If you find the Catalyst's argument remotely persuasive you'd better get off your computer and out to campaign against AI developments in the real world, right now.
Oh, please.
The "real world" need not apply to the rules/workings of a fictional universe.
I know what you mean, actually, hence my advice to be careful what you wish for.
Nature = Fail.
Their creators' intent is a moot point; mistakes are going to be made post-Destroy just like they were pre-Reapers.
You could argue people will not repeat the same mistakes again later, but when has that ever been true of people??
So nature = fail. Free will = fail. Choice = fail. But liquifying trillions into goo every now and then = order = good?
I'm talking about THE mistake. The one the Leviathan's made so long ago. They basically programmed an AI, and told it, "I have a headache. Help me fix it." The AI grabbed a shotgun and blew the programmer's brains out, and blended him up into goo. And then he built an army and turned everyone else in the galaxy into goo, you know, to keep them from having headaches. And then they repeated the process every 50,000 years. All in the name of headache prevention.
It was **edited** by the programmer who didn't word his request properly to an unfeeling AI that takes his programming very literally. And trillions upon trillions of organics paid the price of that mistake of all mistakes over the course of a billion years. Before finally Shepard is given the opportunity to correct it by choosing Destroy.
But where does that point to total annhialation of all organic life?
If you find the Catalyst's argument remotely persuasive you'd better get off your computer and out to campaign against AI developments in the real world, right now.
But it doesn't point to total annihilation of all organic life. If it did then Humans wouldn't have existed or the Protheans before us or the countless cycles before them. It has been hinted that this has been going on for hundreds to thousands of cycles.
Game world and our world are two different things. That universe has established lore of conflict arising from organic and synthetic being. Not all but enough to cause problems.
"The created will always rebel against their creators."
Well, DUH. It's part of growing up. Human children rebel against their parents.
That doesn't mean that when you have children, suddenly they're going to turn on you and annihilate the entire extended family, your friends, your friend's families, their friends, their friends families, and on and on until you have nothing but global human extinction.
The reason why it doesn't happen is because children are socialized to fit into society. The obvious solution for the "AI will always annihilate people" problem is to socialize them so they are accepted by and fit into society.
The error in logic here is pretty obvious. Rebellion does not equal annihilation.
Oh, please. Not the "it's fiction so anything goes" argument. If you want an entirely fictional concept to explore then create it, if you co-opt a real world one then just say it's whatever you say it is you'll get called out on it.Oh, please.
The "real world" need not apply to the rules/workings of a fictional universe.
That's the claim it makes for the problem.But it doesn't point to total annihilation of all organic life. If it did then Humans wouldn't have existed or the Protheans before us or the countless cycles before them. It has been hinted that this has been going on for hundreds to thousands of cycles.
See above post. It's not successfully established that conflict as a sufficiently plausible extrapolation from where we are now and neither is it an entirely fictional one (unlike, say, eezo) for me to accept it's whatever the game states it is. Analogy - the game can freely create fictional alien races and say that some of them are genuinely a lot more stupid / violent / whatever than humans. If it did that with a human race it would be plain racist, the "well it's true in this fictional universe" just means you've created a crappy fictional universe that isn't terribly plausible. In short the "it's fiction" line is lazy acceptance.Game world and our world are two different things. That universe has established lore of conflict arising from organic and synthetic being. Not all but enough to cause problems.
That's the claim it makes for the problem.
See above post. It's not successfully established that conflict as a sufficiently plausible extrapolation from where we are now and neither is it an entirely fictional one (unlike, say, eezo) for me to accept it's whatever the game states it is. Analogy - the game can freely create fictional alien races and say that some of them are genuinely a lot more stupid / violent / whatever than humans. If it did that with a human race it would be plain racist, the "well it's true in this fictional universe" just means you've created a crappy fictional universe that isn't terribly plausible. In short the "it's fiction" line is lazy acceptance.
A lot of science fiction, and really the origin about science fiction, is about taking existing things or concepts and making a stab at logically extrapolating where that'll go. Not just saying that it's whatever you want it to be.
No you just don't seem to understand what total annihilation actually means. Particularly when they don't just kill them off they preserve them in an near immortal shell that contains the sum of their knowledge and culture. Which is the complete opposite of annihilation.
The entire universe is fictional which is the point of the game. The entire point of the game from game 1 is conflict between organic and synthetic. Game 1 it is Geth are the main enemy lead by the Reaper Sovereign. ME 2 it is the Collectors which are bio engineered creations of the Reapers. Turning an entire species into a synthetic creation. The final boss is a synthetic creation. ME3 the entire conflict is against the Reapers which are again artificially created being.
The reason for the Reaper creation was because of continual clashing between naturally and artificially created species with the complete death of one being enough for Leviathans to actually attempt to step in and try to think of a way to protect their thralls.
If you have to jump out to real world needs to end all AI development because of what happens in a game it show how weak your argument really is.
Oh, please. Not the "it's fiction so anything goes" argument. If you want an entirely fictional concept to explore then create it, if you co-opt a real world one then just say it's whatever you say it is you'll get called out on it.
I did not say "anything" goes. We have no way of knowing how AI will turn out in real-life. We do know how they turn out in fictional settings, though. In some worlds they are completely docile, not a threat at all. In other ones they are all completely hostile to humans and an existential threat.
Mass Effect's portrayal was pretty grey, but I personally think the Catalyst's stance still fits based on what I've seen/know of AI in this fictional setting.
Emphasis on the last part, hence why I do not feel any impetus to campaign for the Catalyst's argument in real life (lol).
The unsavory Ronald Taylor illustrates that tyrannic control through violence is merely lie & logical sophism.
Similar minded creatures work to murder those who enjoy personal freedom or espouse any social harmony.
Shepard can never be indoctrinated thanks to Saren's Reaper improvement and Geth auto-repair protocols.
Control means organic war where Rachnis rule. Destroy means thousands synthetic species in competition.
Reaper minds survive in Eezo cores, a destroyed Reaper ship translates either to organic biotic or FTL ship.
Replaying Mass Effect 1& 2, it appears to present relation of third Rachni galactic war against the Reapers.
1st war cycle: Rachnis control whole galaxy; partial harvest & Queen causes own reaper Sovereign to revolt.
2nd war cycle: Rachnis espouse Prothean warmongers & genetic change to infiltrate Citadel & seize keepers.
3rd war cycle: Sovereign crash on Citadel for a trinary operation: Shepard-Normandy + Miranda + Anderson.
Reapers are eternal so Rachnis destroy 5 Reaper control chips & subvert five Reaper minds to join organics.
Mass Effect 2 exposes an alliance with a sole true auto-created Reaper synthesis alive in the IFF reaper core.
It espied thousands of civilizations, migrates to Normandy core & hurries to save their organic crew members.
IFF reaper & Normandy Rachni seek for an organic mating. Humanity deserves a reaper; so does Wrex & Tali.
Heroine Anthea Shephard says nae to Reaper spy Liara, never to an assassin & biotic Jacob not man enough.
Kaidan & Shepard stored in Prothean Eden Prime device got to Saren on Virmire & Rachni princess Shepard.
So nature = fail. Free will = fail. Choice = fail. But liquifying trillions into goo every now and then = order = good?
I'm talking about THE mistake. The one the Leviathan's made so long ago. They basically programmed an AI, and told it, "I have a headache. Help me fix it." The AI grabbed a shotgun and blew the programmer's brains out, and blended him up into goo. And then he built an army and turned everyone else in the galaxy into goo, you know, to keep them from having headaches. And then they repeated the process every 50,000 years. All in the name of headache prevention.
It was **edited** by the programmer who didn't word his request properly to an unfeeling AI that takes his programming very literally. And trillions upon trillions of organics paid the price of that mistake of all mistakes over the course of a billion years. Before finally Shepard is given the opportunity to correct it by choosing Destroy.
I love your headache analogy. No head, no headache! 
The whole thing kind of reminds me of another analogy. I am concerned about humans destroying animal life on the planet due to loss of habitat, over hunting, etc so my brilliant, 'logical' solution is to utterly destroy all the animals (all the babies, all the eggs, every last one) but keep a sample of all their DNA so that I can then say I saved all the animals. That's what the reapers did and continue to do. Doesn't make logical sense. And let's not forget that the horrible creatures who started this whole cycle of madness and suffering, did so not out of any sense of decency but because they
got annoyed that the synthetics were destroying their thralls and dead thralls produce no tribute.
I love your headache analogy. No head, no headache!
Cute.
I missed that, having stopped reading after the Strawmen in the first line.
Because it comes with an arbitrary and unexplained rule about killing the Geth that you just fought hard to make peace for across the trilogy. Hence you're left with the two unnecessary solutions that solves a nonexisting problem, control and synthesis when the optimal outcome would've been to either prove the Catalyst his assumption is unclear based on the facts, absoutist and moronic and he should just switch the Reapers off or the destroy option shouldn't have an obviously-insterted rule of killing all synthetics just for the sake of making it hard to choose.
I've been wondering why to some people it was logical to choose other options over the destroy ending - because as Shepard you are tasked to save the galaxy and "destroy" the reapers.
From your first encounter with Sovereign the galaxy knows that reapers can be destroyed with conventional methods (theoretically) - so when you are finally presented with a choice - why would you have a sudden change of heart and choose the other endings?
As a player, it's simple; you might choose Control to preserve the Geth and EDI, and perhaps to keep the Reapers around and useful, agreeing with TIM, if only on that one thing. Synthesis is painted to be the best ending, ushering in a grand new golden age for the galaxy. If you don't think about the broader implications and take everything on its face, these options seem good. Particularly with the EC, you can feel good about these endings.
However, both have problems when it comes to the broader implications and go against both the story and the themes of the series. Control wasn't set up properly and nothing was done to show why Shepard would choose Control after just telling TIM how it was a terrible idea. Synthesis is about forced homogenization in a series about diversity and choice.
Okay, about to do the Party, then Cerberus HQ, then Earth on this playthrough.
Final answer:
There is no Synthesis. I don't even consider this to be a possible ending. It's just so outlandish and impossible-sounding. Science is stretched throughout the series, but in all instances up to this point, they at least attempt to explain how everything could happen scientifically or even pseudoscientifically. Not so with Synthesis. With zero explanation, star brat would have you believe that he is a genie, and you just rubbed his lamp, and he has the power to magically grant wishes. I'm playing Mass Effect, not Aladdin. There is no way in hell that any Shepard that I would ever play would buy it. He'd call bullsh*t. Every. Single. Time. And if a tree never falls in the woods, it never makes a sound. There is no Synthesis.
Which leaves Control and Destroy. Control puts too much power in the hands of an individual, and it leaves the Reapers intact, with all their power to indoctrinate and destroy everyone. Should Shepard some day become corrupted or should they find a way to break free of his control, the galaxy could be right back in deep doo doo. Far too dangerous. Might be something a power-hungry Renegade Shep would choose, become supreme dictator bwahahaha, but I'm playing Paragon.
So Destroy it is. Sucks for EDI and the Geth, but I'm returning the galaxy back to the status quo, as was always my intent. If Organic/AI conflict arises again, civilization will deal with it when the time comes, just like every other problem that has arisen throughout history.
I actually think the endings work out okay as long as you take the Potato/Synthesis ending out of the options (and Refuse, which is just Bioware trolling the fans). Control is what TIM wanted, and is the Renegade option. Destroy is what Shepard, Hackett, and Anderson have wanted all along, and it's the Paragon option. Neat-o mosquito.
I dunno, maybe because I actually like the idea of uniting organic and synthetic life? Just a thought.
I dunno, maybe because I actually like the idea of uniting organic and synthetic life? Just a thought.
Ultimately, the main reason everybody is so angry and passionate about supporting one end over the other is simple. Emotional Investment.
To be fair, the question was about logic, not emotion.
And there is still the question, if you don´t trust the Catalyst, how can you be sure, that it tells you the truth how to destroy it? Don´t get me wrong, I don´t find it trustworthy at all or favor synthesis or destroy, I am just saying that the whole sutuation is a mess. There was little to no preliminary work to set up your enemy as having a point, being trustworthy or anything else besides being condescending pricks who munch your for reproduction. You can´t even rule out that the Catalyst isn´t riddled with bugs or working on faulty data. There´s no clue at all about the Crucible until the big revealat the end, presented by tada, the Reapers. What you get isstuff like bodies of Reaper victims piling up in the Citadel hallways, a destroyed Earth and anencounter with TIM where it´s rather likely that you screm "control is not the answer." And this is brushed away with some nonsense about TIM being right? Ah no, he was controlled but you totally can. Still doesn´t invalidate your response to TIM "we aren´t ready for it."
It was rather jarring that in the end Shepard turns into a guy who swallows everything. "Yeah dude, this makes sense." You aren´t even allowed to go with the "this guy isn´t trustworthy, so I blow him up" angle, because it handed you the detonator and so you have to do mental gymnastics to ignore that.
Synthesis is kind of cool, since everyone comes to a peace and cooperates.
However since all the indoctrination hints and the fact that shepard wakes up after Destroy, I do not consider any option to be real.
Destroy is just a "not giving in". And after shepard woke up, there is no ending yet.
To be fair, the question was about logic, not emotion.
! Save your Shepard! It's not too late! Don't let the Reapers win! Come back to Destroy before Andromeda! We destroy them or they destroy us.
And there is still the question, if you don´t trust the Catalyst, how can you be sure, that it tells you the truth how to destroy it? Don´t get me wrong, I don´t find it trustworthy at all or favor synthesis or destroy, I am just saying that the whole sutuation is a mess. There was little to no preliminary work to set up your enemy as having a point, being trustworthy or anything else besides being condescending pricks who munch your for reproduction. You can´t even rule out that the Catalyst isn´t riddled with bugs or working on faulty data. There´s no clue at all about the Crucible until the big revealat the end, presented by tada, the Reapers. What you get isstuff like bodies of Reaper victims piling up in the Citadel hallways, a destroyed Earth and anencounter with TIM where it´s rather likely that you screm "control is not the answer." And this is brushed away with some nonsense about TIM being right? Ah no, he was controlled but you totally can. Still doesn´t invalidate your response to TIM "we aren´t ready for it."
It was rather jarring that in the end Shepard turns into a guy who swallows everything. "Yeah dude, this makes sense." You aren´t even allowed to go with the "this guy isn´t trustworthy, so I blow him up" angle, because it handed you the detonator and so you have to do mental gymnastics to ignore that.
The only confusing thing about the Catalyst appearing as a young boy was that it was THE boy from the intro and dreams.
Total annhialation is what the Reapers claim synthetics will do, not what they themselves do.No you just don't seem to understand what total annihilation actually means. Particularly when they don't just kill them off they preserve them in an near immortal shell that contains the sum of their knowledge and culture. Which is the complete opposite of annihilation.
Oh, you buy into that being the point of the game. Right...The entire universe is fictional which is the point of the game. The entire point of the game from game 1 is conflict between organic and synthetic. Game 1 it is Geth are the main enemy lead by the Reaper Sovereign. ME 2 it is the Collectors which are bio engineered creations of the Reapers. Turning an entire species into a synthetic creation. The final boss is a synthetic creation. ME3 the entire conflict is against the Reapers which are again artificially created being.
You've got that completely backwards. It shows how weak the story's writing actually is. You're applying the same standard to concepts that exist in the real world as to ones that are entirely made up (e.g. biotics). That's a weak argument. Might as well say "the women should get off the ship and back to the kitchen", have things in the story to prove it's right there, and say "well that's how it works in the fictional world." Most people would just call it misogynistic nonsense though.If you have to jump out to real world needs to end all AI development because of what happens in a game it show how weak your argument really is.
That's fine when you're taking individual examples of fictional AIs. Making such a bold claim about the inevitability of all AI though is just lazy and like it or not shoves your fictional concept somewhat into real universe. By doing that it's made a universal statement that logically applies to reality - it's more than "there have been plenty of examples so there's a real risk of this" (which may work if they don't look too contrived, although it's poor science fiction that just says "is" without exploring the "why").I did not say "anything" goes. We have no way of knowing how AI will turn out in real-life. We do know how they turn out in fictional settings, though. In some worlds they are completely docile, not a threat at all. In other ones they are all completely hostile to humans and an existential threat.
Mass Effect's portrayal was pretty grey, but I personally think the Catalyst's stance still fits based on what I've seen/know of AI in this fictional setting.
Emphasis on the last part, hence why I do not feel any impetus to campaign for the Catalyst's argument in real life (lol).
Retour en haut