Aller au contenu

Photo

Why do people side with the Geth?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
233 réponses à ce sujet

#126
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 676 messages

I'm pretty sure Dean's proceeding from a different set of premises about what moral relevance is in the first place. I'd make a pure utilitarian play there myself -- it's just two different sets of facts in the two decision cases, and virtue and vice are not very important except in terms of the outcomes that result. But Dean should probably take over here. (Or did you guys aready cover this upthread?)
 

 

Eh. Bored and uninterested of it already. Go wild, Alan. Your morality posts are always a treat.



#127
GreyLycanTrope

GreyLycanTrope
  • Members
  • 12 709 messages

Quarians were holding the idiot ball something fierce through out much of that engagement tbh. Seem pretty good at getting themselves killed with Shep's intervention being the only thing keeping them going.



#128
Batarian Master Race

Batarian Master Race
  • Members
  • 337 messages

Quarians were holding the idiot ball something fierce through out much of that engagement tbh. Seem pretty good at getting themselves killed with Shep's intervention being the only thing keeping them going.

 

Am I the only one that remembers that the Quarians wrecked the Geth so hard they went running to the Reapers? The Quarians hit them so hard their morality fell out. The game even praises Quarian military strategy, especially if you destroy the Geth.


  • Quarian Master Race aime ceci

#129
KaiserShep

KaiserShep
  • Members
  • 23 833 messages

Quarians were holding the idiot ball something fierce through out much of that engagement tbh. Seem pretty good at getting themselves killed with Shep's intervention being the only thing keeping them going.

 

The quarians were winning thanks in no small part to Admiral Rael and Xen. If the reapers came a bit later, the geth would have been obliterated. 


  • Quarian Master Race aime ceci

#130
Youknow

Youknow
  • Members
  • 492 messages

 

 

Where are those other ships going to come from? If you'd bothered to read Ascension you'd know that the quarians are losing ships to attrition and entropic reasons (wearing them out) faster than they are capable of producing them. It's kind of difficult to have a high output shipbuilding industry when you don't have a planet on which to base it, nor the steady supply of resources (including rare ones such as Eezo for drive cores) with which to actually build the ships. Further, when you are constantly in conflict for resources with hostile factions and with your small but highly resource intensive and skilled population being attacked by pirates/slavers in the unsafe space you are forced to operate in, it necessitates disproportionate resources invested in defense spending, and thus procurement of newer military vessels over civilian ones when you do have the resources. In fact, in the novel it is estimated that the long term sustainability of the spacefairing nomadic quarian civilization is only 90 years to extinction unless they find a livable planet.

Then this should have been in the game. I generally don't read video game stories, but this really should have been in the game. This is the biggest problem I have with Mass Effect 3. So many plot points are just dropped and shoved in other things or just disregarded altogether. Considering how many plot points were dropped and how snippy the narrative is in the games at moments, can you blame me for not wanting to subject myself to reading it? 

 

 

 

Right, because going extinct defending the interests of the Council species that couldn't give a credit chit about them is totally better than simply fighting the Reapers alone or trying to retake their planet to have a fighting chance at still being around post war? Survival is in their self interest, so if they aren't going to survive either way then why should they care about the interest of a galaxy that hates them anyway, let alone enough to commit and likely lose disproportionate resources (their entire civilization) compared to the rest of the galaxy? I found the self righteous indignantly whining  "where are the quarians?" news reports by Council reporters to be hilarious. Treat them like enemies for 300 years then expect them to come and help you at the drop of a hat? Why aren't you whinging about the Salarians, who are not only not participating in the war, but not doing it because of ideological rather than strategic reasons? The asari, who commit token resources until their world is burning? Oh how about the geth, who decided that building a useless Dyson sphere to destroy the Tikkun system's ability to support life while the Reapers were knocking on the door was more interesting than actually fighting Reapers, up to the point when the quarians predictably attack them for their idiocy? Then they decide that joining and helping the guys who are committed to exterminating them and everyone else in the galaxy is a pretty swell idea.

The issue here is that you die regardless. I literally said I kind of thought everyone was being stupid in ME3. I said that in one of my first posts. It's not just the Quarians here, it's literally everyone. That's why I found ME3's plot to be so insufferable TBH. The whole thing feels like the entire galaxy receives some of the worst tunnel vision know to fictional media that I've ever seen. My issue with the Quarians attacking isn't the fact that they did, it's the when. Nothing is clear in game for why this wasn't done sooner. 

 

 

The quarians had a plan that meant they could both fight the Reapers for their survival and ensure that enough of their population and infrastructure survived the war for sustainability in the future. This doesn't even get into the fact that of the ships they have (not the ones that you seem to think they can magically pull out of their jiggly dextro bumbums), a significant portion of them (Civilian Fleet) have little utility with cargo holds full of Civilian living structures, manufacturing and agricultural equipment. They have some combat capability, but it is mostly as canon fodder or "glass cannons" rather than also serving a dual purpose in very important (given the krogan situation) logistics roles. Retaking Rannoch helps them and helps them help everyone else. You simply trying to dismiss both the tactical and strategic reasons why it was taken as "stupid" lacks any sort of comprehension or analytical skill and is extremely simplistic. Judging by your unwillingness to utilize all the information at your disposal to form your categorical conclusions, the only "stupid" one here is you.

 
 

Except you miss my point. Even if they got their planet back, it really doesn't matter because they are going to be destroyed regardless. To put this in a more earthly sense: you have a fortress, and another war going on. Sure, you could take back your fortress, but on what grounds? What's the point? You have to leave the fortress as soon as you capture it and don't have the manpower to keep it-- in this case, the reapers WILL kill you regardless if you stay there. Your entire paragraph misses one key point: I said the timing was stupid. And it couldn't have been at a worse time. Considering how the plot of ME3 makes it out that the galaxy is being completely wrecked by the reapers, there really isn't much of an advantage Rannoch would net the team outside of "Quarian help." Even with the knowledge that Quarians would be extinct in 90 years without finding a new planet, the war with the reapers will not conceivably last 90 years at all. 



#131
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

I'm pretty sure Dean's proceeding from a different set of premises about what moral relevance is in the first place.

I don't see how we can even have such a set without first identifying their cause.

I'd make a pure utilitarian play there myself -- it's just two different sets of facts in the two decision cases, and virtue and vice are not very important except in terms of the outcomes that result. But Dean should probably take over here. (Or did you guys aready cover this upthread?)

From an outcome-based perspective (which is what utilitarianism is), inaction is equivalent to not being there, as the result is identical.

I don't see any difference between refusing to divert the train and outright murder, myself.

So the relevant thing you've done there that is equivalent to murder, you think, is standing beside a switch.  Standing beside a switch is murder?

 

Actually, that wasn't even my point.  I think that experiment gets more interesting when there's a person on the second track.  You can save the group, but only by killing that one person.

 

By your reasoning, then it's murder either way.  Either you murdered the group, or you murdered the one person.

 

I think only the action matters, so I'd be choosing between killing the one person or killing no one at all.  Because I didn't cause the train to be there, nor did I cause the people to be standing before it, I bear no responsibility for that outcome unless I interact with it.



#132
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

Specifically what parts of it are "headcanon"?

Every inference you drew.

 

But there's nothing wrong with that.  Headcanon is a good thing.



#133
Dantriges

Dantriges
  • Members
  • 1 288 messages

Ah relevant information in the books again.  Yeah they totally couldn´t include one or two lines about that. :rolleyes:

 

The quarians probably planned for the possibility of victory instead of dying in the process and getting a nice statue on the presidium honoring their ultimate sacrifice.



#134
Broganisity

Broganisity
  • Members
  • 5 336 messages

In matters Military:

Quarians: The majority of the Migrant Fleet are Civilians, but the Migrant Fleet Marines are on par with the N-class Alliance Marines, though perhaps not on the caliber of the N7. What they lack in numbers they make up for in technical prowess.

Geth: All Geth are soldiers, engineers, civilians, though it's more logical to say they are none of these things yet all of them. Geth are synthetic and thus do not have to worry about things such food, tending to the sick, injured and dead, comfort and ergonomics, Breathing, and more. They develop new tactics on the fly and in the middle of a battlefield as all geth can communicate with one another seamlessly when in close proximity. The Geth develop technology at an alarming rate; they were the ones who first implemented the Thermal Clip system (say what you will of it gameplay-wise somewhere else, we aren't discussing that here), as it was found out that most battles were won by the side that could send more rounds downrange.Hardware temporarily susceptible to hacking.

Advantage: Geth. Having the support of a large synthetic army is more cost-effective than fielding live troops, especially when those soldiers come from a race that need even more care than others: additional anti-biotics, et cetera.

 

--------------

 

In matters Moral: (this is the tricky part and largely comes down to individual opinion in the end)

Quarians: Reapers or no, the Quarians were desperate and already preparing to retake Rannoch. They didn't know what the Geth were truly building nor did they think that a damaged Geth conscious would turn to the Reapers for help. However, they are following in the footsteps of their ancestors by initiating the attack, and the Geth are defending themselves on a 'primal' level, if you will. Either way, the Quarians were damned either way, especially without the help of The Shepard.

Geth: The Geth are machines, but they have shown signs of abnormal behavior: The Heretics through some sort of mathematical equation, came to the conclusion that a race of sentient starships out to purge everything it didn't like was a good idea. Legion spent two years tracking Shepard, its 1'000 programs isolated the entire time, which led it to think and operate differently from the rest of the Geth as evidenced by the difference in interaction between the Geth VI and the Legionized Geth in ME3: The former is distrustful of organics and sees them as tools, while the later looks upon Shepard (and Organics) with its equivalent of fondness. How the Reaper-Code enhanced Geth might have reacted to Organics after a Reaperless end (Which would only be Control) is unknown: Likely they would shut themselves behind the Veil and not allow anyone through and perhaps starting a war. The Legionized Geth would likely assist in the reuilding of the Galaxy society and help out. We will never know.

Advantage: Quarians. The poor Quarians are in a drek-tastic situation no matter what, and especially if The Shepard decided not to bother (they had to for plot reasons though)

------------

In the end, I think it all comes down to this: did Legion survive the events of Mass Effect 2? Tali is irrelevant to this decision as she is only one of Five Admirals (assuming her survival, anyways). Legion's travels with The Shepard gave it a better perspective on organic life, which does not exist if the platform was de-activated before it could return to the Geth Consciousness. . .and do you really want a race of machines that distrust organic life sitting on your doorstep giving a dirty look as you go by like a dog does a neighborhood paperboy in 1960's America? Doesn't matter if they have the best infantry force in the Galaxy, you don't want that to exist and not like you.

The question of 'Does this Unit have a Soul' is irrelevant to the conversation.

Thus my answer is:

- If 'Legion' is 'Dead', Then 'Quarians' supported.
- If 'Legion' is 'Alive, and Tali is Alive, Then 'Both Sides' Supported,
- If 'Legion is 'Alive', and Peace cannot be achieved, Then 'Geth' Supported.



#135
Il Divo

Il Divo
  • Members
  • 9 769 messages

 

 

 

From an outcome-based perspective (which is what utilitarianism is), inaction is equivalent to not being there, as the result is identical.

 

 


So the relevant thing you've done there that is equivalent to murder, you think, is standing beside a switch.  Standing beside a switch is murder?

 

Actually, that wasn't even my point.  I think that experiment gets more interesting when there's a person on the second track.  You can save the group, but only by killing that one person.

 

By your reasoning, then it's murder either way.  Either you murdered the group, or you murdered the one person.

 

I think only the action matters, so I'd be choosing between killing the one person or killing no one at all.  Because I didn't cause the train to be there, nor did I cause the people to be standing before it, I bear no responsibility for that outcome unless I interact with it.

 

Not quite. Utilitarianism is also meant to identify the relevant amounts of effort required in order to attain that outcome. If I have to pay for a $2,000 plane ticket, a week of my time, cross a desert on foot, etc, just to seek out a scenario that can prevent someone's death via train, utilitarianism might argue that this represents an undue cost upon me, as an individual. Somebody off-hand stumbling into a scenario however where they are aware of the situation and can knowingly prevent death with little to no effort or cost on this part doesn't have the former defense on hand.

 

The problem is you're treating the outcome like it's exclusively output-dependent, which is false. In mathematical terms, it's the input-output ratio that's relevant to determining culpability. ​How much effort you have to put in does affect the outcome.
 



#136
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

Not quite. Utilitarianism is also meant to identify the relevant amounts of effort required in order to attain that outcome.

Well sure, but that didn't really enter into the example. The point of the thought experiment is to make the choice have no cost at all in order to isolate the virtue of the action independently from other factors.

All else being equal, is not saving the people a bad act?

All else being equal, is not being in the room a bad act?

The problem is you're treating the outcome like it's exclusively output-dependent, which is false. In mathematical terms, it's the input-output ratio that's relevant to determining culpability. ​How much effort you have to put in does affect the outcome.

Luckily, I'm not a utilitarian.

#137
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages
"Does this unit have a soul?" Is an excellent question, because it raises the further question "Does a Quarian have a soul?"

How could we tell? What the Geth question does is shine a light on the baseless opinions organics hold about value and morality.
  • Kynare aime ceci

#138
Il Divo

Il Divo
  • Members
  • 9 769 messages

Well sure, but that didn't really enter into the example. The point of the thought experiment is to make the choice have no cost at all in order to isolate the virtue of the action independently from other factors.

 

I'm not sure I follow here. Alan's claim was that, via utilitarianism, not acting in this instance (where minimal effort is involved) is similar (or equivalent to) murder. Your claim was that according to utilitarianism, inaction results in the same outcome: "Inaction is equivalent to not being there".

 

In terms of utilitarianism, that's not operating from the same set of inputs, if I'm understanding you both correctly. Hence why I pointed out that utilitarianism necessarily takes those factors into account in terms of evaluating the overall outcome.



#139
GreyLycanTrope

GreyLycanTrope
  • Members
  • 12 709 messages

The quarians were winning thanks in no small part to Admiral Rael and Xen. If the reapers came a bit later, the geth would have been obliterated. 

 

Am I the only one that remembers that the Quarians wrecked the Geth so hard they went running to the Reapers? The Quarians hit them so hard their morality fell out. The game even praises Quarian military strategy, especially if you destroy the Geth.

 

Which is something they didn't have to do to begin with. The Geth weren't particularly interested in attacking them, they effectively drove them right into reaper hands and then proceeded to get themselves more and more bugged down in their own mess.



#140
Daemul

Daemul
  • Members
  • 1 428 messages

I side with the Geth because seeing the Quarians destroyed over the very homeworld they've been obsessed with trying to get back for over 300 years by the very demons they had created is a poetically tragic moment, it was like watching something straight out of Homer's Iliad. If I was ever given permission to make a TV series or movie adaptation of the series that is what the outcome of the Rannoch arc would be.  

 

Basically I go for what makes a better story lol, it's why I always sabotage the genophage with Wrex and Eve alive, shoot Mordin and then shoot Wrex on the Citadel pre-Thessia, it just makes for a far better story. Renegade in general makes for a far better story, it's why the default ME3 playthrough is so good, there's actually some tension in the narrative which makes things interesting, unlike the boring ass, typical full paragon and everyone lives playthrough. 



#141
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

I'm not sure I follow here. Alan's claim was that, via utilitarianism, not acting in this instance (where minimal effort is involved) is similar (or equivalent to) murder. Your claim was that according to utilitarianism, inaction results in the same outcome: "Inaction is equivalent to not being there".

In terms of utilitarianism, that's not operating from the same set of inputs, if I'm understanding you both correctly. Hence why I pointed out that utilitarianism necessarily takes those factors into account in terms of evaluating the overall outcome.

I don't follow. The cost of doing nothing is zero in both cases. The outcome from doing nothing is the same in both cases.

The cost of doing something changes based on whether you're there to do it, but the cost of inaction doesn't.

#142
Il Divo

Il Divo
  • Members
  • 9 769 messages

I don't follow. The cost of doing nothing is zero in both cases. The outcome from doing nothing is the same in both cases.

The cost of doing something changes based on whether you're there to do it, but the cost of inaction doesn't.

 

 

Hence why in utilitarian terms, distance/location is a factor in determining culpability. You correctly pointed out that utilitarianism is outcome-based. In the outcome of saving a life, the person standing on hand who refuses to do anything, despite minimal effort, is committing a greater crime than the person living in Australia oblivious to the situation. I suspect this is what Alan is basing his judgment in terms of guilt assessment. Utilitarianism itself tends to focus on creating the best case scenario possible, given a number of external factors. 



#143
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

Hence why in utilitarian terms, distance/location is a factor in determining culpability. You correctly pointed out that utilitarianism is outcome-based. In the outcome of saving a life, the person standing on hand who refuses to do anything, despite minimal effort, is committing a greater crime than the person living in Australia oblivious to the situation. I suspect this is what Alan is basing his judgment in terms of guilt assessment. Utilitarianism itself tends to focus on creating the best case scenario possible, given a number of external factors.

But that's not the outcome. No lives are saved by the inaction.

I have two issues here. First, the idea that I could be somehow culpable for something I didn't do.

Second, the idea that every decision is a moral one, which, if we're factoring in opportunity costs, every decision is.

#144
aka.700

aka.700
  • Members
  • 270 messages

The Geth acted out of self-preservation? You remember the time they killed >99% of the Quarians, which accounts to at least a billion children?


The Quarians attacked first and Geth aren't organics. They don't have pity like organics have. Also if they wanted to exterminate all of the Quarians they could've done it. They chose not to. They only asked questions at first. It was the Quarians who thought they outsmarted the Geth and acted preemptively based on what might happen later.
So yes, I side with Geth too, just like I side with the Quarians as well.

#145
Hrulj

Hrulj
  • Members
  • 277 messages

The Quarians attacked first and Geth aren't organics. They don't have pity like organics have. Also if they wanted to exterminate all of the Quarians they could've done it. They chose not to. They only asked questions at first. It was the Quarians who thought they outsmarted the Geth and acted preemptively based on what might happen later.
So yes, I side with Geth too, just like I side with the Quarians as well.

If they have no pitty why give them more processing power trough reaper code that will be impossible to match by any organic civilization? 



#146
Quarian Master Race

Quarian Master Race
  • Members
  • 5 440 messages
 

Uh, because the bolded part right there is headcanon. Just because your interpretation isn't contradicted by lore doesn't mean it's accurate. Your entire post read like fanfic. I mean, it was good fanfic, but still fanfic.

It's an interpretation, I don't claim it as fact nor canon, and I wouldn't use it to make an argument. Legion/Geth VI engages in more than enough propaganda and deception to garner my distrust without confirmation of those extrapolations.

You asked me a question as to what I thought about your assertion to Legion's sentience, which is equally if not moreso a "headcanon" conclusion when compared to the inferences that I elucidated (moreso because practically all in universe expert authorities on artificial intelligence seem to be the ones whom most strongly disagree with the supposed sentience of those AI's).

Then this should have been in the game. I generally don't read video game stories, but this really should have been in the game. This is the biggest problem I have with Mass Effect 3. So many plot points are just dropped and shoved in other things or just disregarded altogether. Considering how many plot points were dropped and how snippy the narrative is in the games at moments, can you blame me for not wanting to subject myself to reading it? 

 

The issue here is that you die regardless. I literally said I kind of thought everyone was being stupid in ME3. I said that in one of my first posts. It's not just the Quarians here, it's literally everyone. That's why I found ME3's plot to be so insufferable TBH. The whole thing feels like the entire galaxy receives some of the worst tunnel vision know to fictional media that I've ever seen.

Agreed, you should read it along with Revelations if you are interested in the setting. The latter paints a very different picture of the geth-quarian conflict that is closer to Terminator than Commander Data, and I frequently have to cite it when people take ME3's geth propaganda as gospel. Both novels are much better than ME3 narratively. Deception is terrible though, and good thing too because it is essentially non-canon.

Some of them aren't really being stupid.

The humans and turians are as stupid as any other Council species before the conflict, but start doing work few questions asked when they can no longer deny the threat. The humans do lose points for the "WE MUST DEFEND EARF" crap, though, considering it doesn't have much more strategic importance than any other Council world up until the Citadel is moved there.

If the krogan don't get their genophage cure the galaxy continues to ostracize them and they die out in a couple generations, or the Reapers wipe them out in a war that lasts a couple of generations. Their actions are extremely selfish, but their motivations are easy to understand. They are screwed either way without a cure, and have no reason to care if everyone else goes down with them or survives because of them if they choose to help or not help unconditionally. They already saved the galaxy once, after all, and didn't even get a Council seat out of it. Their concerns are validated in game by the Dalatrass's own sabotage plan, which you can take.

The quarians face a similar predicament. Even assuming the extremely unlikely possibility that the Liveships survive the war (losing even one of them while all the agricultural equipment is still onboard immediately makes 1/3 of their population nonviable) and enough people to mantain genetic diversity for a viable population, what assurance do they have that things won't continue as they were, with them being ostracized, discriminated against and bombed off of planets the Council suddenly decides are nice, until they are all dead in less than a century? Once again, damned if they do, damned if they don't without their homeworld, which they are trying to retake partly to help everyone else anyway. It's not like they get it back then are like "screw you guys, have fun losing your planet to toasters then flying around in space for 300 years like we did", they immediately throw everything they have at the war effort.

The rachni do everything they can to help. It isn't really their fault that the Reapers blow up their shiny new fleet offscreen and enslave their queen forcibly.

The salarians, asari, and geth have zero excuses, though. Sitting on the sidelines with no intention to help simply for petty ideological reasons, or actively sabotaging the war effort via tech hoarding or allying with the enemy is inexcusable.
 

 My issue with the Quarians attacking isn't the fact that they did, it's the when. Nothing is clear in game for why this wasn't done sooner. 

 

Except you miss my point. Even if they got their planet back, it really doesn't matter because they are going to be destroyed regardless. To put this in a more earthly sense: you have a fortress, and another war going on. Sure, you could take back your fortress, but on what grounds? What's the point? You have to leave the fortress as soon as you capture it and don't have the manpower to keep it-- in this case, the reapers WILL kill you regardless if you stay there. Your entire paragraph misses one key point: I said the timing was stupid. And it couldn't have been at a worse time. Considering how the plot of ME3 makes it out that the galaxy is being completely wrecked by the reapers, there really isn't much of an advantage Rannoch would net the team outside of "Quarian help." Even with the knowledge that Quarians would be extinct in 90 years without finding a new planet, the war with the reapers will not conceivably last 90 years at all. 

The quarian offensive strategy relies on deployment of the anti-Lidar weapon developed by Rael'Zorah and later completed by Daro'Xen. There are only like 6 months to a year between ME2 and 3 (the exact amount isn't clear due to Arrival). Xen presumably needed time to complete the weapon, and the quarians to complete retrofits to arm the Civilian ships and mobilize their forces (including the recall of as many pilgrims as possible). We aren't sure they even had information of the Reaper invasion before starting the offensive, and in fact it is most likely they didn't. We get an article on the Specter terminal describing their mobilization and leaving from Illium for the Veil upon our first visit to the Citadel mere hours after the Reapers hit earth, and who in Council space has a hotline to the quarians that could get the information to them within hours (or would consider such a priority at such a time)? By the time we meet them halfway through the game, 17 days have already past in their campaign. It's likely they were attempting to complete the plan before Reaper arrival (given they had already acknowledged the existence of and committed to helping Shepard with the Reapers years ago) so their forces would be ready, but simply got the timing wrong by literally a few days to a week.

Your fortress analogy assumes that the quarians were retaking the planet to simply park and ignore the war on it. Comments by Admirals Gerrel and Raan directly contradict this, as do comments by Tali. They want to help against the Reapers, which is part of the reason for retaking the planet in the first place. I suppose you could assume they are all lying, though there isn't any precedent for that from any of them so I don't know how reasonable such a claim would be.

Resident anthropological expert Liara seems to think the war would last "at least 100 years". The one with the Protheans lasted several centuries. I'd say it's entirely concievable that the quarians could have floated around in space for 90 years until they had no working ships left to live on as the Council species continued to resist the Reapers, though they likely would have been attacked long before that. It's beside the point since the quarians never planned on doing such a thing, but they are extinct either way without Rannoch so there's little reason for them to care otherwise.

 


  • TheN7Penguin aime ceci

#147
Monica21

Monica21
  • Members
  • 5 603 messages

It's an interpretation, I don't claim it as fact nor canon, and I wouldn't use it to make an argument. Legion/Geth VI engages in more than enough propaganda and deception to garner my distrust without confirmation of those extrapolations.

You asked me a question as to what I thought about your assertion to Legion's sentience, which is equally if not moreso a "headcanon" conclusion when compared to the inferences that I elucidated (moreso because practically all in universe expert authorities on artificial intelligence seem to be the ones whom most strongly disagree with the supposed sentience of those AI's).

 

An interpretation that has little to no support in-game. And you are using it to make an argument that the Geth should not be trusted. I have no reason to believe that Legion is coded to lie, fake emotions, and use the term "I" to refer to himself as individual solely to gain my trust. And who would code him? Or would he update his own code to successfully lie and manipulate? If he does, wouldn't that be an indication of some form of sentience?



#148
Batarian Master Race

Batarian Master Race
  • Members
  • 337 messages

The Quarians attacked first and Geth aren't organics. They don't have pity like organics have. Also if they wanted to exterminate all of the Quarians they could've done it. They chose not to. They only asked questions at first. It was the Quarians who thought they outsmarted the Geth and acted preemptively based on what might happen later.
So yes, I side with Geth too, just like I side with the Quarians as well.

 

Nothing you've said here explains why someone supposedly acting out of self-preservation murders children and geriatrics, people who could pose no concievable threat to them. 

 

 

Which is something they didn't have to do to begin with. The Geth weren't particularly interested in attacking them, they effectively drove them right into reaper hands and then proceeded to get themselves more and more bugged down in their own mess.

 

The Geth are responsible for their own actions. They CHOSE to ally with the Reapers; the Quarians didn't force them to do anything. The Quarians were having difficulty killing Reaper-enhanced enemies, same as every other race in the galaxy.

 

And, y'know, maybe the Geth weren't interested in attacking the Quarians because the Geth had everything they needed and more. The Geth don't NEED Rannoch; they could survive on any other planet, even ones that couldn't support organic life. Keeping Rannoch to themselves is selfish and stupid, especially if the Geth are so willing to work with the Quarians.



#149
Barquiel

Barquiel
  • Members
  • 5 848 messages
The Quarians started a war in the middle of a reaper invasion only because they thought they can win it. They wanted this. The Geth didn't. For me the Quarians are the aggressors. And then they doomed themselves in the events in question...it was their own stupid fault. The Geth did try to escape, but Gerrel wasn't about to let that happen. I addition, I simply get more utility from the Geth. They provide one of the most advanced fleets aswell as infantry. And they cannot be hacked while organics can be indoctrinated. So the Geth it is.

#150
Quarian Master Race

Quarian Master Race
  • Members
  • 5 440 messages

An interpretation that has little to no support in-game. And you are using it to make an argument that the Geth should not be trusted. I have no reason to believe that Legion is coded to lie, fake emotions, and use the term "I" to refer to himself as individual solely to gain my trust. And who would code him? Or would he update his own code to successfully lie and manipulate? If he does, wouldn't that be an indication of some form of sentience?

The support is all of the platform's other characteristics and behavior. Among the first things it does is surreptitiously attempt (and fail) to unprovokedly steal from another crewmember in an unrelated conflict and jeopardize the mission against the Collectors, showing indifference to your objectives when they conflict with its own. It then displays Reaper sympathies on the Geth Dreadnought, presents you with propaganda designed to coerce your opinion to the favour of geth objectives, and lies about it's intentions relating to the programs in the geth server in a self interested gamble with your life to transfer said hostile geth in to dozens of platforms surrounding you. Finally, it commits lies of omission relating to it's possession of the same dangerous Reaper code that the rest of the hostile geth consensus is infected with. Deception is how it operates when it accomplishes its objectives. It's objective is acquiring Shepard's support for the geth. Why would it choose not to be deceptive in other ways when it is within its capabilites?

There's also the question of the purpose of facial expression flaps and the vocal inflections, which aren't present on other geth platforms and serve no purpose given that geth communicate electronically rather than vocally or via body language. Legion itself states that its platform was "designed to facilitate communication with organics" i.e., they judged that a typical platform without those features wouldn't accomplish its objectives as well. 

Who coded it isn't certain. According to Legion itself, geth "reproduce" by making more copies of the programs originally written by the quarians. The source of its being able to provide inaccurate information to further its objectives is likely in the original programming or unintended software errors resulting from inadequate detailed writing of it. It could even be malicious tampering. Either way, we don't know and it is pretty pointless to speculate on. Your second statement conflates adaptive coding with sentience, when the two aren't even tangentially related. All in universe VI programs have adaptive code. Even some modern technologies posses adaptive software, such as the Cassani-Huygens probe (used to mitigate image entropy from the long distances it transmits from). Is it sentient? Of course it isn't.

To the use of the "I" pronoun I would respond, so what? Individuality isn't sentience either. Further the whole contrivance required to reach it is hammy, goofy, has little meaning and raises more questions than it answers. Apparently, it means the Legion platform and its software now has individuality, but we've no idea by what physical process it reached that point. Did all but 1 of the 1,182 individual runtimes within the platform get deleted, or were they combined into a single entity with the platform? If it is the former, than the Reaper code just wiped out more than 99% of the Geth Consensus (given it takes hundreds of programs to operate the platforms we see), making it nonsensical as to why they would choose it. If it is the latter, and thus all the gestalt networks that formed geth entities have been permanently combined with their platforms and given individuality then what happens to the vast majority of the consensus that are in servers instead of platforms at the moment of the upload? I don't even want to speculate on the Reaper code's effects, seeing as whoever wrote that plotline clearly had no idea what they were doing or how the geth operated in previous games. Either way, even post Reaper code there's still no confirmation of any sentience provided, only more inferences based on vague speculations as to the mechanistic operation of a now competely different form of artificial intelligence.

You can choose to ignore the evidence used to form such inferences, but it is there. I don't ignore anything. I look at the geth's behavior and rationalize it with what I know of it's previous demonstrated behavior instead of making a baseless, categorical assumption that it has magically developed human emotions based on information it provides me (which it has shown can be and often is objectively false), a flawed/ grossly incomplete understanding of geth operations and misguided anthropomorphization. 

Can you make an argument for geth sentience that isn't based upon "an interpretation that has little to no support in game"? Remember, the definition of that word according to Merriam-Webster is "a feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought". Only Shepard (can) make a claim to such directly when s/he describes Geth/ Legion's responses as fear or or guilt, and Shepard is by no means an AI expert. Not even Legion makes a claim to such, and it often dismisses Shepard's attempts to do so as "racist...benign anthropomorphism" (though it does incorrectly use the word sentience to refer to other aspects of cognition such as sapience or perception, which is probably more of a writing error considering many other characters do the same).


  • TheN7Penguin aime ceci