106 réponses à ce sujet

[Giantevilhead]

The Shelf wrote...

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

We don't have AI anywhere near the level of the Geth then, okay? Although what you're talking about is considered a VI in the ME universe.

You'd have a hard time convincing me of that, considering they're sapient, have culture, art, practice philosophy, etc.

If you want to be stubborn and stick with the current scientific definition of life, sure they're not alive. As far as I'm concerned they, they are the first of a new kind of lifeform.

You realize the Geth are VIs right?  They only give the appearance of being an AI when they're networked together.  In other words, if you get enough VIs together, they're able to solve much bigger problems than they can individually.  Whether or not there is a "critical mass" of problem solving ability that suddenly becomes sentience is worthy of debate.  I'm not being stubborn, I'm relaying what I have learned through my brief study of real AI theory.  If you want to be stubborn and ignore reality, then I can't persuade you of anything.

This has actually made me realize something, though.  The Geth at most are just a single being.  Individual Geth are not intelligent at all.  Even Legion explains this.  So by re-programming the rebel Geth, it's more akin to the techniques psychologists use to help people overcome undesired personality traits.

You know that human brains are like that too don't you? The only difference is that human brains are less reliable and much more prone to error.

[Occams Razor 17]

I wish that the game had more "unfair" decisions to make. Those are the interesting ones. If I'm given the choice between something that's clearly ethical and something that's clearly unethical, then that's almost no choice at all. "Unfair" decisions are the ones that require thought, and are the decisions worth making.



To be clear, I mean choices that are "pick your poison," not choices that are both bad for the sake of being bad when multiple better solutions present themselves, but the player can't pick them.

[Meltemph]

I heavily disagree that uploading the virus is ANYTHING, but brainwashing. They chose to use the reapers to take a quicker, faster route to technologically advancement before they were ready, they were not indoctrinated or forced into the decision according to legion.



If you truly believe that the Geth are now sentient life, reprogramming their brain to agree with a point of view IS unethical. Sentient life is given the freedom of choice, with freedom of choice comes consequence. Taking away their "Self" is NOT an act of mercy, but a forceful and inhumane approach to them as a sentient life.





Would I advise brainwashing a human colony that was not indoctrinated, but still worshiping and helping the reapers? No, I would not reprogram them and erase who they are. So I would have to uphold that moral completely. Personally I think they got the Paragon/Renegade thing completely backwards with this choice.



Now if you view them as just numbers and software, they yes, reprogramming them to agree with you to help swell the ranks is the "right" path, but the fact that there is consensus and disagreement, seems to point to sentient life.







Forced acceptance is not freewill, it is indoctrination.

[Giantevilhead]

I don't think it's the same thing as brainwashing.



Here's an analogy that I would make with humans. There are bacteria inside humans that affect the production of certain neurotransmitters. Some of them do it by breaking down food that's used to make these neurotransmitters, some of them actually make the neurotransmitters themselves. Some of these bacteria affect the production of neurotransmitters that improve your mood and allow you to cope with stress like dopamine and endorphin. If these bacteria were to all die off, there is a good chance that you'll spiral into a suicidal depression and kill yourself. If I had killed these bacteria in someone and they committed suicide, would you say that I brainwashed the person to kill him/herself?

[ydaraishy]

Giantevilhead wrote...

I don't think it's the same thing as brainwashing.

Here's an analogy that I would make with humans. There are bacteria inside humans that affect the production of certain neurotransmitters. Some of them do it by breaking down food that's used to make these neurotransmitters, some of them actually make the neurotransmitters themselves. Some of these bacteria affect the production of neurotransmitters that improve your mood and allow you to cope with stress like dopamine and endorphin. If these bacteria were to all die off, there is a good chance that you'll spiral into a suicidal depression and kill yourself. If I had killed these bacteria in someone and they committed suicide, would you say that I brainwashed the person to kill him/herself?

Your analogy is flawed; regardless you would have changed their state of mind against their will, so you are responsible nonetheless.

[ABCoLD]

ydaraishy wrote...

Giantevilhead wrote...

I don't think it's the same thing as brainwashing.

Here's an analogy that I would make with humans. There are bacteria inside humans that affect the production of certain neurotransmitters. Some of them do it by breaking down food that's used to make these neurotransmitters, some of them actually make the neurotransmitters themselves. Some of these bacteria affect the production of neurotransmitters that improve your mood and allow you to cope with stress like dopamine and endorphin. If these bacteria were to all die off, there is a good chance that you'll spiral into a suicidal depression and kill yourself. If I had killed these bacteria in someone and they committed suicide, would you say that I brainwashed the person to kill him/herself?

Your analogy is flawed; regardless you would have changed their state of mind against their will, so you are responsible nonetheless.

ydaraishy is correct.

[ABCoLD]

scyphozoa wrote...

thats just it, because the game doesn't give you an option to not kill a bunch of geth, the most altruistic choice you can make once you have infiltrated the heretic base is to rewrite them and hope it is a second chance.

if there was an option to not go to destroy them at all, then there would be margin for debating right and wrong, but the mission binds you to the objective of slaughter.

Am I simply strange then that I believe it's fine to simply kill your enemy when you have the option, but to alter their basic thought process is fundamentally wrong?  I really didn't have a problem with blowing them up, it's not like they were innocent.

[ydaraishy]

scyphozoa wrote...

thats just it, because the game doesn't give you an option to not kill a bunch of geth, the most altruistic choice you can make once you have infiltrated the heretic base is to rewrite them and hope it is a second chance.

if there was an option to not go to destroy them at all, then there would be margin for debating right and wrong, but the mission binds you to the objective of slaughter.

How is rewriting them not a form of slaughter in itself? The fundamental freedom we all should enjoy is the right to self-determination and choice, and if that conflicts with your right to self-determination and choice, you can either negotiate with them and try and reach consensus (as Legion would say!) and avoid mutual annihilation or fighting with them. In ME2, you have no chance to do the former, however, so you are left with the choices you do have.

Choosing to rewrite them promotes your ideas for self-determination over theirs. Fighting them, blowing them up, however you like to paint it, a "fair fight". is a "fair fight".

Or perhaps look at it this way -- is it reasonable or fair if the geth were able to and chose to rewrite Shepard's mind and become the next Saren?

Modifié par ydaraishy, 11 février 2010 - 09:28 .

[azurelynx]

I rewrote just in case in ME3 they might help me, (If legion survives that is)

[Ferocious7]

Stoko981 wrote...

I rewrote them. For a start, the existing Geth are on my side against the Reapers. This way, I'm greatly swelling their ranks. But more than that, Legion wanted it that way. He failed to reach a consensus, true, but the number of processes that favoured the rewrite outnumbered the number that favoured the destruction by two.

this right here

[tanarri23]

Rewrite. Why kill potential allies?

[Chrisimo79]

The Shelf wrote...

Skyblade012 wrote...

If by that you mean "you have NO idea how an AI operates" you are correct. Currently, AIs do not exist. We can only speculate on them, we can not make any definitive claims. The geth are (supposedly) not merely programs at this point, but actual sentient beings with free will. If that is true, no, I cannot be sure how they will operate, as it would fall well outside the guildlines of standard programming and computer operation, which I know very well.

But I addressed that point in my previous post, which, once again, no one bothers to read, because tossing around insults without paying attention to the discussion is so much more fun.

Actually AI does exist.  It's used all the time to solve complex computer problems.  People have a huge misunderstanding about what AI really is.  It's not a personality.  AI is just a classification of algorithms used to solve problems when you don't have perfect knowledge of a puzzle.  Geth are not alive, folks.

What you are referring to is called narrow AI. Artificial intelligence that was created to solve specific problems but cannot develop beyond their programming. In Mass Effect this would be called a VI. An AI in Mass Effect is what we would call an Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), that would be able to adapt to unforseen circumstances in a way a human mind could (or likely beyond that).

[Chrisimo79]

The Black Ghost wrote...

Just another of example of Bioware messing up the paragon/renegade thing.

Technically, you could choose either option and be doing the right thing, but what would make it paragon or renegade is your MOTIVATION--"I like to kill things" or "its what I have to do to save live". That is the problem with the morality system.

Wrong. Curing cancer is a nice motivation. Killing humans to achieve that would be a renegade option (the ends justify the means).

Sometimes there are no clear-cut renegade or paragon options. Like in this case. Both actions are renegade to a degree. You cannot choose between black and white - both are grey.

Modifié par Chrisimo79, 11 février 2010 - 09:51 .

[Sapienti]

Quick way to decide. If you have a group of enemy soldiers and your choices are make them view things your way by "brainwashing" them every day filling their heads with your logic and so on. Or execute them. Either way they're the enemy either they live by your rules or they die by your hands. Its simple.



What I want to see is Bioware turn around and have the Geth glitch out in ME3 and all the rewritten Heretics end up crippling the Geth and turning on them again. Just to show that no choice is safe. I picked the rewrite myself though. (hoping for some gratitude in ME3)

[Skilled Seeker]

The 'math error' was NOT made by the Reapers. The Heretics CHOSE to follow Sovereign willingly.

[fogofeternity]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

The 'math error' was NOT made by the Reapers. The Heretics CHOSE to follow Sovereign willingly.

This is why it's interesting that to destroy them is the renegade choice.

In effect, destroying them is more idealistic than rewriting them. In this situation it's only the Renegade who acknowledges that the Heretics are truly sentient, intelligent, and have the right to reach their own conclusions. Whereas the Paragon chooses to believe that he knows better than the Heretics themselves about what they should believe. Here the paragon is like a British Imperialist, taking on what Kipling described as the white man's burden.

[Chrisimo79]

fogofeternity wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

The 'math error' was NOT made by the Reapers. The Heretics CHOSE to follow Sovereign willingly.

This is why it's interesting that to destroy them is the renegade choice.

In effect, destroying them is more idealistic than rewriting them. In this situation it's only the Renegade who acknowledges that the Heretics are truly sentient, intelligent, and have the right to reach their own conclusions. Whereas the Paragon chooses to believe that he knows better than the Heretics themselves about what they should believe. Here the paragon is like a British Imperialist, taking on what Kipling described as the white man's burden.

We don't know the renegade's thoughts behind the decision. Maybe he thinks that destroying them is less of a risk and does it because of that. Brainwashing can be reversed, destroying can't That's probably why destroying them is the renegade option.

[fogofeternity]

Chrisimo79 wrote...

fogofeternity wrote...

In effect, destroying them is more idealistic than rewriting them. In this situation it's only the Renegade who acknowledges that the Heretics are truly sentient, intelligent, and have the right to reach their own conclusions. Whereas the Paragon chooses to believe that he knows better than the Heretics themselves about what they should believe. Here the paragon is like a British Imperialist, taking on what Kipling described as the white man's burden.

We don't know the renegade's thoughts behind the decision. Maybe he thinks that destroying them is less of a risk and does it because of that. Brainwashing can be reversed, destroying can't That's probably why destroying them is the renegade option.

Well, I knew the renegade's thoughts because they were mine, and I made the choice.

Depending on the squadmate you bring along with you, they can be influential. First playthrough I was with Samara, and she's hugely opposed to the idea of brainwashing and makes a very convincing argument that it's worse than death. That was a major factor for me in choosing to destroy them (when I wasn't really pursuing a renegade or paragon path).

Way I look at it, brainwashing means that you've decided you know better than another race on what they should think and believe, destruction means that you acknowledge their right to believe as they wish (and also to take the consequences). On that basis, the renegade option seems the more idealistic.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Tony_Knightcrawler wrote...

Taranatar9 wrote...

I don't follow.  You decided to blow them up and you're disappointed that Shepard blew them up?

QFT

I rewrote them because they were probably indoctrinated when they made their "decision" to leave.

Non-blood-pumping creatures, "geth" cannot be indoctrinated. period.

[Chrisimo79]

fogofeternity wrote...

Chrisimo79 wrote...

fogofeternity wrote...

In effect, destroying them is more idealistic than rewriting them. In this situation it's only the Renegade who acknowledges that the Heretics are truly sentient, intelligent, and have the right to reach their own conclusions. Whereas the Paragon chooses to believe that he knows better than the Heretics themselves about what they should believe. Here the paragon is like a British Imperialist, taking on what Kipling described as the white man's burden.

We don't know the renegade's thoughts behind the decision. Maybe he thinks that destroying them is less of a risk and does it because of that. Brainwashing can be reversed, destroying can't That's probably why destroying them is the renegade option.

Well, I knew the renegade's thoughts because they were mine, and I made the choice.

Depending on the squadmate you bring along with you, they can be influential. First playthrough I was with Samara, and she's hugely opposed to the idea of brainwashing and makes a very convincing argument that it's worse than death. That was a major factor for me in choosing to destroy them (when I wasn't really pursuing a renegade or paragon path).

But that's just one individuals opinion and it doesn't count. The only opinion that counts is that of the heretics. And you can't ask them. So basing the decision on the desire of the heretics is pointless.

Way I look at it, brainwashing means that you've decided you know better than another race on what they should think and believe, destruction means that you acknowledge their right to believe as they wish (and also to take the consequences). On that basis, the renegade option seems the more idealistic.

On that basis, yes. But as I said, brainwashing is reversable, destruction is not. I think that is the decidinc factor in this case.

[ReplicantZero]

Given the link between Geth consciousnesses, my 1st Shepard decided that the potential harm that could result from the rewrite not working as intended was too great to risk no matter how improbable.

Moreover, the existence of Reaper influence in the heretics was a wildcard that would make any prediction of a positive outcome for the rewrite, even by Legion, unreliable.

Interesting how people tend to anthropomorphize Legion to a 'he' even though we know it is actually a collective of AIs - logically would be an 'it' - guess it's due to the voice.

Modifié par ReplicantZero, 11 février 2010 - 01:20 .

[ReplicantZero]

Oops - double post.

Modifié par ReplicantZero, 11 février 2010 - 01:19 .

[durasteel]

This will determine a major plot element in Mass Effect 3. There is one major reason why we don't get to see Tali's face in the romantic encounter: BioWare is setting up a "big reveal" on the Quarian home world where we see Tali in "street clothes" instead of an encounter suit.



In the next game, you negotiate a treaty between the Geth and the Quarians, or you beat the snot out of enough Geth that they are driven from the Quarian home world, or you betray Tali and the Quarians are doomed to extinction. There has just been too much lead-up to this, I am convinced that Shepard will ultimately decide the fate of the Quarian race in the next game.