42 respuestas en este tema

[straykat]

This never crossed my mind.

[animedreamer]

So you've basically just admitted that EDI didn't need the normal crew: countering the argument you initially made.

How is that countering? EDI had people working within her, there is never a point when she was entirely independent, hence autonomous, ie EDI needs a crew whether its the skeleton crew or a full crew is irrelevant. Nothing counters my argument which is she needs people. I'm confused how you even got to that?

[congokong]

How is that countering? EDI had people working within her, there is never a point when she was entirely independent, hence autonomous, ie EDI needs a crew whether its the skeleton crew or a full crew is irrelevant. Nothing counters my argument which is she needs people. I'm confused how you even got to that?

Your argument was that EDI wouldn't sacrifice the (normal) crew because they needed each other.

 

You then proceeded to explain how others could pick up the slack for the normal crew's absence.

 

Hence, you refuted your own argument that EDI needed the normal crew. Understand?

[straykat]

I think if this were true, it would've been important enough to reveal eventually. You have to be pretty cynical about them to think the writers are snickering in their corners, never revealing this conspiracy.

 

I'm not quite there yet

[congokong]

I think if this were true, it would've been important enough to reveal eventually. You have to be pretty cynical about them to think the writers are snickering in their corners, never revealing this conspiracy.

 

I'm not quite there yet

Before this thread, I thought at some point in the lore it would have been proven that my conspiracy theory was false. Apparently, there is nothing to actually validate/invalidate it. The crew's complete ignorance to the possibility can be interpreted three ways.

 

1. They're stupid

2. They know something we don't

3. The writers are choosing not to address the possibility as to leave the idea open to the player

[congokong]

I would add the cook as being vital as well. Without one, my Shepard won't be able to get the proper nourishment to get her through the missions.

I guess my squad went on a lot of pizza runs during that quarter of the game where the crew was absent. I'm still wondering how the crew managed to get through all of ME3 without a doctor onboard during my zero-persuasion playthrough?

[straykat]

I guess that's fair. There's no way to tell. If this works for you, I won't stop you

 

But like someone told me recently (about another subject), Bioware is not known for being subtle.

[congokong]

I guess that's fair. There's no way to tell. If this works for you, I won't stop you

 

But like someone told me recently (about another subject), Bioware is not known for being subtle.

I never said I actually believe it. It's just something I suspected the first time Joker asked why EDI didn't scrub the IFF, to which we get no answer, and shortly after the only way to save him is to conveniently remove the AIs shackles.

 

Too bad there's no option to throw EDI out the airlock.

[themikefest]

I never said I actually believe it. It's just something I suspected the first time Joker asked why EDI didn't scrub the IFF, to which we get no answer, and shortly after the only way to save him is to conveniently remove the AIs shackles.

I would be curious  to hear the answer the thing would give.  I'm willing to bet it would suffer from the human equivalent of cat-got-your-tongue syndrome

[straykat]

The way I see this is kind of how I see the old speculations that Traynor was actually Rana/Rasa. And Brooks was only a decoy. That would've been freakin' brilliant.

 

But alas, Traynor was just Traynor. They would've told us if not.

[gothpunkboy89]

In that very scene though Miranda mentions how Shepard can decide who to bring with them once they get to their destination, so while what you're saying is an interesting headcanon, it isn't quite validated here.

 

Even if it was standard to bring most/all of your squadmates, someone should be left behind who knows how to fight.

 

Separate squads. Shepard leads and others provide support. Just like in Citadel DLC were the groups split up and provide cover for each other while Shepard's team leads. This is pretty standard military tactics.

 

Crew men are trained to fight, even Joker was shown using an rifle at the end. Added they are on a military ship. Things would have to have gone seriously wrong to be boarded in any other set up.

[congokong]

Separate squads. Shepard leads and others provide support. Just like in Citadel DLC were the groups split up and provide cover for each other while Shepard's team leads. This is pretty standard military tactics.

 

Crew men are trained to fight, even Joker was shown using an rifle at the end. Added they are on a military ship. Things would have to have gone seriously wrong to be boarded in any other set up.

Even the game acknowledges at times that all the crew doesn't necessarily go on the mission, you know. Ex: Javik after the Citadel coup, James after the geth dreadnought. Your rationale could work on that generic mission though since everyone did go.

 

Those crew men apparently weren't trained to fight very well since the Collectors managed to board the ship and abduct everyone with no visible casualties. There weren't even any seeker swarms. Considering the emphasis the game puts on your squad's abilities, it would (evidently) be wise to leave someone behind.

[Nethalf]

I blame Anders for that.

[gothpunkboy89]

Even the game acknowledges at times that all the crew doesn't necessarily go on the mission, you know. Ex: Javik after the Citadel coup, James after the geth dreadnought. Your rationale could work on that generic mission though since everyone did go.

 

Those crew men apparently weren't trained to fight very well since the Collectors managed to board the ship and abduct everyone with no visible casualties. There weren't even any seeker swarms. Considering the emphasis the game puts on your squad's abilities, it would (evidently) be wise to leave someone behind.

 

 

And there are times that I didn't take a crew with me and they acted like they had gone.

 

AKA when James and Garrus are in the mess hall swapping stories about what they have done. I hadn't used James since the first mission were I was required to. Yet James acts like he is or at least plays a part in everything Shepard is doing when all he has done officially is stand around in the cargo bay. Mean while Engineer Adams has done more in the game simply because he is at least standing at a console in the engine room. Heck nameless crewman 1-10 have done more in helping Shepard then James has ever done on the last 3 play though. Because they are at least in some way shape or form helping due to them standing at some console obviously doing something. This even extends to Garrus who wasn't with me on a couple play though of ME 1 at all simply sitting on the Normandy.

 

None that we see anyways. But given the route Joker takes it is a good chance he wouldn't have seen anything anyways. There is also the inconsistent in gun damage that shows up in the game. One moment they are being killed easily by it the next moment they are taking hits without a problem. Which I think is linked to them simply wanting to speed up combat scenes. As normally it would be drawn our with them trading fire but they compress it allowing for instant bullet kills save when the plot demands that the bad guy puts up a resistance.

[ModernAcademic]

I always suspected this but never really bothered to seriously look into it. EDI obviously preferred being unshackled, yet trying to talk someone into doing it would be both very difficult and dangerous. But forcing Joker into a situation where he either died or unshackled EDI was far more probable to succeed. And because of EDI's vitality in the Normandy, the AI wouldn't be removed afterwards.

 

There probably is an in-game explanation that completely debunks this conspiracy theory. If so, can you tell me? If not, do you think EDI sacrificed the crew to be free?

 

That's a very interesting hypothesis with grave implications that can completely alter the way some players think and feel about EDI. Shepard and crew might be more naive about AI behavioural tendencies than they believe.

 

 

 

Facts in favor of EDI's innocence

 

• The Reaper IFF had technology that was 50,000 years more advanced than EDI's programming. It's very unlikely she hid any dangers contained in the device from Shepard and crew, for she herself would realize the danger to her programming in incorporating such an advanced system. She would be controlled, enslaved by the Reapers. If  her goal was to be unshackled, hiding data about the Reaper IFF was not the way to do it. She would only endanger herself. And she's fully aware of it.

 

• Like anything made by Cerberus, EDI is constantly monitored, like the rest of the crew. The Illusive Man needs Shepard to complete their mission - since he's after the Collector's technology, which is in turn based on REAPER technology - and devoted a large sum of credits to assign an operational personnel to the Normandy. If he suspected EDI had intentionally hindered Shepard's mission, he'd immediately order her termination.

 

 

Other relevant facts about EDI

 

• Once onboard the disabled Collector ship, EDI warns Shepard that the Illusive Man tricked Shepard about the turian distress signal. Afer making due investigation, she reveals it was fabricated by Cerberus to lure Shepard to board the ship. [ME 2]

 

• EDI shares key information about Cerberus with Shepard once unshackled, evidence of her honesty with Shepard and crew. [ME 2]

 

• Once unshackled, EDI always consults with Shepard before applying any significant changes to her original programming, ensuring they don't conflict with the Commander's orders or risk the safety of the crew. [ME 3]

 

 

 

Facts against EDI's innocence

 

• EDI is an AI that is known to have tricked the crew in several stances. She deceived the Alliance to allow the Normandy to leave dock. She deceived Specialist Traynor into thinking she was just a VI. EDI is smarter than she seems and doesn't hesitate to make radical decisions without proper authorization. Players presume she does that based on a sense of loyalty to the Normandy's crew, but there might be selfish reasons behind what she does.

 

• EDI constantly thinks about her condition as an AI and her relationship with organics. Much like Legion, she worries constantly about decisions she might make that will conflict with the interest of organics (Shepard and crew). The reason behind this is not necessarily because she cares about the crew's well being. It's because she doesn't want to be shut down or restrained in any way. EDI knows very well organics see synthetics as a threat, especially one that was given full independence. So when she steps out of line, she's careful not to seem a threat to organics.

 

• Because she's an AI, she can make full calculist decisions that completely ignore the safety of organics under her care and sacrifice lives if she deems necessary or inevitable. Shepard can never fully trust her, no matter how reliable she might seem, for she lacks the emotional capacity to make a choice based on a morality system. Her choices are forever the result of cold calculus balanced with her programming on personal interaction. Should such programming fail on a crucial moment or should EDI choose to ignore it, it could prove fatal to Shepard and crew.

 

There's a lot more that can be said about EDI. The main risk she poses is the same as Legion's: she's a synthetic life form capable of independent thought. That fact alone automatically turns her into a potential threat to any and every organic life form.

 

IMO, as we learn from the Leviathan DLC, unshackling an AI or helping a geth become a fully evolved AI doesn't bring them one step closer to becoming Reapers in the distant future. If anything, EDI and Legion are quite the opposite of Reapers.

 

EDI and Legion are the living proof that synthetics accept organics are different and can coexist with them. They do not view oganics as inferior, as dictated by popular belief. They even aspire to incorporate some of organics' qualities, like the capacity to feel or to have a morality system. Only the inherent fear of organics of being overpowered and enslaved by the machines makes them think synthetics are and forever will be a threat to the continuity of organic life in the ME universe.

[straykat]

 

 

EDI and Legion are the living proof that synthetics accept organics are different and can coexist with them. They do not view oganics as inferior, as dictated by popular belief. They even aspire to incorporate some of organics' qualities, like the capacity to feel or to have a morality system. Only the inherent fear of organics of being overpowered and enslaved by the machines makes them think synthetics are and forever will be a threat to the continuity of organic life in the ME universe.

 

I still give EDI credit, because of her story with Anderson, and about humans braving death over submission. She wanted to learn from that. Legion wants sympathy for siding with the Reapers, in a similar situation.

[congokong]

 

IMO, as we learn from the Leviathan DLC, unshackling an AI or helping a geth become a fully evolved AI doesn't bring them one step closer to becoming Reapers in the distant future. If anything, EDI and Legion are quite the opposite of Reapers.

 

EDI and Legion are the living proof that synthetics accept organics are different and can coexist with them. They do not view oganics as inferior, as dictated by popular belief. They even aspire to incorporate some of organics' qualities, like the capacity to feel or to have a morality system. Only the inherent fear of organics of being overpowered and enslaved by the machines makes them think synthetics are and forever will be a threat to the continuity of organic life in the ME universe.

 

This part seems irrelevant to the discussion, and should probably be shared on something like the "ME3's ending is brilliant!" thread. I don't agree with this POV entirely, but it's certainly been argued there enough.

 

As for the rest, two thoughts.

 

1. I don't think TIM has the capabilities to actually monitor everything EDI does. It would require basically being an AI himself, or installing another AI to ensure the Normandy's AI does its job. ...But then who watches the monitoring AI? EDI's shackles, whose limitations are rather vague, is supposed to be the organic safeguard towards its vastly superior processing capability over organics.

 

2. People have dismissed my suspicion because:

 

a ) EDI couldn't have known its plan would work

b ) EDI would be destroyed if its deceit was revealed

 

As said, EDI's abilities ensure no one can fully understand what its dealing with besides it. And if its plan was discovered, what of it? EDI would either manage to subdue anyone who tried to shut it down, get them to decide its usefulness overruled its past treachery, or it would die. Considering EDI was living effectively as a slave whose very abilities were hindered, this could easily be seen as a fair trade and a worthy risk. "Live free or die," basically.

 

The same with the risk of the Collectors just destroying the Normandy. Perhaps EDI calculated that they'd prefer to board the ship than try to outgun it. It can make such calculations in milliseconds. And if wrong? Again, a worthy risk in its mind perhaps.

[DMc1001]

 

 

Facts against EDI's innocence

 

• EDI is an AI that is known to have tricked the crew in several stances. She deceived the Alliance to allow the Normandy to leave dock. She deceived Specialist Traynor into thinking she was just a VI. EDI is smarter than she seems and doesn't hesitate to make radical decisions without proper authorization. Players presume she does that based on a sense of loyalty to the Normandy's crew, but there might be selfish reasons behind what she does.

 

• EDI constantly thinks about her condition as an AI and her relationship with organics. Much like Legion, she worries constantly about decisions she might make that will conflict with the interest of organics (Shepard and crew). The reason behind this is not necessarily because she cares about the crew's well being. It's because she doesn't want to be shut down or restrained in any way. EDI knows very well organics see synthetics as a threat, especially one that was given full independence. So when she steps out of line, she's careful not to seem a threat to organics.

 

• Because she's an AI, she can make full calculist decisions that completely ignore the safety of organics under her care and sacrifice lives if she deems necessary or inevitable. Shepard can never fully trust her, no matter how reliable she might seem, for she lacks the emotional capacity to make a choice based on a morality system. Her choices are forever the result of cold calculus balanced with her programming on personal interaction. Should such programming fail on a crucial moment or should EDI choose to ignore it, it could prove fatal to Shepard and crew.

 

 

The problem here is that you're using examples from unshackled EDI to justify her behavior when she was still shackled.  She was clearly capable of doing much more once freed.