296 réponses à ce sujet

[Kabooooom]

Cool, sorted. AI - possible, just need more advanced tech.

And to clarify, I meant that creating sentience is probably easier than creating sapience, given that creating sentience with a biological brain was far easier for evolution, and a necessary first intermediate step towards sapience. And given that the neural complexity required to create sentience is undeniably less than that required for a conscious being to be sapient.

Indeed, some people in my field who have the opinion that there is a gradation of sentient states (and that it isn't a true emergent phenomenon of neural complexity) argue that we may have already created machines with some degree of sentience and we havent even realized it.

[KainD]

And to clarify, I meant that creating sentience is probably easier than creating sapience, given that creating sentience with a biological had brain was far easier for evolution, and a necessary first intermediate step towards sapience. And given that the neural complexity required to create sentience is undeniably less than that required for a conscious being to be sapient.

 

Yes I just had a misconception that it was harder to create sentience in the first place, without which sapience would not be possible. 

[Ahglock]

But Synthesis doesn't do that. It merely let's you experience the world in a more profound manner. Of course, personality is a self-modifying construct, so those new experiences are capable of changing it.

But it does do that. Otherwise there would be violence and lots of it. There would be huge differences in opinions that are fundamentally never going to change and your understanding of them would let you know you could not come to a peaceful accord. Lack of understanding keeps peace more than it causes violence. Without understanding you have hope for peace and agreement. With understanding you know it's not going to happen.

[Kabooooom]

Yes I just had a misconception that it was harder to create sentience in the first place, without which sapience would not be possible.

And I think there is still a lot of misuse of these terms, even among neuroscientists, which doesn't exactly help the matter much. The definition of sapient is far too anthropomorphic still, and the definition of sentience should be more correctly equated to that of consciousness in general - and yet, when we are trying to objectively describe intangibility, it has a tendency to become murky.

My view on the matter, which is shared by virtually all comparative neurologists, is that sentience should be defined as possessing qualia, ie: Consciousness, whereas sapience should be defined as a sentient being that also possesses self-awareness. This is the simplest, most neurologically accurate definition of these terms that can be made, in my opinion. Especially because we have proven time and time again that animals can possess surprisingly advanced cognition without necessarily possessing introspective self-awareness (the "thinking about thinking" or thinking subjectively about oneself that we are all familiar with).

Edit: This is also why I LOVED the Geth from a neuro standpoint, before Legion ruined them. They were individually sentient beings that formed a collective sapience, and thus did not identify with their individual sentience. Absolutely fascinating from both a neurological and sci-fi standpoint.

[wass12]

But that is the thing - we do not share the same values. Everybody always has reasons for everything they believe, you can really understand anyone if you really try, but that doesn't mean that you will think the same. 

 

By understanding, you unify your world models, through which all of you know everyone's utility function. With that information, it is much easier to devise outcomes that rank high on everyone's utility functions - AKA finding a solution that satisfies everyone. It doesn't require those utility functions to be the same.

[KainD]

By understanding, you unify your world models, through which all of you know everyone's utility function. With that information, it is much easier to devise outcomes that rank high on everyone's utility functions - AKA finding a solution that satisfies everyone. It doesn't require those utility functions to be the same.

 

Ideally yes, however it is impossible to satisfy everyone, even if you understand exactly what everyone wants and needs. 

[wass12]

But it does do that. Otherwise there would be violence and lots of it. There would be huge differences in opinions that are fundamentally never going to change and your understanding of them would let you know you could not come to a peaceful accord. Lack of understanding keeps peace more than it causes violence. Without understanding you have hope for peace and agreement. With understanding you know it's not going to happen.

 

This is a pessimistic view on human sentient nature that I don't share. Even just from the games, the examples of Wrex turning from nihilistic merc into a savior of the krogans, the possibility of the geth-quarian peace or even Pressley overcoming his xenophobia tells me that people can change - even fundamentally - under the right circumstances.

[Ahglock]

This is a pessimistic view on human sentient nature that I don't share. Even just from the games, the examples of Wrex turning from nihilistic merc into a savior or the krogans, the possibility of the geth-quarian peace or even Pressley overcoming his xenophobia tells me that people can change - even fundamentally - under the right circumstances.

People can change. Everyone changing to peace is not possible assuming any level of so called free will IMO.

[wass12]

People can change. Everyone changing to peace is not possible assuming any level of so called free will IMO.

 

Why not? Or is it just that you can't imagine it?

[wass12]

Ideally yes, however it is impossible to satisfy everyone, even if you understand exactly what everyone wants and needs. 

 

But we can get close to satisfying everyone as possible. Also, people often judge values comparatively - so even the mere act of sitting down and creating a compromise solution could grant satisfaction.

[KainD]

Why not? Or is it just that you can't imagine it?

 

Because people do not share the same values. Take Vegans vs Meat eaters for example. Neither party is better than the other, neither really should change, yet these parties often get pissed off at each other. 

[Medhia_Nox]

I'm sorry, but your post is all over the map. I mean no offense, but it doesn't come across as having a very good grasp of biology, neuroscience, or evolution. But perhaps it was just the wording of it.

First off, the evolution of the brains of animals most certainly did not happen by chance. Evolution itself doesn't happen "by chance". While mutations are random, the forces of selection are guiding. This is a critical distinction and a fundamental importance to understanding how nature creates complexity in biological organisms.

Secondly, no, I suspect that there is no fundamental barrier to creating a synthetic sentience purely because there is no fundamental barrier to creating an organic one. And to say otherwise is quite frankly, in my opinion, equivalent in absurdity to vitalism since such an opinion straight up states that biological organisms are unique in possessing the ability to be conscious. Which I find to be ridiculous.

And thirdly - we ARE machines. We are biological machines. The way that the central nervous system processes information is fundamentally different than the way a computer does, but it processes information nonetheless. The mechanism by which it does imparts a vast superiority to neural networks than to what we have created thus far with computer technology. But, I see no reason why hardware advances could not mimic the processing capabilities of a brain in the future.

The breadth of this topic is probably beyond the scope of this discussion. Like I said, I am a comparative neurologist (my actual field is a bit more unique and specialized than that - anyone interested can PM me). I can discuss neuroscience at length if anyone is interested.

And that, admittedly, possibly biases me in the sense that for me - as someone who studies the brain of humans and non-human animals - there is no "ghost in the machine". The brain, and the consciousness it produces, are purely physical. At least, that is what the sum total of every single shred of evidence we have so far suggests. So to me, viewing the brain as a mechanistic, classical object - I have no intellectual objection to creating consciousness in a computer as it is likewise a mechanistic, classical object.

No offense taken - you show a clear bias in your field, I could not expect otherwise.  I feared PhDs before working with several.  

[Kabooooom]

No offense taken - you show a clear bias in your field, I could not expect otherwise. I feared PhDs before working with several.

An understandable bias, I would hope. A neuroscientist accepting something which is akin to a metaphysical soul is just about the most ridiculous thing I can think of - so of course I am biased to view the brain and consciousness as mechanistic and physical. We are all biased in a way, my bias just happens to be on the side of empirical evidence and scientific reasoning.

[wass12]

Because people do not share the same values. Take Vegans vs Meat eaters for example. Neither party is better than the other, neither really should change, yet these parties often get pissed off at each other. 

 

Why shouldn't? What makes a currently existing mindstate more valuable that any other it can develop into? Reconciled opinions are closer to each other, which makes easier to build a solution for them. That's what debates are for: to reconcile our different opinions.

[KaiserShep]

Why shouldn't? What makes a currently existing mindstate more valuable that any other it can develop into? Reconciled opinions are closer to each other, which makes easier to build a solution for them. That's what debates are for: to reconcile our different opinions.

 

Thing is, you'll always have someone who wants more in the face of limited resources and territory, or wishes to impose certain ideologies which clashes with that of others. I don't think that this would necessarily escalate to someone's total annihilation, I do believe that there will always be conflict of some sort because of it. It's an integral part of our nature. 

[Quarian Master Race]

 

Well, look who ignored my uncomfortable comment just like I predicted!

I did nothing of the sort. The discussion began to go in circles, with me elucidating Truth while you in your moral outrage continually and incredulously began begging the same questions that had already been answered ad nauseam. The thread then moved onto other topics.

 

however, If you wish

 Every political system that committed mass murder had their reasons "materially and morally superior." How is yours different?

Already explained. Scientific empiricism> religions, which include things like communism and fascism (due to their absolute lack of physical evidence to back up their claims and reliance on pure faith/belief in a dogma which cannot be questioned).

Also, I'd dispute the indiscriminate use of the term "murder". That implies an unlawful killing, while anyone who we exterminate would clearly have had to display that they are a detriment to the maximum aggregate utility calculation, and thus deserve it according to the laws of our system.
 

They were killed - not by the geth, but by quarians who shared your philosophy of killing those who disagreed with them. This kinda vindicated and backfired on them at the same time: the geth did take up arms - but not in some inexplicable droid rage, or because they were discontent with being slaves, but to defend their quarian masters - from other quarians who tried to destroy both of them for the crime of existence and differing opinions, respectively. The latter group managed to prove their point of the geth being dangerous by antagonizing them to the point where the only reasonable thing to do (and as even you admit it, the geth are perfectly capable of reason) was to be dangerous - towards said genocidal quarians, that is. 
 

 

Of course, the war taken took its turns in a way that the only survivors were from this genocidal faction, so now they are free to espouse their views about the geth and forget about little inconvenient facts like this. They proved that they are right by silencing voice that would question their "truth." There is no doubt about it if there is no one to doubt it, right?

 

So your circular reasoning and poor excuses for toaster malfunctions aside, I'm correct. Thanks for making that clear, as if it isn't already abundantly so.

 

 

 Lol @ "genocidal". Need I provide you with the textbook definition of that word, and thus why it doesn't apply to nonsentient machines? The shutdown order was no different than a government mandaded commercial safety recall. Those who opposed it were attempting to cause harm to the social order and were rightfully dealt with via imprisonment and elimination. The outcome of the war where the geth "defended" themselves to a 99.95% kill rate on their adversaries (a rate that is demographically impossible without Total War style intentional mass slaughter of noncombatants, including children, infants and geriatrics) fully vindicated this action and proved the toaster huggers to be the imbecilles that they were (and still are). The toasters even slaughtered offworld Council species who were uninvolved in the conflict (example being the asari Erinya's wife), and then indiscriminately executed Council peace envoys when they were sent (according to Revelations). Was that also necessary?

 

You know, with how quickly we lost in the initial uprising, it sort of begs the question as to how we managed to so successfully hunt down all of our own traitors in such a short period of time, as you are claiming we did. In practical terms, that seems quite suspect. More than likely, the geth indiscriminately began to slaughter them just as they did all other organics who happened to find themselves on or near Rannoch. It wouldn't be the first universal fact their little propaganda film choose to suspiciously omit (yeah, skipping from Martial Law period to the quarian exodus, completely ignoring the actual conflict where over 2 billion people are slaughtered by toasters. Seems like a Fair and Balanced™ portrayal of events).

 

"Noble sacrifice"  implies that those weak and stupid will approve your system, which is highly unlikely, to say the least. (Also, how could be someone stupid if they approve your ideas?) "Genocide" and "ideological cleansing" would be more accurate. 

 
It's also suspiciously convenient that the proper order of the world just happen to see YOU at the top of the food chain, and everyone you dislike dead.

Yet more moral outrage butthurt which, creating lots of sound and fury, while signifying nothing. What a surprise

I obviously don't care about their "approval", and yes I of course see myself (along with other like minded elites) at the top of the "food chain", as should anyone who is confident in the veracity of their beliefs. You are no different with your slavish devotion to the claimed superiority of your liberal progressivism (or whatever it is you are espousing), you simply and inefficiently allow your opponents to undermine the system until the point it becomes untenable that they may actually have a chance seize power through the system and begin to impose their consensus (such as what happened in many previously democratic states during the 1920s and 30s, ala Nazi Germany). How many political systems in the world today are there which do not ban certain parties and movements? Not a single one that I can think of in any nation which wields any degree of international political influence, and for good reason. Your democratic utopia does not exist precisely because it has been confirmed by history to be a failure. If the leg goes lame, it must be removed. If the kidney fails, it must be cut out. The body does not live for the individual organs. Sometimes for the body to survive, parts of it must be lost. A good surgeon understands this, much as does a good leader.

 

Wegener was a meteorologist. An outsider, not some geologist wunderkind. On the other hand, Schiaparelli and Blondlot were accomplished scientists in their own fields, but now most remembered for their completely imaginary Mars channels and N-rays. It is easy to judge in hindsight which idea was great, but you cannot predict which new, controversial idea will turn out to be good. The only way to identify the member of your "master race" is to watch them make their great discovery, then add them to the group one by one. Your "master race" concept has no predictive value.
 

It's a great idea, in theory. Problem for you, the sign of its working is that from time to time, you are proven wrong and have to revise your world model. If it doesn't happen with you regularly, then you don't use it properly. Considering that you vehemently refuse to even try to gain new information by understanding other people's reasons for coming to their beliefs (even if it only amounts to "he is schizophrenic and was surrounded by false information in his entire life")...

He was still an elite member of the educated, empirically minded class as were the others.

Of course we cannot predict which ideas will be best without testing or acquisition of evidence first. Any idea which can demonstrate a reasonable degree of physical validity will be allowed to continue.  Once again, this doesn't involve tolerating flawed belief systems  which are fundamentally defined by their object lack of physical evidence. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? The whole point of the system is to continually prove itself wrong, but ideas which are themselves proven wrong cannot do so, and there is no need to continue allowing their existence. 

It is of course imperial, but isn't all or nothing, regardless of your continued attempts at straw-manning the argument as such.

 

 If you don't tolerate them, why should they tolerate you? And by your terms, non-tolerance means killing or worse. The only resolution to a difference in opinions would be a fight to the death. The only objective truth this can reveal is who is better at killing. And weapons don't care if the person they kill is right or wrong. Do you really want to live in this world? Or do you imagined that your "superior truth" can come into power by making only superior firepower matter?

We don't require the tolerance of our enemies, only the removal of their ability to impose their flawed ideologies.

Wars are won by technology and information. Emperically superior systems naturally elicit superior technologies. I've little worry that the nonexistent deities or tautological fallacies of our opponents will divinely imbue upon them the ability to match us in an arms race, especially considering that we are not limited from eradicating their ideologies entirely like the most morally and technologically superior systems of today (of which the secular capitalist oligarchies called the United States and China are currently most superior though far from perfect, and rightfully dominate the world through their exercise of both soft and hard power).

 

EDIT: It's easy to declare yourself right when the only judge of that is yourself. 

Pot, meet kettle. Besides, history judges me to be superior, unlike you and your absurdist idealism.
 

 

 You do want to live in a totalitarian system. You just want to be part of the regime. 

 
I, for one, want to live in a system of equality, where I am free to tell my opinions without the fear of being put into a death camp. Where I can tell my opinions to anyone who would listen to (although not neccessarily heed) them, and in exchange, I'm willing to listen (if not neccessarily agree with) the opinions of everyone who wants to tell them. I want to live in a world where truth is accepted by consensus, not where a single person or a small cabal is destroying everyone who disagrees with them. Not even if that person would be me.

Iran isn't a very Totalitarian society in practice (i.e. attempting to excercise total control over the private lives and ideas of its constituents). In theory, the Guardian Council can exercise such authority, but in practice it doesn't whenever public consensus is in favour of an initiative (even if it undermines the overarching Shia Islamic supremacist ideology). The political system is semi-democratic (candidates are still vetted by the Council). See the recent JCPOA Nuclear agreement for an example of an initiatve supported by the government and population, but opposed by the Council. Western governments simply like to claim it is more authoritarian than other states in the region they support (such as Saudi Arabia or the UAE for instance) due to their inability to excercise as much geopolitical control over it. Either way, not a very good analogy.

You'll be free to tell your opinions without fear of being put in a death camp until someone who wants to put you in a death camp is elected or popularly appointed via revolution due to unscientific "consensus" that the Aryan Race/ Islam/ Communism is superior, as has happened in countless systems which espoused your weak idealism. My system would simply ban those unequivocally wrong ideas and be done with it, as would yours when push came to shove whether you wish to admit it or not.

Want an example? Do you not find it quite ironic that you attempt to chastise me for "totalitarianism" while simultaneously espousing support for the theoretical Synthesis outcome. I mean, the ultimate goal of any totalitarian system is to exercise complete control over the actions and thoughts of its constituents in order to make dissent against the state and its goals impossible. In practice this is difficult because people aren't machines, but your solution is unilaterally to physically alter every living creature in the galaxy against its will into a brainwashed race of green drones that will unquestioningly obey and submit to your transhumanist religion without any conflict, "for their own good" no doubt.

Violently and forcibly altering the thoughts of everyone in existence without the victims even knowing you are doing so? That is some 2+2=5, 1984 esque stuff right there. You are far more totalitarian than I. I would at least allow ideological opponents the choice to either submit, resist and die, or possibly however unlikely even replace me if their ideology can prove itself superior. You don't even allow them that choice. Our goals are fundamentally different, but we are far more alike in our methods than you would like to espouse. The only real difference is that I am not blinded by my own hypocrisy into believing my methodology is something that it explicitly does not display itself to be. I know why I am here, what makes me superior. Why should I attempt to hide it behind a false ideology of tolerance, other than in the interest of controlling those who would attempt to do harm?

[Ahglock]

Why not? Or is it just that you can't imagine it?

I can imagine a unicorn crawling out of my ass to fight a horde of dancing zombies singing songs from west side story. That doesn't mean I think it's plausible.

As for why not. There are some fundamental differences of opinion that won't change as others have brought up. Just because the Krogan understand why the genophage was done doesn't mean they would want to forgive and forget.

I think you are coming from multiple faulty premises one that understanding brings peace and two that there is some universal truth that people can agree on. there are plenty of subjects where there is no right answer, and these are frequently the things that we kill people over.

Edit too add and you think I have multiple faulty theories on this. I hope that didn't cone as a knock as it wasn't meant as one.

[Seraphim24]

I can imagine a unicorn crawling out of my ass to fight a horde of dancing zombies singing songs from west side story. That doesn't mean I think it's plausible.

As for why not. There are some fundamental differences of opinion that won't change as others have brought up. Just because the Krogan understand why the genophage was done doesn't mean they would want to forgive and forget.

I think you are coming from multiple faulty premises one that understanding brings peace and two that there is some universal truth that people can agree on. there are plenty of subjects where there is no right answer, and these are frequently the things that we kill people over.

 

The universal truth is that people will fight each other over universal truths, yes?

[Lady Artifice]

Like I said, I'm a comparative neurologist (I study the nervous system and consciousness of animals), so my opinion is different than yours. I see no magic life-force that makes information processing in a biological brain fundamentally different than information processing in a synthetic one, and thus I see no fundamental barrier to creating sentience OR sapience "synthetically".

However, I do see a technical barrier to doing so. The brain of a fruit fly is more complex than anything that can be simulated today. And for decades, artificial intelligence researchers were going about it completely wrong by ignoring how brains actually work. I've seen a couple recent publications from people who are probably more on the right track, but creating an artificial intelligence by 2050 like many people believe is probably a pipe dream.

Thanks for the reply though, this topic and people's view of it is fascinating to me as I suspect that it may become a major hot topic in the next generation and maybe, just maybe, within my lifetime.

 

My pleasure. It's fascinating to me as well, because I often love stories about Artificial Intelligence. 

 

I acknowledge your more comprehensive expertise, but I think I'm looking at generally the same evidence as you are, and coming away with a more skeptical impression. When I'm informed that the brains of smaller insects are more complex than anything we can currently replicate, it doesn't make me anticipate any real chance of our doing so. I think...that the adaptability of nature is always going to be out of our reach. I have no doubt that, given enough time, we could replicate the impression of that complexity. But something that could then adapt on it's own? Feel or create for itself? I really enjoy the concept in fiction, and--again--I accept it when it occurs in a fictional setting, but I'll hold out on any expectation that it could potentially happen in the real world. 

[wass12]

Thing is, you'll always have someone who wants more in the face of limited resources and territory, or wishes to impose certain ideologies which clashes with that of others. I don't think that this would necessarily escalate to someone's total annihilation, I do believe that there will always be conflict of some sort because of it. It's an integral part of our nature. 

 

Maybe you consider that naive, but I think that overall, people are good, and don't want to kill each other if there are other options. Synthesis makes those options much more available.

 

I can imagine a unicorn crawling out of my ass to fight a horde of dancing zombies singing songs from west side story. That doesn't mean I think it's plausible.

As for why not. There are some fundamental differences of opinion that won't change as others have brought up. Just because the Krogan understand why the genophage was done doesn't mean they would want to forgive and forget.

I think you are coming from multiple faulty premises one that understanding brings peace and two that there is some universal truth that people can agree on. there are plenty of subjects where there is no right answer, and these are frequently the things that we kill people over.

Edit too add and you think I have multiple faulty theories on this. I hope that didn't cone as a knock as it wasn't meant as one.

 

But this is exactly what Wrex tried to do - to make the krogan maybe not forget, but move on from their self-fulfilling vision of doom. In most endings, he seems to be successful. There are also several real life examples of formerly antagonistic groups becoming best buddies once they sat down and drew up mutually agreeable terms for cooperation.

 

For questions of "what is there?", reality provides the universal truth of itself. For questions of "what should be?", there are no right answers, only ones preferred by people. The conflict ends when the two sides reach a viewpoint both can accept. (Which is not necessarily an average of the two original.) Maybe I'm too optimistic that this is always possible, but our world is not yet ruled by a single empire, and Synthesis would make the process much easier.

 

Next up: answer to QMC. Once I got enough time and energy...

[Medhia_Nox]

The universal truth is that people will fight each other over universal truths, yes?

No!   You're wrong!

But I won't fight you about it...

[Ahglock]

But this is exactly what Wrex tried to do - to make the krogan maybe not forget, but move on from their self-fulfilling vision of doom. In most endings, he seems to be successful. ...

Only have time for this as I'm at work. But he didn't convince the other krogan to his argument, he led through force and fear. The krogan didn't kill the salarian and turians because he made them not kill them or face his clan. It wasn't because he reasoned with them and they saw the light. Wreave just isn't going to stop killing.

[Ahglock]

The universal truth is that people will fight each other over universal truths, yes?

Lol. No the universal truth if there is one is that there isn't one at least one knowable. Some will discuss or debate their differences out, negotiating a compromise or go along with the majority. But there will always be those who don't. Now given that synthesis is a orlwellian nightmare anyone who thought about a violent uprising against the majority would probably be murderlated before they could get far. But when its large groups like most of the krogan it might be harder to do.

[Kabooooom]

My pleasure. It's fascinating to me as well, because I often love stories about Artificial Intelligence.

I acknowledge your more comprehensive expertise, but I think I'm looking at generally the same evidence as you are, and coming away with a more skeptical impression. When I'm informed that the brains of smaller insects are more complex than anything we can currently replicate, it doesn't make me anticipate any real chance of our doing so. I think...that the adaptability of nature is always going to be out of our reach. I have no doubt that, given enough time, we could replicate the impression of that complexity. But something that could then adapt on it's own? Feel or create for itself? I really enjoy the concept in fiction, and--again--I accept it when it occurs in a fictional setting, but I'll hold out on any expectation that it could potentially happen in the real world.

Yes, but I submit for your consideration - what is the difference between processing information in a biological brain, and processing it in a non-biological brain, if ultimately the information being processed and the outcome is exactly the same, but the means differs?

Modern neuroscience predicts that there would be no difference - even if specific neural correlates are required to produce consciousness as an epiphenomenon (ie: It doesn't "just happen". I suspect this view is incorrect, and that it does indeed just happen, as there are multiple neural correlates of consciousness that have already been identified). And thus, if consciousness is an epiphenomemon of information processing in a subjective fashion, both systems would exhibit consciousness.

It is worth noting that modern neuroscience could be missing something fundamental here, but I doubt it - and not just because it is my field, but because the alternative (which would be metaphysical) would violate not just Occam's razor, but also known laws of physics.

Also, I agree - for us to create a self-aware synthetic mind, we would need computing technology far more advanced than what we have today. That said, while I can tell you everything there is to know about the brains of animals, I know little about computer programming. So I would love to hear a programmers input on this. The problem is, our two fields dont really talk to each other that much.

[o Ventus]

Some of his augmentations were life-saving, but most of them were just there to make him a super-agent. Like the CASIE, the hacking module, the Typhoon system, the arm-blades...

 

And didn't Synthesis turned out to be great in hindsight too?

 

EDIT: If someone would give the power of, say, infrared vision, without asking you first, would you resent it and try it to be removed?

 

"Some" of his augmentations are not the topic. Regardless of the extras he received, Adam needed SOME KIND of augmentation in order to survive his injuries. The point remains that in his case, augmentation was mandatory to continue living, regardless of whatever else Sarif put into him.

 

It also doesn't matter if Synthesis turns out okay in the end, the point is that it is not necessary. Nobody was going to die if Synthesis wasn't chosen.

 

And somebody mentioned this earlier in the thread, but if Synthesis gives the former Reaper minions any kind of intelligence, that would only put them into a living hell. If it could even be called "living", because the Reaper minions are little more than zombies with bits of tech shoved in there. Not only is Synthesis not something they asked for, but if any of them have something resembling a consciousness, they're going to either go mad or kill themselves (or both).