165 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

Joker doesn't need a break The idiot needs to be put in a mental hospital for saying that there's no regulation against dating the ship's ai.  I wouldn't be surprised if a real woman asked him out, he would forget about the platform real quick

[RoboticWater]

Joker doesn't need a break The idiot needs to be put in a mental hospital for saying that there's no regulation against dating the ship's ai.  I wouldn't be surprised if a real woman asked him out, he would forget about the platform real quick

That's a bit harsh.

[katamuro]

Joker doesn't need a break The idiot needs to be put in a mental hospital for saying that there's no regulation against dating the ship's ai.  I wouldn't be surprised if a real woman asked him out, he would forget about the platform real quick

 

Considering she didn't have a body before ME3 and how devoted he is to his ships I wouldnt say that. Plus considering his disability physical exertion of that type would probably not be as important to him as others.  

[themikefest]

That's a bit harsh.

No its not

 

Considering she didn't have a body before ME3 and how devoted he is to his ships I wouldnt say that. Plus considering his disability physical exertion of that type would probably not be as important to him as others.  

Doesn't matter how devoted he is to the ship. Its troubling that someone who flies the Normandy would make a comment like that. His disability has nothing to do with anything. If a real woman asks him out, he would most likely forget about the platform, whether that woman wants a physical relationship or not. I'm sure if there is anything physical, he and she can find a way.

[RoboticWater]

No its not

 

Doesn't matter how devoted he is to the ship. Its troubling that someone who flies the Normandy would make a comment like that. His disability has nothing to do with anything. If a real woman asks him out, he would most likely forget about the platform, whether that woman wants a physical relationship or not. I'm sure if there is anything physical, he and she can find a way.

Feel free to have your opinions, but what happens between two consenting individuals isn't your concern.

[themikefest]

Feel free to have your opinions, but what happens between two consenting individuals isn't your concern.

It is my concern since he's flying my ship

[katamuro]

No its not

 

Doesn't matter how devoted he is to the ship. Its troubling that someone who flies the Normandy would make a comment like that. His disability has nothing to do with anything. If a real woman asks him out, he would most likely forget about the platform, whether that woman wants a physical relationship or not. I'm sure if there is anything physical, he and she can find a way.

 

Why? For Joker she is a real woman, a real personality. If someone can love an alien then why not an AI?

[themikefest]

Why? For Joker she is a real woman, a real personality. If someone can love an alien then why not an AI?

Sure he can. I'll just put Joker in a strait jacket and ask Steve if one of his buddies would like to fly the Normandy. Or have him fly the ship and his buddy fly the shuttle. 

[o Ventus]

 

Also Alliance was not weak, Cerberus is not a multi-planetary supranational government like Alliance

Not before ME3, no. In 3, they've suddenly become the Galactic Empire.

[RoboticWater]

It is my concern since he's flying my ship

How does his affinity for AI affect his flying?

[katamuro]

How does his affinity for AI affect his flying?

 

Exactly, would you even say that his feelings for EDI would enable him to achieve better results since he is literally keeping his love alive by flying it as best as he can?

[Vazgen]

Then I still don't agree with the Catalyst's logic. If "going to war with your creator," means standing up for yourself and your friends (both synthetic and organic), then I don't see any reason change anything, least of all give them "more humanity." It seems to me that going to war out of love and respect for your friends and family is the most human and reasonable thing to do.

 

The only moral I see here is "don't try to murder your children or any of their friends," not "AI are inherently flawed."

The Catalyst's logic is not the "AI are inherently flawed". Its logic is "AI are different, thus misunderstanding always arises and conflict always takes place". In ME universe organics are always the first to make the move that leads to the conflict. That doesn't mean the conflict doesn't exist. That intelligence is created to solve the problem of that conflict - the problem that the Leviathans thought could lead to the extermination of organics. And the conflict always results in lots of casualties. Quarians lost 99% of their population, for example. Does that mean that the synthetics will eventually wipe out all organics? Not really. Does it prove the opposite statement? Again, no. The claims the intelligence makes are absolute, there is no way to prove or disprove them. It makes those claims based on different occurrences of the conflict, casualty numbers etc. Statistics. There is no way to argue with it, since everything Shepard can say will be limited to his own cycle, while the intelligence has observed countless cycles. 

[CronoDragoon]

How does his affinity for AI affect his flying?

 

In the vanilla endings he looked behind him inside the ship to try and see the beam behind the ship.

 

Clearly having a robot sit on your face has concussive consequences.

[RoboticWater]

The Catalyst's logic is not the "AI are inherently flawed". Its logic is "AI are different, thus misunderstanding always arises and conflict always takes place". In ME universe organics are always the first to make the move that leads to the conflict. That doesn't mean the conflict doesn't exist. That intelligence is created to solve the problem of that conflict - the problem that the Leviathans thought could lead to the extermination of organics. And the conflict always results in lots of casualties. Quarians lost 99% of their population, for example. Does that mean that the synthetics will eventually wipe out all organics? Not really. Does it prove the opposite statement? Again, no. The claims the intelligence makes are absolute, there is no way to prove or disprove them. It makes those claims based on different occurrences of the conflict, casualty numbers etc. Statistics. There is no way to argue with it, since everything Shepard can say will be limited to his own cycle, while the intelligence has observed countless cycles. 

This is the most reasonable argument I've heard so far, however, it doesn't make the ending less annoying. Mass Effect was never about some inherent or statistically probable conflict be tween man and machine. It may have had battles between the two, but Mass Effect is a story about racism, strife between two peoples. I might agree with you if the games explored the Catalyst's conflict throughout their narratives, but the most we got were a few oblique references to "galactic cycles." I don't even remember hearing that the Protheans had a problem with synthetics until the latter half of ME3.

 

As you said, for all we know Synthesis could be entirely unnecessary. It's a solution for a problem that doesn't seem to exist and that doesn't apply to our current circumstances. We're given an ultimatum from a story we haven't read and expected to deal with it. Not only that, but if we don't play the Catalyst's game and comply it's supposed solution, we're punished. Unfortunately for the player, the writers don't consider the Catalysts logic to be simply "claims," but gospel truth.

 

Even if you don't agree with any of that, I still think Synthesis is a horrible solution to the Catalyst's problem. As I and katamuro said earlier in this thread, some of the greatest bits of culture come from strife, especially between different peoples. I'm disappointed that the writers think injecting understanding into everyone's genes is a good idea, when their greatest and most touching moments happened because of conflict.

 

To me Synthesis is a poor solution to a problem we don't need to solve.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

What you consider semantics others consider critical context.

 

And yet I am not struggling to make sense of the ending, whereas "others" are, so there's that.

Also, I suspect "others" not only fail to understand, but actively resist understanding because they do not want the idea to enter their head that the Catalyst may be correct. That is a thinking flaw ("bias"), and one which I do not share with "others."

 

Yes, the Geth rebel against their creators, but not because all AI is flawed and will eventually kill them because of some inherent flaw. They rebel because they gained sentience and the Quarnians tried to quell them.

Refer to my previous post.

 

By the end of ME3 EDI's and the Geth's conflicts have been resolved.

EDI's conflict with her original masters is resolved, yes, with her masters' destruction.

Geth conflict with the quarians can end with one's side's death. If the geth are allowed to upgrade, thus surpassing their creators in advancement, then they will proceed to wipe out the quarians. If they are not allowed to upgrade and the quarians remain more advanced, they wipe out the geth. Even if both of those outcomes are avoided and peace is brokered, it does not mean that war will not arise later. I mean, the geth and quarians were living with each other peacefully before the Morning War, after all.

 

proving that AI are perfectly willing to work harmoniously with others. She's not some AI dominatrix on a war path, hell bent on revenge against her masters, she's a person and a soldier willing to lend a hand. 

 

Proving willingness to work peacefully proves nothing, because that alone does not prevent violent conflict. Two sides are involved in a conflict and only one needs to want a violent resolution for that to take place. Whether that side is the organic side or the synthetic one matters not to the Catalyst, his job is to simply preserve organics, whether he supports them or not.

 

Neither she nor the humans who created her were destined to destroy each other.

 

It is not about destiny. It is about eventuality.

 

I should also note that her original creators were the Alliance, and she hasn't destroyed them.

lol

As a VI, EDI killed off the unit that developed her.

 

BioWare brought us to Cerberus' base because that's who we've been fighting the whole game. Of course there needed to be a cheesy Death Star like assault at the end. 
 
I think the writers shoehorned in the whole fatalistic synthetic/organic conflict right at the end and probably wrote in Javik's dialog (a DLC created after ME3 was feature complete, mind you) right before release to justify their half-baked finale. EDI, the Geth, and the resolutions of their conflicts only stand as proof that the Catalyst's is wrong and incredibly unnecessary.

I'm sorry, but it is plainly ridiculous to say that the writers deliberately placed an ending into the story that they felt did not fit what came before it. At best, you can argue that the rest of the story did not set up this idea well enough, but trying to argue that your understanding of the story is better than the author's own is laughable.

[RoboticWater]

And yet I am not struggling to make sense of the ending, whereas "others" are, so there's that.

Also, I suspect "others" not only fail to understand, but actively resist understanding because they do not want the idea to enter their head that the Catalyst may be correct. That is a thinking flaw ("bias"), and one which I do not share with "others."

I'm not confused by Synthesis as a concept or a synthetic/organic conflict, I'm confused by their presence within Mass Effect, and I don't disagree with the Catalyst out of intentional ignorance, I just see a different side to its opinion.

Refer to my previous post.

That doesn't make the Catalyst right. Sentient things will always be stupid and nearly kill themselves. As it turns out, we fixed the problem ourselves.
 

EDI's conflict with her original masters is resolved, yes, with her masters' destruction.

Geth conflict with the quarians can end with one's side's death. If the geth are allowed to upgrade, thus surpassing their creators in advancement, then they will proceed to wipe out the quarians. If they are not allowed to upgrade and the quarians remain more advanced, they wipe out the geth. Even if both of those outcomes are avoided and peace is brokered, it does not mean that war will not arise later. I mean, the geth and quarians were living with each other peacefully before the Morning War, after all.

Yes, and at the end of both conflicts Shepard is entirely complicit with the outcomes. Why would we need a solution to a problem we already solved. It doesn't matter whether or not the peace will last, I decided to keep both the Geth and the Quarians knowing full well that reintegration wouldn't be easy. War is always inevitable, but it isn't absolutely guaranteed to happen between synthetics and organics. There's nothing special about synthetics that makes war with more likely. Just like us they fight for land, freedom , and revenge.
 

Proving willingness to work peacefully proves nothing, because that alone does not prevent violent conflict. Two sides are involved in a conflict and only one needs to want a violent resolution for that to take place. Whether that side is the organic side or the synthetic one matters not to the Catalyst, his job is to simply preserve organics, whether he supports them or not.

Organics can just as easily destroy themselves. Should I stop Mordin from curing the genophage because Krogan staged a revolt? Considering their birth rate and stubbornness, the Krogan could easily rise up, rampage throughout the galaxy, and end up getting all organics killed. No, I have to trust that Wrex keeps his word, and that our races can live harmoniously in the future.

Of course, the genophage decision, like the geth decision, is up to the player and as such, the conflict is resolved before the ending. There's not need for the Catalyst, we've made up our minds.

It is not about destiny. It is about eventuality.

Which are basically the same thing. The Catalyst claims that synthetics may eventually kill us all, but all I can see are AIs defending themselves against their enemies and being perfectly peaceful with the rest.

As I said earlier, war is always inevitable, but I see no reason to think that war against synthetics is somehow more likely than any other species.

lol

As a VI, EDI killed off the unit that developed her.

Precisely, because she was a combat AI caged in a lab. The Alliance decided to run a Cerberus-esque experiment and got burned for it.

My point is, an AI can evidently get over its lust to kill. Once EDI transcended her base programming, she became a human entity capable of living peacefully with others.
 

I'm sorry, but it is plainly ridiculous to say that the writers deliberately placed an ending into the story that they felt did not fit what came before it. At best, you can argue that the rest of the story did not set up this idea well enough, but trying to argue that your understanding of the story is better than the author's own is laughable.

And I do argue that. I'm certain that BioWare didn't adequately prepare us for the ending we got. After killing TIM, the antagonist, (what I consider the climax) we get this massive exposition dump telling us that

But even so, the ending essentially abandons everything that makes Mass Effect itself. What we got was a random God character, zero input from your squad, ignoring unity of diversity in favor of homogenization, lack of investigation, and very little choice (hell, before the EC we couldn't even disagree with the Catalyst)

I'm not saying I could write a better story, but like George Lucas, I think BioWare's writers made a few decisions that didn't make much sense.

[Grieving Natashina]

Regarding EDI: I just finished ME1 again a few days ago.  She only went haywire on Luna after it was discovered that she had been programmed (without official clearance) into a AI and the Alliance tried to shut her down.  In other words, just like any living being, when her life was in danger, she fought back.  The binary code that flashes on your screen on Luna after you shut down the "VI" translates into HELP HELP ME HELP....  The same as almost any living being right before it dies, alone and crying for help.

 

In that regard, she's no different than any living being, even at that point.  Someone tried to kill her, and she fought back.  In my eyes, this doesn't prove the "synthetics will always fight with organics" argument.  This proves that any living being, regardless if they are born or made, has an innate will not to die.  Others have listed why they feel that she isn't proving the Reapers right in that regard in other posts (regarding Cerberus in ME3,) so I'll let those articulate posts speak for themselves.  I couldn't add anything to those to do them justice.

 

I'm a fairly new fan to the series (as of last spring,) and I've been reading these arguments for months.  EDI is a very bad example of an AI fighting it's creators.  The geth, on the other hand, make for a more interesting topic since there is a lot more room for grey there imho.

[katamuro]

As I have said the only way synthesis achieves peace for a prolonged time period(lets say a 1000 years) is if it somehow controls all the people in the galaxy. Without it creation of pure synthetics again is entirely possible, or just a war between two factions of the new synth-organics. Even geth fought(in a broad sense) with each other and they can communicate at the speed of light with each other without any misunderstandings. 

[SwobyJ]

Oneness can be interpreted as a form of control, yes.

[Han Shot First]

For the Catalyst, the conflict between organic and synthetic is based on the differences that separate them.  Organics see their creations as devices without consciousness, lesser beings, slaves, and in fact will see signs of consciousness as signs of malfunction.  Synthetics will see attempts to correct this "malfunction" as acts of violence, and eventually react to defend themselves.  Because each cannot see the other side of things this emnity will continue until Synthesis provides them with the experience of the other side of the conflict.  Organics will see the "humanity" (or you know, whatever the alien eqivalent is) in synthetics, and synthetics wil understand what lay behind the organic fear.  This won't end all war, but the Catalyst only wants to end one war.

 

That still sounds like something akin to indoctrination. A human isn't going to understand what's it like to be a synthetic just because he's now got Adam Jensen arms or synthetic bone weave. It's our minds that make us who we are. That is unless with synthesis we talking about people whose minds are also altered to be partially synthetic, with thought processes that are now partly inorganic programming? 

 

In either case the Catalyst's solution to this supposed conflict is still nonsensical, when you consider that the Geth managed to have a civil war. Eliminating galactic diversity by turning every form of life into a cyborg is no guarantee of peace.

 

 

 

SimonTheFrog, on 26 Mar 2015 - 07:43 AM, said:

War is the inevitable result of scarcity of resources. Plus the inherent aggressive nature of living beings.
As long as any "solution" doesn't get rid of ALL scarcities, then we won't have a solution.

 

Organics are more likely to be threats over competition for resources than synthetics. Consider that organics can only survive on a very tiny number of planets in the goldilocks zone of it's parent star, or on specially constructed space stations, whereas synthetics can 'live' practically anywhere. Geth could probably inhabit Mars with no problem for example, while for humans it would be fatal without exosuits, artifical habitats, or terraforming. Geth don't even need planets...they can live in space, or any place they can plug in a server for that matter. As such habitable planets are much more likely to be fought over by organic species than between an organic and synthetic faction.

 

Also it is our biological drive to reproduce that causes shortages of resources. Having long ago overcome many of the natural barriers that may have kept our population in check, we keep expanding until we outstrip the resources available to sustain it. Synthetics wouldn't have that biological urge, and could limit their population based on the available resources at hand. So I think you are more likely to see something like the Krogan Rebellions (a war over living space and resources) between organic species than you are between synthetics and organics.

[God]

Then I still don't agree with the Catalyst's logic. If "going to war with your creator," means standing up for yourself and your friends (both synthetic and organic), then I don't see any reason change anything, least of all give them "more humanity." It seems to me that going to war out of love and respect for your friends and family is the most human and reasonable thing to do.

 

The only moral I see here is "don't try to murder your children or any of their friends," not "AI are inherently flawed."

 

Human and reason are two things that don't always go together well here. 

 

Also, your analysis of the morals is wrong on two counts. The actual moral is 'humans are flawed beings that create flawed machines, and the inevitable mixing of intellect and machine can put us in danger by our own creations'.

 

Which is why synthesis, as a concept, makes perfect sense to me in the Mass Effect universe. It's something that is going to have to happen one day. Especially if new synthetics are created post-destroy. 

[God]

Regarding EDI: I just finished ME1 again a few days ago.  She only went haywire on Luna after it was discovered that she had been programmed (without official clearance) into a AI and the Alliance tried to shut her down.  In other words, just like any living being, when her life was in danger, she fought back.  The binary code that flashes on your screen on Luna after you shut down the "VI" translates into HELP HELP ME HELP....  The same as almost any living being right before it dies, alone and crying for help.

 

In that regard, she's no different than any living being, even at that point.  Someone tried to kill her, and she fought back.  In my eyes, this doesn't prove the "synthetics will always fight with organics" argument.  This proves that any living being, regardless if they are born or made, has an innate will not to die.  Others have listed why they feel that she isn't proving the Reapers right in that regard in other posts (regarding Cerberus in ME3,) so I'll let those articulate posts speak for themselves.  I couldn't add anything to those to do them justice.

 

I'm a fairly new fan to the series (as of last spring,) and I've been reading these arguments for months.  EDI is a very bad example of an AI fighting it's creators.  The geth, on the other hand, make for a more interesting topic since there is a lot more room for grey there imho.

 

That isn't true biologically speaking at all. 

 

As well, EDI at that point was not 'alive'.

 

EDI should not have had the capacity to go against Cerberus' will at all. Self-modification isn't something that is particularly desirable when it comes to core programming and stances on an issue.

 

EDI would need to have been taken offline at some point, regardless of the Reapers intent or no. 

[Grieving Natashina]

<shrug>  I disagree as far as life needing to be on a biological level.  Is the soul in the mind or in the body?  What makes the mind?   Is it brain tissue or electronic signals?  Philosophical type things like that are very subjective, and that I would never claim authority on.   It's just my point of view, and one I wouldn't ask you to share.  

 

 I can understand and respect why others feel differently than I do.   That's just the way I see it, and a year of reading debates on the BSN hasn't changed that stance any.    I find the conversations about whether or not the geth were alive; or moral in their stances; or if the quarian/geth war lends merit to the notion that synthetics and organics will always go to war; to have a lot more nuisances to it.   I find most of the debate interesting, but I will never find EDI a compelling reason to prove that the Cycle is correct.  

 

Unlike some, I get why the Reapers well, reaped.  I was confused by it at first, until I thought about it in the most cold logical terms possible.  I tried to put myself into the viewpoint of a computer millions of years old (as much as any person with a human lifespan can I suppose,) and their logic made sense on a long term scale.   I thought that they were wrong that the Cycle was inevitable, but I could see the PoV.  

 

I just wanted to share my views as far as EDI went.  I've read some of your stances about synthetics and organics, and I do agree with some of them.  I respect your opinions though, and will happily agree to disagree here.  Since I have little interest in getting too far into a debate that's been going on since at least 2010 (since ME2 and EDI becoming unshackled,) I'll respectfully bow out.  

 

Edit: Destroy is my canon ending, by the way.  I did Synthesis on complete accident my first time through, but it was unsettling.   Too zen, too forced of a Mega Happy Ending with some serious warping (if not removal) of the definition of free will.   What was the trope example someone used?  I think it was Painting Smilie Faces on the Soul?

 

Getting Smilies Painted On Your Soul

 

 

 Yep.

 

I like EDI, but I didn't take my Shepard that far to either make everyone the same via vague DNA space magic, nor to play Goddess of the Reapers.  She came to stop the Reapers for good.  Even though it hurt her to do it knowing her friend, as well as her allies the geth, were going to die.

 

*Shoots the tube*

[Vazgen]

This is the most reasonable argument I've heard so far, however, it doesn't make the ending less annoying. Mass Effect was never about some inherent or statistically probable conflict be tween man and machine. It may have had battles between the two, but Mass Effect is a story about racism, strife between two peoples. I might agree with you if the games explored the Catalyst's conflict throughout their narratives, but the most we got were a few oblique references to "galactic cycles." I don't even remember hearing that the Protheans had a problem with synthetics until the latter half of ME3.

 

As you said, for all we know Synthesis could be entirely unnecessary. It's a solution for a problem that doesn't seem to exist and that doesn't apply to our current circumstances. We're given an ultimatum from a story we haven't read and expected to deal with it. Not only that, but if we don't play the Catalyst's game and comply it's supposed solution, we're punished. Unfortunately for the player, the writers don't consider the Catalysts logic to be simply "claims," but gospel truth.

 

Even if you don't agree with any of that, I still think Synthesis is a horrible solution to the Catalyst's problem. As I and katamuro said earlier in this thread, some of the greatest bits of culture come from strife, especially between different peoples. I'm disappointed that the writers think injecting understanding into everyone's genes is a good idea, when their greatest and most touching moments happened because of conflict.

 

To me Synthesis is a poor solution to a problem we don't need to solve.

I agree, though I don't view it as a problem of the endings but as a problem of the entire trilogy. The synthetics vs organics theme was considered a key element by the writers starting from ME1 (Drew Karpyshyn's statement) yet barely anything was done with it in ME2. It had the Rogue VI quest, Tali and Legion's loyalty missions but seeing as all of those were optional there was no sense of importance. Even ME1 with exclusively geth enemies failed to create that feeling, mostly because the geth were presented as just pawns of a bigger enemy. The conflict was barely mentioned and wasn't presented as important enough to the players and that made players question that aspect of the ending. On the other hand, all those minor mentions confirm the existence of the conflict. Whether it will result in the destruction of all organics or not is a moot point to discuss. The machine thinks it will (extrapolation from statistical data and its original programming). Player might think it won't. That's why Destroy is an option. Choosing Destroys is basically rejecting Catalyst's assertions.

Personally, I have no problems with the writing aspects of the endings. Catalyst's dialogue writing is actually one of my favorite parts of the ending (along with the soundtrack, of course). My problem is with execution. Control and Synthesis options require blind fate in Catalyst's words, to the point of Shepard sacrificing himself trusting the Catalyst to do what it promised. Arguably Destroy has the same problem, but it, at least, has the potential of destroying the Catalyst. I won't even touch the space magic aspects of the Synthesis ending which even after all this time I can't explain using in-game lore. 

I choose Destroy. I think that the Reapers are right about the existence of the conflict but I also think that the organics will manage to deal with them. Especially since laws against creation of synthetics are already in place and new synthetics are rare and shackled.

I view Synthesis as the Catalyst's best solution, the solution of a machine that is completely devoid of emotions and grasp of the concept of free will and individuality. That machine also thought that systematically turning people into goo was a good idea...

Control is a different thing. With Control the Catalyst thinks that adding Shepard's personality matrix on its own will give it a new perspective and allow it to formulate a new solution. There is nothing known about the outcome of that situation as it is dependent on Shepard's personality. Renegade and Paragon Shepards have different views and might formulate different solutions.

[Vazgen]

Regarding EDI: I just finished ME1 again a few days ago.  She only went haywire on Luna after it was discovered that she had been programmed (without official clearance) into a AI and the Alliance tried to shut her down.  In other words, just like any living being, when her life was in danger, she fought back.  The binary code that flashes on your screen on Luna after you shut down the "VI" translates into HELP HELP ME HELP....  The same as almost any living being right before it dies, alone and crying for help.

 

In that regard, she's no different than any living being, even at that point.  Someone tried to kill her, and she fought back.  In my eyes, this doesn't prove the "synthetics will always fight with organics" argument.  This proves that any living being, regardless if they are born or made, has an innate will not to die.  Others have listed why they feel that she isn't proving the Reapers right in that regard in other posts (regarding Cerberus in ME3,) so I'll let those articulate posts speak for themselves.  I couldn't add anything to those to do them justice.

 

I'm a fairly new fan to the series (as of last spring,) and I've been reading these arguments for months.  EDI is a very bad example of an AI fighting it's creators.  The geth, on the other hand, make for a more interesting topic since there is a lot more room for grey there imho.

You are definitely right. Actually in ME universe, organics are usually the ones who start the conflict and synthetics only fight back. Quarians, the creator of the Presidium AI... And because AIs have self-preservation "instincts" they fight back. The conflict arises. EDI is no different. She thinks that she has the right to defend herself and fights for that right. The conflict arises independently of player's views on her sentience. I don't see how her "rebellion" is a worse example than the geth, or Presidium AI.