423 réponses à ce sujet

[Multifarious Algorithm]

The blue box is an interesting twist to be sure - in ME1 I was sure Bioware did it to avoid questions relating to the philosophical zombie issue (aka teleporter issue etc.). I'm wondering where they're going with it, since it seems very important to the issue and some of the new Cerberus news (the President running as an AI simulation for his term) goes a little against this notion.

[slackbheep]

The Quarians didn't collectively decide to destroy the Geth, that was a decision made by their leaders. The Geth on the other hand, decided as a whole to strike back. I don't know (if it's even been written down somewhere in the books/games) exactly how the Geth went about the retaliation, it doesn't seem they attempted genocide in return but they did strike with force and have watched for hundreds of years as their creator species suffers while the Geth control the homeworld for no reason other than convenience it seems. As a side note, I also feel that the Geth should be forced to answer for the actions of the heretics. Especially if we uploaded the virus instead of destroying Heretic station. This seems like it could be the path to peace between the Quarians and Geth however, with the Geth having to accept the actions of the heretics as being both wrong, and their fault.

Edit: Rereading this it seems I'm bashing the Geth specificly, I feel the need to clarify that I feel both sides are at fault at the present time. There's no denying the Quarians started the whole mess, but the Geth were unrealistic in thinking they could just cut themselves off from the rest of the galaxy and be unaffected.

Modifié par slackbheep, 09 mars 2010 - 03:06 .

[alphax1]

The Geth are more than the sum of their individual programs... Legion itself says so... 1 Geth program is like 1 neuron from your brain... 1 neuron is not sentient... put thousands/millions/billions together however...

[C4Clan]

Frankly put, the viewpoint of some people here boggles my mind.

There are some who say that sapient machines are not sapient because they only "mimic" intelligence. If someone could explain to me how one can mimic intelligence I would be grateful. It is like saying a red apple mimics being a red apple. You simply cannot mimic the concept of intelligence, you either are or you are not.
Regarding the geth: one geth program is a just that: a program limited by what it was programmed BUT thanks to their linking and subsequent sharing of information several of these programs are capable of advanced reasoning and abstract thinking. Which is by the way exactly how the human body works. A heap of non-sapient cells working in concert creating a sapient whole.
For all intents and purposes the geth ARE intelligent. The assumption they only "mimic" this intelligence just because they are made from metal instead of a bunch of hydrocarbons and with it the belief that intelligent inorganic machines have less rights than intelligent organic machines is just... I don't know...narrow minded? arrogant? grounded in fear? chemistycist? (I am afraid I just made that word up)

And then there are those who consider genocide the right thing to do in certain circumstances. It seems to me that these people did not think that through. Genocide is way more than just killing (which is bad enough), it means denying the future for another culture, taking their right for existence and destroying said culture. There is no justification for this and no one has the right to make that decision.
Now did the quarians tried to commit genocide?
Well they knew at least some the geth were sentient and sapient. Even if they did not intent to destroy all geth they most assuredly wanted to reprogram the geth into non-sentient, non-sapient machines which would be exactly what I described above. So yes I think the quarians attempted genocide.
Now did the geth attempted genocide?
Difficult question as we do not know how the morning war progressed exactly and if the geth were even capable of understanding the difference between quarian an a quarian. But what we do know is that when the quarians decided to flee the geth just let them go, a "courtesy" the quarians surely would not have granted to the geth.
So, overly violent response? Yes. Attempted genocide? At least in my opinion not.
Is the geth reaction understandable? Yes. Is it justified? Well, two wrongs doesn't make a right.

So, it boils down to two sides who have wronged each other (with one even trying to commit the most heinous crime imaginable). It just happens that the geth seem to acknowledge this whereas the quarians remind me of the way the Japanese coped with WWII, i.e. using the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to drown out their responsibilities for numerous war crimes.

To answer the original question: Did the quarians got what they deserved? Yes and no. They tried to commit genocide and got a violent response. To be expected and deserved. Did your average quarian gardener next door deserve to die? No. Did the quarians deserved to be exiled from their homeworld? No. Did they deserve to be exiled from the Council for creating AI? No. Would they have deserved being exiled for attempting genocide? Yes. Do the quarians deserve to be treated like crap 300 years and several generations later? We carry the responsibilities of our ancestors but not their guilt, so no.
Just for the record: the whole dealing of the quarian situation by the citadel council is just one more example of the mind boggling ignorance and arrogance of that institution.

And last there are people who hold the very, very strange idea that A.I. would invariably turn out evil^tm. That is just beyond mind boggling. It is like saying a child will turn out as a murdering psychopath no matter what kind of upringing it has.
Sure if you treat A.I.'s as crap, expendable and beneath you, it will surprise no one that they WILL hate you. This is especially true if the A.I. is in a student position where it will learn it's behavior from you. And...well that shall be enough for now.

P.S.: I just remembered that Tali says in ME 1 that the quarians freaked out about the emergence of sentience among the geth because that would mean they were enslaving the geth. That means the quarians were recognizing the geth as life with rights. How they got from "Keelah, We are enslaving them! That is wrong." to "Shut them all down!" is beyond me, though.
 

[nikki191]

the geth were an unknown quantity when they became self aware, yes with legion we find out they believe in self determination of all life and yes it was wrong the quarians tried to turn them off, but equally they could of decided to just be the gethe from me1 and slaughter all organic life as being inferior

[Bwaksson]

C4Clan wrote...

Frankly put, the viewpoint of some people here boggles my mind.

There are some who say that sapient machines are not sapient because they only "mimic" intelligence. If someone could explain to me how one can mimic intelligence I would be grateful.


And then there are those who consider genocide the right thing to do in certain circumstances. It seems to me that these people did not think that through. Genocide is way more than just killing (which is bad enough), it means denying the future for another culture, taking their right for existence and destroying said culture. There is no justification for this and no one has the right to make that decision.
Now did the quarians tried to commit genocide?

 So yes I think the quarians attempted genocide.

Now did the geth attempted genocide?

Is the geth reaction understandable? Yes. Is it justified? Well, two wrongs doesn't make a right.


And last there are people who hold the very, very strange idea that A.I. would invariably turn out evil^tm. That is just beyond mind boggling. It is like saying a child will turn out as a murdering psychopath no matter what kind of upringing it has.
Sure if you treat A.I.'s as crap, expendable and beneath you, it will surprise no one that they WILL hate you. This is especially true if the A.I. is in a student position where it will learn it's behavior from you. And...well that shall be enough for now.

cut out some parts of the quote to spare everyone of a megapost

I agree with your opinion, but intelligence is easily mimiced. A simple Chatbot can mimic intelligence. In reality someone intelligent has made sure that it will react intelligently in a large number of possible scenarios. provided you supply it with enough scenarios in enough detail it can appear very intelligent.

As for genocide. You say that no one has the right to make that choise. I ask why not? Who has the right to put limitations on my rights? Besides, this is something human (and presumably quarian) why should the geth hold up a moral truth just because we do? I If the only way to stop an alien race from killing all of us is to kill all of them then I'm all behind that decision. Not happy but OK with it.

You ask if the geth's actions are justified. By our standards you say no. But something like that shouldn't be measured by our standards but with the geth standard.
I might think it is justified to pay an extra 1$ to getChocolate on my Ice cream. If you disagree does that make my decision wrong?

Your comparison with post-WW2 japan is good. And I don't think the US did anything wrong, no. Perhaps might have setteld for one bomb but history has judged so far. It worked.

And lastly: Agreed! Why would every AI turn evil? Why would any AI turn evil? Borderline every time a movie, book, game or other deal with AI's they are either homicidal or on that scale. ME2 did a god job with it though. And I don't need examples of books etc. where they are nice. (Asimov! Yay!)

[C4Clan]

Bwaksson wrote...

As for genocide. You say that no one has the right to make that choise. I ask why not? Who has the right to put limitations on my rights? Besides, this is something human (and presumably quarian) why should the geth hold up a moral truth just because we do? I If the only way to stop an alien race from killing all of us is to kill all of them then I'm all behind that decision. Not happy but OK with it.

Ahh... I can see what you want to say. Genocide as a form of self defense. That would be understandable, but does that make it right? I say no. A crime is a crime no matter the circumstances. There can be mitigating circumstances that remove the legal repercussions but does that absolves us from guild? Again, I say no. 
Who has the right to put limitations on my rights, you ask. Well the same that have given you those rights, i.e. the culture you are part of. We all give ourselves rights and take them from us. Rights can at least to my opinion only come from within a culture and can not be imposed from without. But there lies the crux in all this: What if two cultures clash whose rights are mutually exclusive as seen in the case of the geth and quarian? Would it be wise to demand your rights in full or would a compromise be favorable? Would that even be possible? In the case of the quarian and geth, I think yes. Concerning reapers vs. everything else: not a chance. But where are the limits of these possibilities? I honestly can not answer that question.

Bwaksson wrote...

You ask if the geth's actions are justified. By our standards you say no. But something like that shouldn't be measured by our standards but with the geth standard.

But even the geth standard states that it was not justified. At least if Legion is any indication to this. To what extent the ancient geth were capable of setting those standards for themselves is another matter. That is why I said I do not know if the geth were capable of understanding the difference between killing a quarian and killing quarians or if they assumed their own concept of shared individuality holds true for the quarians. I am afraid my linguistic capabilities are insufficient to express what I mean, I can only hope you understand what I mean.
 

Bwaksson wrote...

 I might think it is justified to pay an extra 1$ to getChocolate on my Ice cream. If you disagree does that make my decision wrong?

It makes it wrong for me, but it remains right and valid for you. It can be both at the same time. I would not judge you for it unless you decided to impose your decision on me or vice versa. 

Bwaksson wrote...

Perhaps might have setteld for one bomb but history has judged so far. It worked.

OOT, but this is somewhat like trying to statistically evaluating coin tosses after ONE toss.

One last thing: I am fully aware that my statement that every culture makes their own rights is somewhat hypocritical considering I would be quite willing to grant an A.I. the same rights as myself. Gosh, and I hate hypocrites.

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Bwaksson wrote...
As for genocide. You say that no one has the right to make that choise. I ask why not? Who has the right to put limitations on my rights? Besides, this is something human (and presumably quarian) why should the geth hold up a moral truth just because we do? I If the only way to stop an alien race from killing all of us is to kill all of them then I'm all behind that decision. Not happy but OK with it.

I agree with your opinion on this. IMO making an argument that a race should't attack/commit genocide on another based on wether or not they have the right to seems to me to be a little arrogant and self serving. I am not saying that I condone genocide, but if my country had to wipe another country off of the map for survival, I wouldn't question whether we have the right or not to do it.

I myself would rather condone the act to condemn an entire race to eternal non-existance by my hands to be the epitome of arrogance. Do not forget that genocide is not only a crime against the living but also against those that never will be. It is a judgement not only against those that wronged you but also against those that never had the chance to do so. You would judge a whole race forever guilty independent of individual involvement. I certainly HOPE we all agree that general collective guilt does not exist. The last time collective guilt was proclaimed was after WWI, and we all know how that turned out.

[C4Clan]

Shandepared wrote...

Here I was thinking I was the ruthless badass on the Bioware forums. However you don't see me arguing that everyone should have the inherent right to commit genocide. Normally I would keep arguing but I'd just wind up repeating myself and there is no point in continuing. One of the central concepts of my argument is that genocide is wrong, and apparently almost nobody agrees with me which pretty much shuts down my end of the debate. I blame the schools. The other point is that the quarians did not have the benefit of hindsight at the time of the Morning War and it is unfair to blame them for not trusting untested, unplanned for, and unpredictable artificial intelligences.

Are you talking to me? If yes, then I recommend rereading my posts before we discuss this any further, if not I apologize. 

[Cmdr. 31]

Yeah, you try to destroy a race machine or not it always comes back to bite you in the ass

[TheLastAwakening]

Bwaksson wrote...

cut out some parts of the quote to spare everyone of a megapost

I agree with your opinion, but intelligence is easily mimiced. A simple Chatbot can mimic intelligence. In reality someone intelligent has made sure that it will react intelligently in a large number of possible scenarios. provided you supply it with enough scenarios in enough detail it can appear very intelligent.

Is intelligence really being mimiced? Or is the program simply running as it was designed and as users we are imposing the idea of a mimiced intelligence on the program and the idea that it mimic's our intelligence?

so if I say hello to a chatbot programmed to respond with a command and it replies hello, where is the intelligence in that? The chatbot simply completed the command it was designed to complete based on the algorithms and parameters given by it's programmer. Therefore, if the chatbot and I have a long discussion/dialogue in no way has the chatbot mimiced intelligence, it simply carried out the function it was designed to carry out, in saying that it mimiced intelligence, I think we are the fool's.

Modifié par TheLastAwakening, 09 mars 2010 - 10:55 .

[Terraneaux]

TheLastAwakening wrote...

Is intelligence really being mimiced? Or is the program simply running as it was designed and as users we are imposing the idea of a mimiced intelligence on the program and the idea that it mimic's our intelligence?

so if I say hello to a chatbot programmed to respond with a command and it replies hello, where is the intelligence in that? The chatbot simply completed the command it was designed to complete based on the algorithms and parameters given by it's programmer. Therefore, if the chatbot and I have a long discussion/dialogue in no way has the chatbot mimiced intelligence, it simply carried out the function it was designed to carry out, in saying that it mimiced intelligence, I think we are the fool's.

By your logic, however, you have no way of knowing that everyone except you is not also mimicking intelligence in the same way.  

[Bwaksson]

C4Clan wrote...

Ahh... I can see what you want to say. Genocide as a form of self defense. That would be understandable, but does that make it right? I say no. A crime is a crime no matter the circumstances. There can be mitigating circumstances that remove the legal repercussions but does that absolves us from guild? Again, I say no. 
Who has the right to put limitations on my rights, you ask. Well the same that have given you those rights, i.e. the culture you are part of. We all give ourselves rights and take them from us. Rights can at least to my opinion only come from within a culture and can not be imposed from without. But there lies the crux in all this: What if two cultures clash whose rights are mutually exclusive as seen in the case of the geth and quarian? Would it be wise to demand your rights in full or would a compromise be favorable? Would that even be possible? In the case of the quarian and geth, I think yes. Concerning reapers vs. everything else: not a chance. But where are the limits of these possibilities? I honestly can not answer that question.

The concept of 'having the right to' is IMO rather weird. Do I have the right to walk down a street? Yes.
Do I have the right to kill someone? Yes. But I must accept the consequences of doing so.
Do I have the right to not be assaulted by some guy trying to kill me? No. Because that is not my choise to make.
A crime is only seperated from something that isn't in that it has a punishment. Sure, it's based on moral truths of our culture but that hardly makes it wrong.
But just because you have the right to perform an action it doesn't make it right to perform it. I say the geth had the right to fight back, killing every single quarian if need be.
In a clash between two mutually exclusive cultures IMO there simply is no right or wrong from a bystanders POW.
 

C4Clan wrote...
But even the geth standard states that it was not justified. At least if Legion is any indication to this. To what extent the ancient geth were capable of setting those standards for themselves is another matter. That is why I said I do not know if the geth were capable of understanding the difference between killing a quarian and killing quarians or if they assumed their own concept of shared individuality holds true for the quarians. I am afraid my linguistic capabilities are insufficient to express what I mean, I can only hope you understand what I mean.

I think I do. But I think anyone can justify defending themself beyond necessity. If you get attacked you fight back with more force than you need too. Which is why it is considered legal to kill in self defense. It could be compared to a preemptive strike.
That said I think the Geth intelligence and culture has changed to much. We don't really know what the geth where like then. If they had a more childish logic for example it would explain alot.

C4Clan wrote...
It makes it wrong for me, but it remains right and valid for you. It can be both at the same time. I would not judge you for it unless you decided to impose your decision on me or vice versa. 

Exactly! The quarian culture clashed with the geth so the Quarians tried to impose their own culture and moral system onto the geth, which also involved their destruction. Naturally the geth defend them self, perhaps even learned from the quarian move. And the way I see it only the agressor can 'get what they deserve'. IMO it would hardly be fair to say that the Geth got what they deserved had the Quarians won. 

C4Clan wrote...
OOT, but this is somewhat like trying to statistically evaluating coin tosses after ONE toss.

I know. Which is why I added 'so far'
But every time it work I will think that it was a justified move. Every time it doesn't, I Won't.

C4Clan wrote...
One last thing: I am fully aware that my statement that every culture makes their own rights is somewhat hypocritical considering I would be quite willing to grant an A.I. the same rights as myself. Gosh, and I hate hypocrites.

Well. If you give them rights but don't take any away I don't se why that makes you a hypocrite.

C4Clan wrote...
I myself would rather condone the act to condemn an entire race to eternal non-existance by my hands to be the epitome of arrogance. Do not forget that genocide is not only a crime against the living but also against those that never will be. It is a judgement not only against those that wronged you but also against those that never had the chance to do so.

To perform a genocide will always be considered unjustified for the target race or species (Naturally). But it can be a justified act for the performing race or species. I don't think there is one single case in recorded history where it is justified. But it's not hard imagining where it could be.

TheLastAwakening wrote...

Is intelligence really being
mimiced? Or is the program simply running as it was designed and as
users we are imposing the idea of a mimiced intelligence on the program
and the idea that it mimic's our intelligence?

so if I say hello
to a chatbot programmed to respond with a command and it replies hello,
where is the intelligence in that? The chatbot simply completed the
command it was designed to complete based on the algorithms and
parameters given by it's programmer. Therefore, if the chatbot and I
have a long discussion/dialogue in no way has the chatbot mimiced
intelligence, it simply carried out the function it was designed to
carry out, in saying that it mimiced intelligence, I think we are the
fool's.

Well. Thats what I mean when I think of mimiced intelligence. Something who's intelligent acts are a result of another entitys intelligence.
But think about this. If I say Hello to you, why do you respond to it with Hello? Not because you are intelligent. Because you have been taught to do so or observed otherers doing so or know the meaning and social implications of the word. In other words because you have data. Using knowledge conciously is the trademark of intelligence I use myself. The Chatbot is not intelligent because it doesn't understand why it answers hello. It has the knowledge but the concious choice behind it is made by the programmer.

Shandepared wrote...

At some point the tide turned
against the quarians so severely that not only had they lost any hope
of controlling the geth but they could not even defend themselves! Yet
the geth continued, they pushed the quarians from every world murdering
any who did not successfully escape. The slaughter must have been on a
truly horrific scale and yet you are defending it.

This is all speculation off course. But the if the geth knew why the quarians attacked them, which I think they did, there would be no reason to leave the quarians alone just because they no longer posed an immediate threat. If the geth understood how badly the quarians wanted them dead, which I think they did, they responded with the amount of force they deemed necessary. After all, they didn't pusue the flotilla nor make any serious attempts to locate or destroy it before Legion finds out that the quarians are still a potential threat to the existance of the Geth.

Shandepared wrote...

In
any case no matter what choice they make I'll support the quarians if
only because it is impossible to commit genocide against a machine,
especially the geth. They're software and not even bluebox software.
You can replicate them and you can transmit them. You could destroy
every geth platform and every hub and as long as you still had the
knowledge stored somewhere to write a new geth program you could bring
them back

But if you destroy all copies of an intelligent entity, why isn't that genocide? Quarians had the right to attempt to destroy their tools but the geth had the right to destroy the quarians. Just as my computer has the right to defend itself from me. It just won't because it has no intelligence (or capability). Wether the quarians had legal right or not doesn't matter since the geth never agreed to that.
It like ten people walking up to a guy claiming that 'We own you know' and then get angry when he doesn't follow orders. How is that justified?

-the hell? I can't get rid of the smiley below this line

[Inverness Moon]

Shandepared wrote...

Cmdr. 31 wrote...

Yeah, you try to destroy a race machine or not it always comes back to bite you in the ass

A race machine? The quarians deserved to have their civilization destroyed because they attempted to dismantle a treadmill? Is that what you're saying?

I think it is interesting how those with a low opinion of the geth often refer to them with derogatory terms. It is a pattern of behavior seen throughout history, discrimination. Some people will always find some asinine reason to label something lesser than themselves and discriminate to make themselves feel better.

[C4Clan]

[quote]Shandepared wrote...


At some point the tide turned against the quarians so severely that not only had they lost any hope of controlling the geth but they could not even defend themselves! Yet the geth continued, they pushed the quarians from every world murdering any who did not successfully escape. The slaughter must have been on a truly horrific scale and yet you are defending it.
[/quote]

I am afraid we do not know enough about the morning war to come to the conclusion that the quarians were helpless or not. As far as we know they might have been or maybe they did not stop waging war against the geth until they realized they has utterly lost. We do not know if the geth slaughtered a helpless enemy or if they responded violently against a still offensive and threatening enemy. You may be right with your assumption or you may be not

[quote]Bwaksson wrote...

The concept of 'having the right to' is IMO rather weird. Do I have the right to walk down a street? Yes.
Do I have the right to kill someone? Yes. But I must accept the consequences of doing so.
Do I have the right to not be assaulted by some guy trying to kill me? No. Because that is not my choise to make.
[/quote]

It seems we have two concepts of "rights". You seem to think rights are given by your very existence, unalienable and unchangeable, correct me if I am wrong here.
I personally think this is not the case. My pure existence does not give me any rights. I am given those by the greater whole so to speak. To put it differently: Human rights apply to us, geth rights apply to geth, quarian rights apply to quarians. Neither of these groups can impose their rights onto the other, this is what has led to the conflict between the quarian and the geth.

[quote]Bwaksson wrote...


A crime is only seperated from something that isn't in that it has a punishment. Sure, it's based on moral truths of our culture but that hardly makes it wrong.
[/quote]

But in the end a crime is only a legal concept, whereas right and wrong are moral concepts. And while legal and illegal is based on moral concepts, there is no strict correlation between the two.

[quote]Bwaksson wrote...

But just because you have the right to perform an action it doesn't make it right to perform it. I say the geth had the right to fight back, killing every single quarian if need be.
[/quote]

If need be is indeed the most important part in this. Killing an attacking or better threatening enemy is justified, killing an nonthreatening enemy is not, imo.

[quote]Bwaksson wrote...
In a clash between two mutually exclusive cultures IMO there simply is no right or wrong from a bystanders POW.
[/quote]

I disagree, the bystander can still come to the conclusion if it is right or wrong from his POV (I hereby assume that you meant POV and not POW, otherwise it would be quite strange) but not if it is right or wrong for the other two parties.

[quote]Bwaksson wrote...

[quote]C4Clan wrote...
But even the geth standard states that it was not justified. At least if Legion is any indication to this. To what extent the ancient geth were capable of setting those standards for themselves is another matter. That is why I said I do not know if the geth were capable of understanding the difference between killing a quarian and killing quarians or if they assumed their own concept of shared individuality holds true for the quarians. I am afraid my linguistic capabilities are insufficient to express what I mean, I can only hope you understand what I mean.
[/quote]

I think I do. But I think anyone can justify defending themself beyond necessity. If you get attacked you fight back with more force than you need too. Which is why it is considered legal to kill in self defense. It could be compared to a preemptive strike.
That said I think the Geth intelligence and culture has changed to much. We don't really know what the geth where like then. If they had a more childish logic for example it would explain alot.
[/quote]

I am glad my meaning have been transported adequately. Anyway, again a crucial part is the "beyond necessity". Does that not already imply that it goes beyond what is right, no? And also again I wish to point at the difference between legal and moral. And while a preemptive strike might be considered to preserve the rights of the party perpetrating it, it also infringes the rights of the party at the receiving.

[quote]Bwaksson wrote...

Exactly! The quarian culture clashed with the geth so the Quarians tried to impose their own culture and moral system onto the geth, which also involved their destruction. Naturally the geth defend them self, perhaps even learned from the quarian move. And the way I see it only the agressor can 'get what they deserve'. IMO it would hardly be fair to say that the Geth got what they deserved had the Quarians won. 
[/quote]

I am pleased to see we share this opinion

[quote]Bwaksson wrote...

[quote]C4Clan wrote...
OOT, but this is somewhat like trying to statistically evaluating coin tosses after ONE toss.
[/quote]

I know. Which is why I added 'so far'
But every time it work I will think that it was a justified move. Every time it doesn't, I Won't.
[/quote]

Yes, self justification is always nice, isn't it? Very human, I cannot blame you for that. Ehm...I mean the self justification part... although I can not blame you for being human either... Uhm...let us just pretend I never said anything.

[quote]Bwaksson wrote...

[quote]C4Clan wrote...
One last thing: I am fully aware that my statement that every culture makes their own rights is somewhat hypocritical considering I would be quite willing to grant an A.I. the same rights as myself. Gosh, and I hate hypocrites.[/quote]

Well. If you give them rights but don't take any away I don't se why that makes you a hypocrite.
[/quote]

The hypocrisy lies in projecting rights on another group while at the same time propagating the need for every group to find their own rights. Or maybe it is not hypocritical as long as I acknowledge the conflict, that would be...preverable. I better look up the definition of hypocrisy sooner or later.

[quote]Bwaksson wrote...

To perform a genocide will always be considered unjustified for the target race or species (Naturally). But it can be a justified act for the performing race or species. I don't think there is one single case in recorded history where it is justified. But it's not hard imagining where it could be.
[/quote]

It can only be justified as a form of self defense, but that would rquire that every single member is always and will always be hostile.The "is" part can be judged adequately, the "will be" part can only be assumed. An assumption that can never be proven of disproven if the genocide is completed. At the very least this unanswerable question must be carried by the perpetrators as long the victims of the genocide remain non-existent, which boils down to forever, I guess.


[quote]Bwaksson wrote...

Well. Thats what I mean when I think of mimiced intelligence. Something who's intelligent acts are a result of another entitys intelligence.
But think about this. If I say Hello to you, why do you respond to it with Hello? Not because you are intelligent. Because you have been taught to do so or observed otherers doing so or know the meaning and social implications of the word. In other words because you have data. Using knowledge conciously is the trademark of intelligence I use myself. The Chatbot is not intelligent because it doesn't understand why it answers hello. It has the knowledge but the concious choice behind it is made by the programmer.
[/quote]

But then it still does not mimic intelligence, it merely transmits the programmers intelligence through another device.
And yes humans react in a way their upbringing taught them. But it were humans who developed these social patterns through abstract thinking in the first places. And unlike a chatbot I can freely vary my responses based on a multitude of given information and assumptions which in turn allows to react to all kinds of situation even if I never experienced them before or even if I never would have imagined them. A chatbot is not able to do that and is thus not intelligent. All in all a chatbot mimics behavior, not intelligence.

[quote]Bwaksson wrote...

This is all speculation off course. But the if the geth knew why the quarians attacked them, which I think they did, there would be no reason to leave the quarians alone just because they no longer posed an immediate threat. If the geth understood how badly the quarians wanted them dead, which I think they did, they responded with the amount of force they deemed necessary. After all, they didn't pusue the flotilla nor make any serious attempts to locate or destroy it before Legion finds out that the quarians are still a potential threat to the existance of the Geth.
[/quote]

I wish to again point out that our understanding of the course of the morning war if too limited to conclude which side knew what and thought what

[quote]Bwaksson wrote...
 
But if you destroy all copies of an intelligent entity, why isn't that genocide? Quarians had the right to attempt to destroy their tools but the geth had the right to destroy the quarians. Just as my computer has the right to defend itself from me. It just won't because it has no intelligence (or capability). Wether the quarians had legal right or not doesn't matter since the geth never agreed to that.
It like ten people walking up to a guy claiming that 'We own you know' and then get angry when he doesn't follow orders. How is that justified?
[/quote]

Yes very good point. The geth are a product of their experiences, destroying them and recreating an identical synthetic race would still mean genocide as the new synthetics would develop quite differently thanks to their different experiences.

[quote]Shandepared wrote...

Artificial intelligence were regulated because of their danger.
[/quote]

But yet we never hear any prove for this danger (previously to the geth of course). The way it is now it sound the council passed this law just because. And even if there would be an example of dangerous A.I. before the geth it is still an unfair generalization. Let's just replace A.I. with organic life: "Organic life is dangerous because one race attacked us that why we now kill all organic life wherever we want to. They have no rights and we treat them how ever we please."
That's not even a WTF!? anymore, it's more like: How can anyone with even as much as one brain cell come to that incomprehensibly stupid conclusion!

[quote]Shandepared wrote...

[...]legions of unpredictable A.I. to flourish in secret behind the Veil.
[/quote]

In stark contrast to the legions of unpredictable organic intelligence flourishing before the Veil.

[quote]

[...]Council was wrong to abandon them.
[/quote]

True, oh so very true. But alas, the Council is no more than a self serving Asari and Salarian + Turian Club