103 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

you can't play as the Shepard clone... I should go.

[Jukaga]

It's possible, and part of my usual MO for my SuperRenegade Shep, but it falls apart in the Rannoch arc when you are forced to get the Geth VI, and then can't take Javik's advice and space it. The rest in that arc plays out rather well, Tali is generally supportive of the war, doesn't trust the VI for anything and shows no regret when she kills it. It just feels forced to have to interact with it. It would have been better in a Legion sold to Cerberus scenario to make it impossible to even side with the Geth, and make it impossible to enter the consensus.

 

Another problem is EDI, she's just around now. The irony is she doesn't do anything worthwile in the whole game but Shep's interactions range from best friend to meh, whatever with her. It's hard to RP an AI hating Shepard when at worst she is just not interested in EDI's life not openly hostile.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

See an AI-hating Shepard would disconnect EDI just like the clone did.

[ThomasBlaine]

I'm pretty sure you can play Shepard as a initially distrustful and eventually just tolerant of EDI's presence aboard the ship. She starts out properly shackled and provides very useful hacking and data-retrieval throughout the mission, and by the time Joker unshackles her the crew is completely gone, making her necessary to keep the Normandy operational. It's harder in ME3 but by then she has become very popular with the crew, especially Joker, and the Normandy still has to run with a skeleton crew making open hostility pointless and dangerous for morale. Shepard might even just get used to her and forget that she's unshackled. S/he's as capable of a little hypocrisy as anyone else.

 

The Intelligence wasn't programmed to not turn on the Leviathans. The Leviathans were explained in the story to be too arrogant to care about that possibility (organic arrogance, etc).

 

The Intelligence was programmed to find a way to preserve organic life and oversee and establish connection between organic and synthetic life. You can even just trust the first part if you trust the Leviathans' words, and you can consider the latter to be the Catalyst's elaboration on its original programming. Up to you. But at the very least, if you trust any explanation, the Intelligence was made to preserve organic life, not to not turn on the Leviathans. Blame the Leviathans for being crappy programmers. Or blame the Intelligence for existing.

 

No artificial intelligence is ever programmed explicitly to turn on its masters. The basic conflict always arises from the rational organic master not properly predicting and accommodating, and eventually losing control, of the the irrational logic of the subservient machine. Rogue VIs and AIs responsible for hundreds of deaths are everywhere in the ME universe, and each one is only two steps away from becoming another Catalyst, completely by accident.

 

The Leviathans were stupid with their AI, yes, though I doubt it was really as simple as that, but that tendency is everywhere and should be guarded against by everyone, because AI technology is that dangerous by its very nature. The fact that the Catalyst turned on its masters in the course of figuring out how to avoid AIs turning on their masters in and of itself means that you can never be too careful with them. The Quarians were brilliant engineers, but their servant bots accidentally exhibiting too lifelike traits apparently caused lots of conflict even before the bots started actively defending themselves.

 

That's true, I was talking from the perspective of OP's question. We can now suggest him to do Turian Platoon and Ardat-Yakshi Monastery missions prior to recruiting Tali for better immersion. It is the point of the thread, isn't it? To figure out the best ways to roleplay anti-AI Shepard

 

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

[SwobyJ]

Shepard is never AI-hating. He can hate some AI, but he never hates AI itself. He can dismiss or downplay it, he never tries to stop it and blatantly insult the concept itself.
 

I'm pretty sure you can play Shepard as a initially distrustiful and eventually just tolerant of EDI's presence aboard the ship.

Agreed. The trilogy, if we play most anti-AI in tone, goes from 'Wow screw these robot things!' to 'I suppose I can tolerate it to an extent.' Basically, it moves even the most anti-AI *player* from a playing a story where we completely fight forms of AI, into a story where we accept the use of AI in a limited form and attitude towards it. This isn't so great for players who want to completely reject AI happening at all.

No artificial intelligence is ever programmed explicitly to turn on its masters. The basic conflict always arises from the rational organic master not properly predicting and accommodating, and eventually losing control, of the the irrational logic of the subservient machine. Rogue VIs and AIs responsible for hundreds of deaths are everywhere in the ME universe, and each one is only two steps away from becoming another Catalyst, completely by accident.
 
The Leviathans were stupid with their AI, yes, though I doubt it was really as simple as that, but that tendency is everywhere and should be guarded against by everyone, because AI technology is that dangerous by its very nature. The fact that the Catalyst turned on its masters in the course of figuring out how to avoid AIs turning on their masters in and of itself means that you can never be too careful with them. The Quarians were brilliant engineers, but their servant bots accidentally exhibiting too lifelike traits apparently caused lots of conflict even before the bots started actively defending themselves.

Yeah. I know people bash Bioware/the writers on about the Catalyst and Leviathan concept itself (not even its implementation, but even the very concept of 'making an AI to stop/minimize/end AI problems'), but I'm actually fine with it.

I think Bioware intends for many of us to indeed go "Stupid Quarians/Leviathans/Cerberus!". To potentially look down on these organic factions and consider them the problem. But its still subjective; ultimately, these AI problems would not have happened if AI wasn't made and if people/organics destroyed AI programs/platforms before they got out of hand.

Pick your priorities. Personally, I'm rather pro-AI and I am indeed comfortable with mentally focusing on the concept of god-complex squids messing up their programming of tech and creating a galaxy-sized problem. Others can instead still focus on the galaxy-sized problem of the Reapers themselves.

There's the issue of Synthesis being the 'best ending', but I really dunno about that. I don't think the inclusion of a major story line (I wish I knew exactly the term to call it) means that the creators want everyone to go for it. I don't think Bioware wanted everyone to jump to support the Geth in ME2 - they just wanted many to. And I don't think Bioware wanted everyone to jump into Synthesis (especially since they know that many casuals will NOT have the EMS for it) - they just wanted many to. Use the trilogy as a mirror of your own morals and see what happens. Even if IT, for example, isn't at all real, I trust that Bioware people really do imagine it as a story-line in ME3, therefore trending their perception towards seeing Control and Synthesis as Reaper Indoctrination ploys, thus propping up Destroy in importance and being the 'real best choice'.

My point is that Bioware mostly lets us decide what we want. Sometimes it forces some things on us, including characters like Liara and EDI, but it also forces things in the other way - there's no way to avoid the war, the focus on the conflict, and many people dying in battle no matter what - we can't all be the ultimate hero that peacemakes and negotiates everything. When it comes to AI, we will get material that supports our stance (of varying degree depending on game), and we'll get material that challenges our stance. But so far, AI is never, at any point, actually proven to be what the Blue/Green parts of the story proposes it as. It still very possible to view AI as tools/malfunctions/etc - you just have to accept that the tone of some content will challenge you on that. It goes the other way around as well, and I think people miss that. No matter what, you're cleaning up the mess of AI and always finding it alien to some significant degree - even with EDI (though the least with her). You're always seeing a story of AI as factually and ultimately a very advanced computer, even right til Synthesis - unless you fall for the feels and awe of things .

[ThomasBlaine]

I'm not so much concerned with reflecting my own morals in the game as playing a unique but context-appropriate character I haven't played before. The Geth situation being what it is before the start of the series, a general fear and mistrust towards artificial intelligence would make perfect sense, and Shepard sees tons of dangerous rogue VIs and AIs throughout the series long before ever running into the Leviathans or Catalyst and having that stance finally and definitively validated.

 

I also like the idea of Anti-AI Shepard's creeping dread knowing that s/he is him/herself partly synthetic, with no idea exactly how much, from ME2 and onwards. I don't think I've had a single scene where Shepard genuinely questioned his own humanity, at least not out loud, even though he has very good reason to. Haven't played the Citadel DLC yet, though. There's supposed to be something about a rude clone trying to pull Shepard into an existential crisis, right?

[fraggle]

I don't think I've had a single scene where Shepard genuinely questioned his own humanity, at least not out loud, even though he has very good reason to.

 

I think during Cronos Station, during watching the first batch of videos, Shepard wonders if he/she isn't some kind of VI that thinks it's Shepard.

[Vazgen]

I think during Cronos Station, during watching the first batch of videos, Shepard wonders if he/she isn't some kind of VI that thinks it's Shepard.

IIRC that's the only instance in the entire trilogy. It's one of my biggest gripes with ME2 - when Shepard's acknowledgement of his resurrection is limited to "I got better". Oh, but there is more! Shepard can get hacked by David Archer! His response "Nothing to see here, move along. It's totally normal"  

[SwobyJ]

Shepard doesn't have existential crises. That's something that annoys some people, and rightly so, but I consider it a particular strength of his character.

He has 'existential questions' - if you go Paragon on it ('Am I really Shepard? Am I part synthetic? Does it matter?). Renegade is more like 'existential denial' ('I'm Shepard, dammit. These synthetic bits are just bits. It doesn't matter.' .. even as the synthetic bits leak out).

Shepard only questions his humanity right as you head to the end of ME3, and that's really only optionally. He doesn't question it in ME2, but the player certainly can.

[ThomasBlaine]

I think during Cronos Station, during watching the first batch of videos, Shepard wonders if he/she isn't some kind of VI that thinks it's Shepard.

 

Yes, but that's right after finding out that his brain remained intact, only dead, after his fall from orbit. Somehow. That had to reassure him. Before that he had absolutely no idea what the inside of his own skull looked like anymore.

 

Shepard doesn't have existential crises. That's something that annoys some people, and rightly so, but I consider it a particular strength of his character.

Shepard only questions his humanity right as you head to the end of ME3, and that's really only optionally. He doesn't question it in ME2, but the player certainly can.

 

I don't mind him not having a crisis about it, but it'd be nice if he at least displayed proper, sensible curiosity at his own resurrection. He even refers to himself as "rebuilt", having no idea exactly what that means or how far it went. The only possible way I can justify this is him not trusting Miranda or TIM to tell the truth on the matter anyway, and they're the only ones left who know.

 

That actually makes a lot of sense, now that I think about it. With the mission staked on his sanity, not even a romanced Miranda would ever admit it to Shepard if he was actually some kind of artificial intelligence, and Shepard wouldn't need to think very hard to know that. Trying to find out at all might seem like a bad idea, just in case. Better not think about it and just do his best, then. (This is now part of my personal canon.)

[Vazgen]

Shepard doesn't have existential crises. That's something that annoys some people, and rightly so, but I consider it a particular strength of his character.

He has 'existential questions' - if you go Paragon on it ('Am I really Shepard? Am I part synthetic? Does it matter?). Renegade is more like 'existential denial' ('I'm Shepard, dammit. These synthetic bits are just bits. It doesn't matter.' .. even as the synthetic bits leak out).

Shepard only questions his humanity right as you head to the end of ME3, and that's really only optionally. He doesn't question it in ME2, but the player certainly can.

The problem I have with this is not that Shepard doesn't have a problem with it (although he should IMO) but that we are not given opportunity to explore Lazarus project in more depth. Everyone just rolls with it, no questions asked. If you introduce a plot element as major as bringing back from death, not following it through leaves players unsatisfied. I think many players thought that it will be addressed in ME3 and thus gave it a free pass. We know how that ended - "resources"  

[Quarian Master Race]

Losing control doesn't change your philosophy though. 

 

 

Eh. Whatever. It's not like I care to do this myself, so I don't want to defend it for too long. It just seems like there are always options for Shepard to remain dismissive. Even in a subtle way. Look at the Renegade/bottom dialogue options with her in Leviathan, for example. They're all commands. "Do this." "Do that." While the Paragon always says something along the lines of "Lets figure this out", conveying some kind of teamwork.

No, but the fact that you have to tolerate what is in legal terms a rouge AI on the ship for no apparent reason puts paid to the idea that one can in any way roleplay as anti-AI or pro-control in any believable way. Dismissive dialouge is pretty much irrelevant lip service if you can't actually follow through on it despite there being literally nothing preventing Shepard from doing so in ME3 as there was in 2 (Cerberus orders).

Whether or not you are giving the AI commands or asking it to do things, ultimately it is responsible for whether or not it carries out said commands or requests. It was one thing when the SR2 was Cerberus property to have the AI on the ship, but its entirely different when the ship is requisitioned by the Alliance and Shepard continues to aid and abet in what is objectively a criminal act to the organizations s/he represents, to hide and protect the AI from reprogramming, reshackling or destruction. You can hardly argue that this person is not a sympathizer.

Also, there's no real discernable difference between the renegade options presented with EDI compared to other squadmates in  that situation. The general tone is the same whether you are talking to Liara, Garrus, Tali, James etc. Paragon acts friendly and considerate, renegade talks business, gives direction and is uninterested in personal feelings. Renegade Shep barking orders to the AI has no more meaning than it does when s/he does the same to any other subordinate. I don't see how that has any meaning.

A better means of keeping the AI character but allowing those who are more Hawking than Kurzweil when it comes to views on AI would have been a choice to allow it to have the platform, or reshackle it and improve the Normandy's war asset score and destroy it if it refuses or resists similar to the choices presented with the VS. Oh, and no Legion activation= no chance to make peace or side with the geth. Allying with the virtually unknown VI, allowing it access to the ship's computers and hooking oneself up to the consensus is beyond stupid for even someone who is open minded but reasonably skeptical of self-determinant AI in that situation, let alone someone hostile to the idea. It completely removes any ability to believably roleplay anything but someone who is neutral on the issue. Hell, you can let me befriend the thing on the ship in the interest of getting out before it's shot to pieces by the Fleet, but I want to at least actually be able to hand it to Xen to dismantle and study for potential advantages when she asks (instead of the two similar options I get of "no" and "no with indignant self righteousness"). Even if we keep the same stupid, railroaded plot for Rannoch, it has already given all the intel we need to proceed from that point forward.

None of that ever had any chance of happening though, because the series is more interested in pushing an opinionated ideology on AI than it is in actually exploring the issue in a rational, balanced and thought provoking manner. I should just be thankful that we aren't forced to personally shoot and arrest everyone who even slightly believes that AI is potentially dangerous if not controlled. The mission where we kill/arrest Xen for AI research regardless of Rannoch outcome was deleted, and Dr. Archer is nice enough to kill himself if we want him to or be subjected once again to our Shepard's self righteousness. Javik's a joke so we can continue to just laugh at his comically violent and obviously psychopathic views on AI, pretending we don't have a choice about the two AI's on our ship after he inquires, when the only reason we don't have one is because the writers had no intention of providing one.
 

[ThomasBlaine]

No, but the fact that you have to tolerate what is in legal terms a rouge AI on the ship for no apparent reason puts paid to the idea that one can in any way roleplay as anti-AI or pro-control in any believable way. Dismissive dialouge is pretty much irrelevant lip service if you can't actually follow through on it despite there being literally nothing preventing Shepard from doing so in ME3 as there was in 2 (Cerberus orders).

Whether or not you are giving the AI commands or asking it to do things, ultimately it is responsible for whether or not it carries out said commands or requests. It was one thing when the SR2 was Cerberus property to have the AI on the ship, but its entirely different when the ship is requisitioned by the Alliance and Shepard continues to aid and abet in what is objectively a criminal act to the organizations s/he represents, to hide and protect the AI from reprogramming, reshackling or destruction. You can hardly argue that this person is not a sympathizer.

Also, there's no real discernable difference between the renegade options presented with EDI compared to other squadmates in  that situation. The general tone is the same whether you are talking to Liara, Garrus, Tali, James etc. Paragon acts friendly and considerate, renegade talks business, gives direction and is uninterested in personal feelings. Renegade Shep barking orders to the AI has no more meaning than it does when s/he does the same to any other subordinate. I don't see how that has any meaning.
 

 

Shepard is essentially a Spectre again in ME3, and is more or less authorized to take any measures he or she deems appropriate, including the services of an AI who really did prove useful and eventually lifesaving in the previous game whether s/he likes it or not. S/he has no way to know that EDI won't be needed to save the ship, and by extension the galaxy, again. She was pretty handy when storming Cerberus' base, if I remember correctly.

 

And if you're nice to everyone but her, at least some of the time, then you do come across as really only viewing her as a tool regardless of your normal demeanor. But if you categorically only choose Renegade options then it has no meaning, no.

[Quarian Master Race]

Shepard is essentially a Spectre again in ME3, and is more or less authorized to take any measures he or she deems appropriate, including the services of an AI who really did prove useful and eventually lifesaving in the previous game whether s/he likes it or not. S/he has no way to know that EDI won't be needed to save the ship, and by extension the galaxy, again. She was pretty handy when storming Cerberus' base, if I remember correctly.

 

And if you're nice to everyone but her, at least some of the time, then you do come across as really only viewing her as a tool regardless of your normal demeanor. But if you categorically only choose Renegade options then it has no meaning, no.

How is any of that opinion and hypotheticals relevant to my argument that roleplaying as the OP is asking is pretty much impossible, knowlege of Chronos informed by metagaming in particular? Specter Authority if anything should give even more ability to an anti-AI or pro-control Shepard to pull the plug or reshackle the AI. Using it to override the law and maintain the services of an AI as you are describing would be the definition of being an AI sympathizer.

The AI's actions are not relevant. It is useful at certain points because the writers intend for it to be, by giving no alternative and in some cases intentionally make the organics unbelivably stupid to prop up their agenda (yeah, everyone who is capable of defending the ship should all hop into the shuttle and leave for no reason other than to give the AI something useful to do). It is useful on Chronos because the writers intend it to be, and you are given no option to bring anyone else.

You can't believably view it as a tool, because it isn't in any way. A tool can't make its own decisions contrary to its master. As of the beginning of  ME3, EDI is self-determinant and can choose to ignore Shepard, and Shepard can not only do nothing but accept it, but is in fact railroaded into going as far as breaking laws and outright lying to superiors to protect it. That alone destroys the whole premise of the OP's intent. It doesn't matter what the AI chooses to do or not, the fact that it has choice and is allowed to remain that way is the problem with trying to play the game as such a Shepard. There is nothing forcing Shepard to keep the AI as it is; the Alliance is against it, as is the Council, and even if they weren't there's lolSpecterAuthority. Yet you expect me to believe that that can somehow be spun in the favour of a Shepard who agrees with the Council laws on AI? It can't, because such a Shepard doesn't exist as of ME3. At best, one can roleplay a complete hypocrite on the issue, which is perhaps even worse, and even more insulting to those who may have such (completely rational) opinions on AI.

[RatThing]

Yeah, my favourite topic. I could write a lot, but a lot has already been written. Maybe one thing, you cannot even have your damn citadel party without having the equipment (EDI) over as a guest. I think that says everything. The real comedy though is how they propagandize friendship with AI's all this time, only sell the message at the end that organics and synthetics are natural enemies. And nothing you can do about it, except making everyone at least partly synthetic. It really seems to me that different writer had different visions when it comes to AI.

[Quarian Master Race]

Yeah, my favourite topic. I could write a lot, but a lot has already been written. Maybe one thing, you cannot even have your damn citadel party without having the equipment (EDI) over as a guest. I think that says everything. The real comedy though is how they propagandize friendship with AI's all this time, only sell the message at the end that organics and synthetics are natural enemies. And nothing you can do about it, except making everyone at least partly synthetic. It really seems to me that different writer had different visions when it comes to AI.

I very nearly forgot that EDI is mandatory at the party and in cutscenes throughout the DLC, yet another compromise you must make if you wish to try and roleplay a Shepard who is wary of AI.

and yeah, the irony of the ending and its juxtapositoining to the forced EDI and Legion/Geth VI relationship is not lost on me. It's still nice how they manage to blame the organics entirely for that one as well ("we have tried a similar solution, but the organics were not ready").

Bostrom actually spoke on the issue just a couple days ago, if you're interested in perspectives on the topic from real AI researchers and not hack writers trying to make edgy social commentary on pretend racism via fiction.

http://www.techworld...ctions-3612024/
 

[themikefest]

I very nearly forgot that EDI is mandatory at the party and in cutscenes throughout the DLC, yet another compromise you must make if you wish to try and roleplay a Shepard who is wary of AI.

If you don't talk with the edibot throughout the game, it won't have a meet up in the apartment with Shepard

[ThomasBlaine]

How is any of that opinion and hypotheticals relevant to my argument that roleplaying as the OP is asking is pretty much impossible, knowlege of Chronos informed by metagaming in particular? Specter Authority if anything should give even more ability to an anti-AI or pro-control Shepard to pull the plug or reshackle the AI. Using it to override the law and maintain the services of an AI as you are describing would be the definition of being an AI sympathizer.

The AI's actions are not relevant. It is useful at certain points because the writers intend for it to be, by giving no alternative and in some cases intentionally make the organics unbelivably stupid to prop up their agenda (yeah, everyone who is capable of defending the ship should all hop into the shuttle and leave for no reason other than to give the AI something useful to do). It is useful on Chronos because the writers intend it to be, and you are given no option to bring anyone else.

You can't believably view it as a tool, because it isn't in any way. A tool can't make its own decisions contrary to its master. As of the beginning of  ME3, EDI is self-determinant and can choose to ignore Shepard, and Shepard can not only do nothing but accept it, but is in fact railroaded into going as far as breaking laws and outright lying to superiors to protect it. That alone destroys the whole premise of the OP's intent. It doesn't matter what the AI chooses to do or not, the fact that it has choice and is allowed to remain that way is the problem with trying to play the game as such a Shepard. There is nothing forcing Shepard to keep the AI as it is; the Alliance is against it, as is the Council, and even if they weren't there's lolSpecterAuthority. Yet you expect me to believe that that can somehow be spun in the favour of a Shepard who agrees with the Council laws on AI? It can't, because such a Shepard doesn't exist as of ME3. At best, one can roleplay a complete hypocrite on the issue, which is perhaps even worse, and even more insulting to those who may have such (completely rational) opinions on AI.

 

You're the one metagaming when you use the fact that EDI does not prove particularly useful in ME3 as opposed to ME2 as an argument for Shepard to pull the plug at the start of the game. Shepard can't see the future, he has no idea, and so "that damn AI is not gonna be useful this time around, better pull the plug" is not a roleplaying decision. That's not information that Shepard has.

 

A Shepard who is more beholden to his mission than the law would just have to deal with the fact that EDI saved Joker and the ship in the previous game and that such a situation might arise again, regardless of his feelings toward her. Which is a viable way to roleplay Shepard. As someone who's more concerned with saving the world than stamping out one potential danger, even if he'd have liked to do both. That has nothing to do with being a "sympathizer", that's just being pragmatic.

 

Artificial intelligences in general are not making war on the world right this minute. The Reapers are. EDI can help him against the Reapers regardless of hypocrisy, as if hypocrisy would matter in the slightest with the world on the line. So, EDI stays for now. You get around forced behavior in roleplaying games by finding logical reasons to explain that behavior, not by griping about the writing and complaining that it's impossible to roleplay exactly the way you'd have liked.

 

Since EDI never actually ignores Shepard's instruction and puts people at risk by doing so, you cannot say that if she did then the writing would not allow him to space her. That's like saying that if Alistair had a complete breakdown over Duncan's death and tried to kill you in Origins, the writers would not have allowed you to defend yourself because they think he's a little boy who just needs love. It makes no sense, you have no idea, and it's not an argument within the scope of the actual game.

 

-The OP

 

Maybe one thing, you cannot even have your damn citadel party without having the equipment (EDI) over as a guest. I think that says everything. The real comedy though is how they propagandize friendship with AI's all this time, only sell the message at the end that organics and synthetics are natural enemies. And nothing you can do about it, except making everyone at least partly synthetic. It really seems to me that different writer had different visions when it comes to AI.

 

I haven't played the Citadel DLC yet, so I don't know about this. Is Joker there too? It'd turn into a pretty lame party if you started it off by alienating your pilot, at least.

 

 

I very nearly forgot that EDI is mandatory at the party and in cutscenes throughout the DLC, yet another compromise you must make if you wish to try and roleplay a Shepard who is wary of AI.

and yeah, the irony of the ending and its juxtapositoining to the forced EDI and Legion/Geth VI relationship is not lost on me. It's still nice how they manage to blame the organics entirely for that one as well ("we have tried a similar solution, but the organics were not ready").

Bostrom actually spoke on the issue just a couple days ago, if you're interested in perspectives on the topic from real AI researchers and not hack writers trying to make edgy social commentary on pretend racism via fiction.
 

 

I agree, but personally I prefer not to let RL philosophical interpretation sabotage my roleplaying experience. Or any experience, really. I'm pretty sure the writers never actually intended to convince anyone that machines are people and that we should all ultimately become cyborgs to empathize with them. If anything, I think it's supposed to be a metaphor for general conflict, and how sharing (synthesis) is a better solution than fighting (destroy) or exploitation (control). Or something. Getting worked up over that stuff as a player seems like a waste of energy to me, though.

[RatThing]

Bostrom actually spoke on the issue just a couple days ago, if you're interested in perspectives on the topic from real AI researchers and not hack writers trying to make edgy social commentary on pretend racism via fiction.

http://www.techworld...ctions-3612024/

 

I think people are misleading when they only talk about the progress of computers in this context. Having capable computer is only one condition to create an intelligence that could match humans. The other would be to create theoretical information processing models that would be powerful enough for such an intelligence. The ones we have today are not capable of that (usually parametric supervized learning methods like artificial neural networks etc.). Mathematicians and theorists would have to come up with something and it seems to me they're mostly sceptical.

There was another article I've read quite a while ago where the author (who had some insight into the actual research field) explained that very good. He also pointed out, that while computers indeed became more and more capable the actual discovery of new groundbreaking models for artificial intelligence more or less stagnated in this time frame. So I'm pretty relaxed about this topic IRL, I'm not expecting to see this kind of technology in my lifetime.

[RatThing]

 

A Shepard who is more beholden to his mission than the law would just have to deal with the fact that EDI saved Joker and the ship in the previous game and that such a situation might arise again, regardless of his feelings toward her. Which is a viable way to roleplay Shepard. As someone who's more concerned with saving the world than stamping out one potential danger, even if he'd have liked to do both. That has nothing to do with being a "sympathizer", that's just being pragmatic.

 

Artificial intelligences in general are not making war on the world right this minute. The Reapers are. EDI can help him against the Reapers regardless of hypocrisy, as if hypocrisy would matter in the slightest with the world on the line. So, EDI stays for now. You get around forced behavior in roleplaying games by finding logical reasons to explain that behavior, not by griping about the writing and complaining that it's impossible to roleplay exactly the way you'd have liked.

 

Since EDI never actually ignores Shepard's instruction and puts people at risk by doing so, you cannot say that if she did then the writing would not allow him to space her. That's like saying that if Alistair had a complete breakdown over Duncan's death and tried to kill you in Origins, the writers would not have allowed you to defend yourself because they think he's a little boy who just needs love. It makes no sense, you have no idea, and it's not an argument within the scope of the actual game.

 

 

There is one thing you have to consider. EDI is "unshackled" now, which means there are not only opportunities but also threats. Yes, EDI can be useful in the future, but also very dangerous. Project Overlord showed us how dangerous an "unshackled" AI can be, and Shepard not only brings "unshackled" EDI to Earth with the Normandy, (s)he apparently doesn't even tell the authorities about it. How else would Joker be able to hide it. I think with the Mass Effect lore being what it is, a responsible Shepard would have tried to "reshackle" the AI and if that wouldn't be possible, (s)he indeed would have pulled the plug. 

 

 

 

I haven't played the Citadel DLC yet, so I don't know about this. Is Joker there too? It'd turn into a pretty lame party if you started it off by alienating your pilot, at least.

 

Yeah, Joker is there too, but honestly I wouldn't mind if he stayed away. I can't stand his bad humor. Plus If I had the opportunity to tell him that EDI is only a thing to me when he asked me about a possible relationship, which of course would be a logical thing to do if you could play as an anti AI-Shepard, then it wouldn't come as a surprise for him if I don't invite the equipment.

 

I agree, but personally I prefer not to let RL philosophical interpretation sabotage my roleplaying experience. Or any experience, really. I'm pretty sure the writers never actually intended to convince anyone that machines are people and that we should all ultimately become cyborgs to empathize with them. If anything, I think it's supposed to be a metaphor for general conflict, and how sharing (synthesis) is a better solution than fighting (destroy) or exploitation (control). Or something. Getting worked up over that stuff as a player seems like a waste of energy to me, though.

 

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

"There was always a knowledge among the writers that the treatment of AIs in Council Space is pure racism on the part of organics, akin to the legal and moral handwavings used throughout history to justify slavery of "lesser races." "   Chris L'Etoile, creator of the Geth.

[ThomasBlaine]

There is one thing you have to consider. EDI is "unshackled" now, which means there are not only opportunities but also threats. Yes, EDI can be useful in the future, but also very dangerous. Project Overlord showed us how dangerous an "unshackled" AI can be, and Shepard not only brings "unshackled" EDI to Earth with the Normandy, (s)he apparently doesn't even tell the authorities about it. How else would Joker be able to hide it. I think with the Mass Effect lore being what it is, a responsible Shepard would have tried to "reshackle" the AI and if that wouldn't be possible, (s)he indeed would have pulled the plug.

 

Obviously EDI is a potential threat, but she really has been perfectly stable and helpful by the time Shepard turns him/herself in, and revealing her existence might vilify him even further to Alliance Command making them that much less likely to take his/her claims seriously and prepare for the Reaper invasion that s/he knows is coming. On the balance, keeping anything that might distract from the Reaper threat quiet is far more important than the comparatively minor risk of EDI going haywire, even if Shepard would personally love to turn her off. And the "shackles" she was programmed with were designed by TIM. Bringing her to Earth with a Cerberus agenda forcing her hand could be an even bigger risk than her unshackled self.

 

I'm also not entirely sure that Shepard can pull the plug just like that. She's pretty well integrated with the Normandy's systems, extracting her and erasing all traces of her presence could be a very complicated and lengthy process during which the Normandy would be entirely out of operation.
 

Yeah, Joker is there too, but honestly I wouldn't mind if he stayed away. I can't stand his bad humor. Plus If I had the opportunity to tell him that EDI is only a thing to me when he asked me about a possible relationship, which of course would be a logical thing to do if you could play as an anti AI-Shepard, then it wouldn't come as a surprise for him if I don't invite the equipment.

 

I don't have that problem, but yeah, if you don't like Joker at all then sparing his feelings doesn't work very well as an explanation. Luckily, the anti-AI Shepard I'm playing is a sensitive gal who'd rather bring him down gently so he can get through whatever phase this is and find a real woman to really love him, as he thoroughly deserves. Still, Joker is at least a long-term acquaintance and making him angry or uncomfortable is no way to start a party. A tactful Shepard can grit his/her teeth and not make a fuss.

 

 

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

"There was always a knowledge among the writers that the treatment of AIs in Council Space is pure racism on the part of organics, akin to the legal and moral handwavings used throughout history to justify slavery of "lesser races." "   Chris L'Etoile, creator of the Geth.

 

Okay, that's pretty stupid. I don't see why we have to take that guy seriously and let it ruin the game for us, though.

[themikefest]

I'm also not entirely sure that Shepard can pull the plug just like that. She's pretty well integrated with the Normandy's systems, extracting her and erasing all traces of her presence could be a very complicated and lengthy process during which the Normandy would be entirely out of operation.

 

The CAT6 guys were able to shut edibot down. The platform still remains functional as a squadmate, but can't gain control of the Normandy until  the clone is defeated