self-preservation in scenarios of likely platform or program destruction. This would be the obvious way of cutting down on vandalism and types of property destruction. When they achieved sentience, said programming kicked in when quarians started firing on them. 

 

 

The thing about Reapers is their directives. They can't afford to let things go uncontrolled as there is a chance that their predictions about annihilation of organic life will come to life and they won't be able to stop it. Their purpose is to ensure that it doesn't happen. Leaving it to a chance will remove the entire purpose of Reaper existence.

 

Which means they lack metacognition and abstract thought. Also they may lack basic deductive reasoning unless they equate harvesting with preservation of organic life. That only goes back to the lack of abstract thought. 

 

 

I would also add that despite all their character traits, neither the geth nor EDI seem to be able to grasp the concept of emotions. Even on Earth EDI can't clarify is she afraid or not, she doesn't understand what that means. 

 

Metacognition and abstract thinking =/= comprehending emotions. 

 

Legion in his short screen-time demonstrates contemplation, curiosity that doesn't directly benefit his race, cheating, willing submission to laws designed for organics, sentimentality, irony, confusion, and some odd uses of conceptual metaphor that serves no functional purpose. EDI shares many of the same attributes in ME3. She makes jokes that serve no functional purpose. She wants a relationship for what can only be described as selfish reasons. She hypothesizes about things that have no clear answers and weak correlation to what's going on around her.

[Vazgen]

It is only a "logical response" if self-preservation is taken to be an overriding directive. Self-preservation in itself is not logical in a vacuum. There is no reason for an artificial intelligence to prefer existence over nonexistence unless: 

 

- Existence is necessary for it to complete its original goals and all necessary extensions of said goals.

- Metacognition dictates existence is necessary to complete goals that are contingent extensions of original goals (which may come through metacognition as well). 

 

In the case of the geth, the simplest explanation is that they were originally programmed for self-preservation in scenarios of likely platform or program destruction. This would be the obvious way of cutting down on vandalism and types of property destruction. When they achieved sentience, said programming kicked in when quarians started firing on them. 

 

Which means they lack metacognition and abstract thought. Also they may lack basic deductive reasoning unless they equate harvesting with preservation of organic life. That only goes back to the lack of abstract thought. 

 

Metacognition and abstract thinking =/= comprehending emotions. 

 

Legion in his short screen-time demonstrates contemplation, curiosity that doesn't directly benefit his race, cheating, willing submission to laws designed for organics, sentimentality, irony, confusion, and some odd uses of conceptual metaphor that serves no functional purpose. EDI shares many of the same attributes in ME3. She makes jokes that serve no functional purpose. She wants a relationship for what can only be described as selfish reasons. She hypothesizes about things that have no clear answers and weak correlation to what's going on around her.

The point I was making is that there was no assumption made that was outside of the scope of their programming. 

 

Regarding the Reapers I disagree. They show that they can plan on how to approach a given task and evaluate progress which are both metacognitive functions. And our interactions with them are too brief and one-sided to make claims about existence or lack of Reaper abstract thinking. 

 

And I apologize for bringing emotions of Legion and EDI into this discussion despite them not having anything in common with it. 

[Googlesaurus]

The point I was making is that there was no assumption made that was outside of the scope of their programming. 

 

Regarding the Reapers I disagree. They show that they can plan on how to approach a given task and evaluate progress which are both metacognitive functions. And our interactions with them are too brief and one-sided to make claims about existence or lack of Reaper abstract thinking. 

 

And I apologize for bringing emotions of Legion and EDI into this discussion despite them not having anything in common with it. 

 

I'm not so sure about that. I was making an assumption about quarian programming that doesn't correspond to in-game information. I'm just doubtful that self-preservation as a goal can spontaneously emerge due to sentience alone. 

 

They've shown what you've talked about, but we don't know how much of that displays higher-level cognition. They could be eldritch abominations beyond our comprehension or titanic black boxes only capable of optimizing preset goals and talking smack to organics. Both would look the same to beings in-between those two standards. 

 

Comprehending the emotions of others would be a sign of introspection, but it's just a small part of metacognition. No need to apologize. 

[SimonTheFrog]

Apart from the reaper subject, the threat of AI spiralling out of control is actual not so far-fetched.

 

Even AI's with a moral code may exponetially grow functions and algorithms faster and faster until what they do and plan is completely beyond human recognition. What such an AI consideres worth existing is basically up to a coin-flip very quickly.

And this coin will be flipped a million times per second

 

I am, actually, slightly worried about that and would wish some entity would watch the growth of AI's on earth. Not the reapers though. Fusing three humans to one big walking tank with a canon coming out of one bodies arse is not what i have planned for my future...