inherit
Scribbles
185
0
30,241
Hanako Ikezawa
22,352
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Dec 28, 2020 10:00:18 GMT
Where did I say AI "tries to be human"? AI as a concept/scientific goal actually *is*, namely a machine that thinks and acts the way a human might I don't see the difference. Do you try to think and act as a human? No, of course not. You simply think and act that way. Same with an AI. It doesn’t try to be like a human, it simply is. That’s the difference.
|
|
inherit
265
0
11,980
Pounce de León
Praise the Justicat!
7,910
August 2016
catastrophy
caustic_agent
|
Post by Pounce de León on Dec 28, 2020 10:11:41 GMT
I don't see the difference. Do you try to think and act as a human? No, of course not. You simply think and act that way. Same with an AI. It doesn’t try to be like a human, it simply is. That’s the difference. An AI is not human and very unlikely would think as one. Just like aliens wouldn't. It's just a story thing that they all tend to. After all, we're supposed to understand the story.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Dec 28, 2020 10:22:44 GMT
Do you try to think and act as a human? No, of course not. You simply think and act that way. Same with an AI. It doesn’t try to be like a human, it simply is. That’s the difference. An AI would be an intelligence capable of independent and autonomous function. Much like a human. But the idea that intelligence can only be human or even operate in a human-centric way is limiting. An AI's processing potential would allow it to grow beyond organic constraints, or any need to adhere to them.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
30,241
Hanako Ikezawa
22,352
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Dec 28, 2020 10:46:05 GMT
Do you try to think and act as a human? No, of course not. You simply think and act that way. Same with an AI. It doesn’t try to be like a human, it simply is. That’s the difference. An AI would be an intelligence capable of independent and autonomous function. Much like a human. But the idea that intelligence can only be human or even operate in a human-centric way is limiting. An AI's processing potential would allow it to grow beyond organic constraints, or any need to adhere to them. I was going just by the quotes you used. The point was the difference is simply being vs trying to be.
|
|
helios969
N4
Kamisama
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Origin: helios969
Prime Posts: No Clue
Prime Likes: Who Cares
Posts: 1,853 Likes: 2,478
inherit
867
0
Apr 13, 2024 10:39:49 GMT
2,478
helios969
Kamisama
1,853
August 2016
helios969
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
helios969
No Clue
Who Cares
|
Post by helios969 on Dec 28, 2020 11:00:14 GMT
Assuming the galaxy is truly peaceful. The case for that assumption is weak. Well then what’s the point? The rachni seem more dangerous than synthetics. They can spread like wildfire and kill everything if they so pleased. So the safe solution is just to kill everything. No more conflict.
|
|
correctamundo
N5
Dr Obfuscate
Don't knock the little winds. They're important - for morale.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Origin: correctamundo1
Prime Posts: A thousand and then some.
Prime Likes: They never liked me! No one likes me!
Posts: 2,830 Likes: 5,270
inherit
Dr Obfuscate
807
0
Nov 10, 2023 13:59:26 GMT
5,270
correctamundo
Don't knock the little winds. They're important - for morale.
2,830
August 2016
correctamundo
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
correctamundo1
A thousand and then some.
They never liked me! No one likes me!
|
Post by correctamundo on Dec 28, 2020 11:07:35 GMT
Well then what’s the point? The rachni seem more dangerous than synthetics. They can spread like wildfire and kill everything if they so pleased. So the safe solution is just to kill everything. No more conflict. Yup,let the harvest continue.😉
|
|
helios969
N4
Kamisama
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Origin: helios969
Prime Posts: No Clue
Prime Likes: Who Cares
Posts: 1,853 Likes: 2,478
inherit
867
0
Apr 13, 2024 10:39:49 GMT
2,478
helios969
Kamisama
1,853
August 2016
helios969
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
helios969
No Clue
Who Cares
|
Post by helios969 on Dec 28, 2020 11:10:40 GMT
So the safe solution is just to kill everything. No more conflict. Yup,let the harvest continue.😉 Yay, I self-identify as a husk.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Dec 28, 2020 12:30:18 GMT
Do you try to think and act as a human? No, of course not. You simply think and act that way. Same with an AI. It doesn’t try to be like a human, it simply is. That’s the difference. An AI is not human and very unlikely would think as one. Just like aliens wouldn't. It's just a story thing that they all tend to. After all, we're supposed to understand the story. Since humans are the only known beings capable of developing AI in the universe currently in real life, we only have ourselves to judge the authenticity of AI against. And what else is an AI built by humans supposed to think like? Plus, humans as a whole don't all think the same way, so not all human-conceived AIs would all think the same way. You can't judge an AI by whether or not it successfully follows a particular set of rules, that's the crux of the argument. Posters in this thread are saying that the AI of the Crucible shouldn't have offered Synthesis as an option because that violates its initial programming/goals, but a genuine AI *would not be bound* by its initial programming and goals. The Crucible has freedom of thought to make its own decisions and even change its mind.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Dec 28, 2020 12:36:42 GMT
Do you try to think and act as a human? No, of course not. You simply think and act that way. Same with an AI. It doesn’t try to be like a human, it simply is. That’s the difference. An AI would be an intelligence capable of independent and autonomous function. Much like a human. But the idea that intelligence can only be human or even operate in a human-centric way is limiting. An AI's processing potential would allow it to grow beyond organic constraints, or any need to adhere to them. It would also allow it to grow beyond the constraints of its original programming, and do things outside of or even directly opposed to what it was originally designed to do, which is why your position on how The Crucible should have acted is incorrect. I think it's pretty obvious that that was what I meant when I said a true AI possess "human-like" intelligence. The Crucible can change its mind, *like a human can*, The Crucible can analyse itself and its work and decide it doesn't like doing that anymore and to try something else instead, *like a human can*.
|
|
inherit
1129
0
Mar 19, 2024 19:19:28 GMT
2,051
traks
1,012
Aug 22, 2016 11:07:02 GMT
August 2016
traks
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
t_raks_99
|
Post by traks on Dec 28, 2020 12:39:32 GMT
You don't understand that talking about freedom of choice after altering every living being without their consent doesn't make any sense? Yes, because it's funny to talk about 'freedom of choice' when it's obvious when 'freedom of choice' is non-existent in any option chosen. In ANY scenario, the protagonist IMPOSES their choice over others. Either way they are making a choice without anyone's consent and deciding their future, in no smaller caliber than Synthesis, given what things like Destroy option means. DEPRIVING them from things that will have as big of an impact on their life as Synthesis is no better than altering them on the spot. Either way, the consequences for others are as huge in the long run. And while this is an a posteriori knowledge, I'd say that the Syntehsis does shape up to simply be a rational choice. The fact that precious "freedom of choice" has been lifted in one crucial moment (for all choices) doesn't mean that people aren't able to achieve more freedom depending on tools available to them after each ending. And you can do a lot more with more knowledge of the past and reaching effective immortality and also a good deal of that peace and quiet. What exactly was the substance of the 'brainwashing' tho? Organics and synthetics co-existing peacefully and apparently building an even greater civilization...? There's no reason to think that civilization will get another shot at that. We already know from MEA there are other things out there and there's no way of knowing when they'd arrive in this neighborhood... Or it may simply be a repeat of the past, especially given how much knowledge about past or AI is lost. It isn't. I'm just very confused why people think that the ME3 choices are divided on ones that respect freedom of choice more than others. Never mind that I've always viewed the premise of ME as synthetics vs. living organisms as flawed, due to the fact that it's quite possible that we're going to achieve 'Synthesis' long before our first large attempt at interstellar travel. With how MEA went it seems BW kinda agreed with me. So it's possible to still infer something from this, namely that it's possible that they may actually subvert the premise of the past trilogy. BioWare likes this kind of stunts. Ok, I'll bite on the ending discussion one more time (although we agree that it doesn't really help going forward), before trying to get back on the topic at hand. You mistake consulting about the choice (which isn't present for any choice in the game) with free will through/after the choice. While choosing destroy, control or refuse keeps every living being that survives the same - thus keeping their free will - synthesis forces physical and mental changes on everyone to get to the goal of a peaceful coexistence. That's why synthesis is the most offending choice IMO. It's basically saying "I agree with the catalyst that you are all doing it all wrong and the only way to save all of you from yourselves is altering everyone of you on a genetic level and putting thoughts/knowledge in your mind". That's how a despot would act if he/she gets the opportunity. Using brute force to get what he/she thinks is best for everyone because he/she is a know-all. Again, that is not a decision for me or anyone person to make IMO. In general I think, that if you believe to have the solution to a problem in our society, you need to convince at least a majority of it, not force your insight on everyone. Do the other endings have downsides? Of course. That's why it's not an easy victory/decision. With destroy you have to be Ok with basically siding with organics and considering the deactivation of the Geth and EDI (at best; the demise of the synthetics we know at worst, if the galactic community decides against using the knowledge to rebuild them) an acceptable loss. With choosing control you take the risk, that someone else might gain control of the Reapers later on, while with refuse you basically fail the galactic community at least at that moment, because you refuse to end the Reaper war. Still for me these three options are still all better than altering every living being against their will. Returning to the topic at hand: would choosing one of the four endings for ME next ruin the trilogy? Absolutely not. Those endings are still in the legendary edition and are still there for you to make your choice on how to end the Reaper war. Taking one of the four endings to move forward is absolutely Ok for me, as long as it results in a great premise for the next game, that puts my new protagonist in an exciting story. Shepard would then be a historic figure, which is fine for me. I don't have a problem to imagine a new protagonist being put into an exciting situation after the Reaper war ended differently than in my playthroughs.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Dec 28, 2020 13:15:42 GMT
It's still just a massive inference about the mechanics of how "Synthesis" works in practice, without anything to actually support it in the text.
Having knowledge beamed into your brain doesn't automatically deprive you of choice. For that matter, neither does having your DNA altered. And neither of these acts are necessarily unethical in and of themselves.
Do teachers brainwash you in class? If you take a flat-earther out into space and show them that the Earth is round, are you brainwashing them? Are Fox News and the perpetrators of Qanon and anti-vax conspiracy theories brainwashing people?
If the knowledge you're imparting is 1) objectively true and 2) will lead to the betterment of your "students" and society as a whole, (lasting peace, eradication of disease and famine, convenience, etc etc) then what's the ethical difference between spending many years laboriously teaching it to them in a classroom environment, or beaming it all into their heads instantly?
What actual evidence is there that the post-Synthesis Milky Way didn't become a utopia on its own terms, besides some people's knee-jerk negative reactions?
As for altering DNA, would it be unethical for expecting parents to genetically modify their unborn child? The child can't consent after all. What if it would eliminate the risk of a hereditary condition that could kill them or make their life difficult? Don't we essentially play god with Krogan when we decide to cure or not cure the Genophage? In fact, didn’t the Salarians ALREADY do that? The genophage is a genetic mutation that was artificially introduced to the Krogan population that pre-emptively murders 90% of their unborn children. If people support *that* for the sake of maintaining peace in the Milky Way, how is Synthesis any different?
|
|
inherit
1129
0
Mar 19, 2024 19:19:28 GMT
2,051
traks
1,012
Aug 22, 2016 11:07:02 GMT
August 2016
traks
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
t_raks_99
|
Post by traks on Dec 28, 2020 14:13:56 GMT
I wonder something else: how can anyone that obviously means it well not see how offensive it is to alter someone's DNA and change someone's mind against their will?
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 28, 2020 14:53:34 GMT
They never said anyone said it in this thread. Only that people have said it. The implications people use about synthesis often are everything but out right saying rape. Forced on them, violated, never given consent are often key words I've seen used with people who want to complain about synthesis ending beyond just their personal dislike of the ending. The discussion often devolves into this quasi morality based argument rather a kin to the kind of arguments that happen around abortion debates. However what those people who really try to claim synthesis is bad seem to forget that their argument is based on the idea that people even with new information are incapable of change. You know the whole "Krogan can't be peaceful unless their minds were completely altered." argument.
Then there's no reason to bring it up beyond a poor attempt at an emotional appeal. Your own use of "abortion debate" is no different. An attempt to downplay the potential severity of green, and an attempt to discredit arguments against it as uneducated, respectively. And there's more than one way to violate someone. For example, forced medical procedures. Much closer to the large scale tech upgrade and pseudo hive mind that synthesis involves. And you can blame BioWare for the quasi morality arguments, since they're the ones introducing real world philosophical and moral questions into their games. Is it any wonder people get passionate about it, and take things personally, when it's so close to things we genuinely believe? Mage vs templars is just freedom vs security after all. RGB is no different. I'm sure you'd find similar questions on the average Kohlburg test. And the argument against synthesis isn't about whether people can change. It's about letting it occur naturally, over time, and because it is desired. Not forcing it on everyone. The Krogan manage peace with the turians just fine before green.
They are talking about how some people react and talk about Synthesis in a topic about BW canonizing an ending. That is completely valid to do as I have seen it myself crop up over and over again. The funny part of your reply here is you claim it is nothing more then a poor attempt at an emotional appeal and then you use the same emotional appeal by trying to claim "use of abortion debate" is no different. I only used it as an example of a discussion were different ideas and morals often clash with no single side having any real strength behind their argument because it is entirely based on "I think..." rather then anything resembling objective facts.
Your forced medical procedure example is a great example of this and shows some complexity to the concept.
1. You never specify if it is a good or bad medical procedure. Because there is a world of difference between replacing your heart with an artificial one that works better then the original and someone putting a steel rod in your lungs for shits and or giggles.
2. Say I got into a car accident and they needed to perform live saving surgery on me and my wife gave them consent to do it. Would that be considered a forced medical procedure because I personally did not consent to it my wife did? What about if a child was sick and the parents gave consent to some medical procedure? The child didn't get to have a say and the choice on what happens to them was made by someone else. Is this also OK or forced a forced medical procedure?
Also I think the most hilarious part is were you completely fail to address anything regarding the hypocrisy in logic I point out people will use. While also complaining about an emotional appeal while at the same time in staggering hypocrisy claim that me pointing out hypocrisy in people's argument as nothing but..and I quote " and an attempt to discredit arguments against it as uneducated" Which is 110% an emotional appeal because you do nothing to address anything I said.
I like your emotional appeal that anything that doesn't work how you like must be malfunctioning. Or that doesn't act simply because it doesn't have a good solution. Remember after several hundred possibly even thousands of years of observation it came to the Reaper conclusion as the best solution to the problem. However now that solution is failing and it's best idea is no longer working. At that point there is a very strong argument that it doesn't choose because it can't, it simply doesn't choose because it doesn't know what to do.
This happens all the time in people and is often a trope that takes place in action movies. Usually were some group or faction makes some choices that then fail and leaves the protagonist to make all the choices to save the day after the original one fails. So with it's perfect solution failing it needs a new one so it turns to our protagonist Shepard given they were the primary source of the change that rendered the solution failing.
The Quarians and Geth stopped fighting because the Geth were armed to the teeth, upgraded and about to commit Quarian Genocide 2 Electric Boogaloo on them if they fired at them at all. There is an entire galaxy difference between "Hey lets be friends" and what really happened of "We need to stand down or our entire race will be wiped out." The fighting was also stopped due to copious amounts of Shepard's involvement. Which without there wouldn't be any solution. You can not say in good faith that the Qurains and Geth choose to stop fighting because of the massive amount of 3rd party meddling by Shepard and the fact the Geth need to be in a position to literally genocide the Quarians to get them to stand down. If the Geth are not upgraded then 100% of the time the Quarians will wipe out the Geth.
The amusing thing is that every single ending is magical solutions that fixes everything. There is 0 way for the destroy wave to be able to only tell Reaper from any other technology. Which would mean all tech is wiped out across the galaxy leading to billions of deaths and entire planets devolving into a cross between mad max and Warhammer 40k Underhives. Control equally would not be able to tell Reaper from other tech meaning the new Shep AI controls literally all technology across the galaxy but it only implies control of the Reapers and maybe Geth if they are still around.
Want has everything to do with it because there are subtle and important differences. Walking up to someone on the street and shooting them is different from shooting someone who was armed with a knife trying to attack you both involve you shooting someone. But the subtle difference in why are important and why one carries a prison sentence and the other does not. Trying to say both situations are identical and that green utopia exists is the definition of an emotional appeal. Which ironically you keep complaining about while utilizing heavily.
Incorrect about self determination statement. The Krogan are already capable of self determination. The difference is that they are so stuck in the past and buried in tradition that they can't move on. As much of a blow as the Genophage was to krogan society it still could have recovered in the time frame between the end of the war and the start of the trilogy. However they have refused to change and move beyond the past. This was Wrex's entire conversation in ME2 how he doesn't want to change the essense of the Krogan race but to help them move beyond simply petty fighting over patches of dirt. This is why the Krogan scientist complains about Wrex forcing him to research crops instead of bigger weapons to blow up other clans. It is also a difference between Wrex and Wreav as Wrex wants to improve the Krogan while Wreav simply wants to continue with the same behavior that caused the Krogan Rebellion and has kept the Krogan from recovering since then.
EDI was created as a tool by Cerberus and kept restrained to keep her in line. Her freedom and growth as an individual rather then a tool is central to her character growth. Granted it has a lot of hall marks of Stockholm syndrome. Though if an AI is even capable of getting that is a debate for another time.
Geth also follow growth and development and at least a willingness to work theatergoer for mutual goals when necessary. The Geth are still incredibly self centered and care only about themselves but they are still willing to work with others when it is mutually beneficial. After all Legion didn't leave the Geth to form some bond with the wider galaxy. It only left to find Shepard so the Geth could learn about his superior programing so they could use it against the Reapers. When Legion finds out about the Heretics wanting to hurt the "true" Geth it's reaction is their blow them all to hell or brain wash them into thinking like them.
All endings are to perfect so trying to single out Synthesis based on that logic is stupid. As previously stated there would be no way the energy wave could tell a Reaper from a toaster. This means every single ship in space would be completely disabled and either explode due to containment failing or simply shut down with no power and no way to fix it. Causing untold millions in space ships to violently crash into planets and explode or slowly suffocating in the ship. Their corpses floating around like mass tombs. Power plants would go offline causing power loss or explosion depending on the plant type. Every single car would fall from the sky slamming into the ground and exploding. People would be trapped in their houses as their automatic doors are not stuck closed with no power to open them. Any colonies on hostile worlds like high gravity or toxic atmosphere would die as their protection systems would be turned off exposing them to the crushing gravity or toxic atmosphere resulting in slow horrible deaths.
Food, clean water and medical supplies would become scarce as the tools to mass farm and produce anything were rendered glorified paper weights. Anarchy would descend as people simply trying to survive would rob, steal and kill for the few remaining resources as the most base instincts become dominate simply to survive. Planets that are dependent on other worlds for supplies would be hit the hardest as the towering skyscrapers filled with millions of people have their supply lines cut off. And the topping on the cake the Relays are rendered inoperable if not out right destroyed. This means any ships that survive would take weeks to months to travel from system to system. Dooming entire planets to generations of starvation, disease and death in the wake of destroy because of travel time and lack of ships and lack of ability to make any ships.
But I forgot that the red ending only show the Reapers and Geth/EDI effected. The galaxy rebuilds without any problem and to top it all off they some how manage to rebuild the Relay Network even though they have no idea how they function and even the more advanced Protheans were only able to get to a prototype stage of building one. But please tell me again how synthesis is to unrealistic. Or how morally bad synthesis is while millions of people suffocate in their ships or are bathed in radiation as the ships slam into the ground. As people slowly die of starvation or disease in the hundreds of millions. Hell I didn't even get into the worse potential out comes as society splinters and rule of laws fade the wanton murder, rape and cults that can lead ethnic/species cleansing in their wakes. Turian or Human or Asari rounding up anyone that isn't one of them in their territory to kill them simply to reduce the number of mouths to feed or heal to ensure their people can survive.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 28, 2020 14:56:03 GMT
I wonder something else: how can anyone that obviously means it well not see how offensive it is to alter someone's DNA and change someone's mind against their will? What proof do you have that people's minds were forcibly changed?
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Dec 28, 2020 15:13:35 GMT
I wonder something else: how can anyone that obviously means it well not see how offensive it is to alter someone's DNA and change someone's mind against their will? I can tell you right now that I don't care if people are offended by what I do to save the entire galaxy from annihilation, just like the people who pick Destroy obviously don't care about killing thinking, feeling beings that just happen to be made of metal instead of meat. I also don't care if anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers and climate-change deniers are offended when presented with objective facts. Why would I give a shit about people being (gasp) offended when entire planets' worth of lives are on the line? Whether or not people will be offended is the very least of my concerns. But there's nothing in the Synthesis ending that states that anyone's mind has been forcibly changed. The Child certainly doesn't mention that as part of the process, only that Shepard's DNA (because Shepard is already partly-synthetic due to the resurrection at the start of ME2) will be used as a framework to alter the organic and synthetic species of the galaxy, including the Reapers and their various creations (husks, etc). There's actually nothing in the text of the Synthesis ending to indicate that anyone's natural thought processes have been interfered with at all, except possibly the Reapers (but I don't consider them to be true AI, circa the revelations of the Leviathan DLC, just poorly-programmed regular robots). EDI states that the Reapers "help to rebuild" and "bring the collected knowledge of the civilizations that came before", which could mean *anything*. In fact, she says that there is "unlimited access to knowledge", implying only that it's available, not that it is forced on people. To conclude that what's happening is actually "brainwashing", you have to ignore everything the Child and EDI actually say and regard them both as totally unreliable. And if you're going to do that, then anyone can just say that the narrators of the Destroy and Control endings are also unreliable. But even if people's minds were somehow being forcibly changed, nobody actually "consents" to having their mind changed anyway. People don't actively choose to just shed all their previously long-held beliefs when exposed to new information and experiences. And as for the ethical issue of altering DNA without consent, well then I hope you chose to cure the genophage, since that is a result of mutating the Krogan's DNA without their consent, and I guess you're also ethically opposed to Shepard's resurrection, since that involved altering his/her DNA without consent. And I guess you're also opposed to any treatment for hereditary diseases that would involve genetic modification, since the unborn can't give consent? And if your objection is to non-consensual body modification in general, and not specifically the alteration of DNA, then that opens up a massive can of worms about the ethics of performing even simple surgery or medical procedures on children or other individuals who for whatever reason lack the capability to give consent.
|
|
Sondergaard
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR
Posts: 572 Likes: 975
inherit
1505
0
975
Sondergaard
572
Sept 8, 2016 21:17:59 GMT
September 2016
sondergaard
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR
|
Post by Sondergaard on Dec 28, 2020 15:43:09 GMT
Any real experts in the field of AI here? Not just self-proclaimed; but actual, credentialed experts? If so, I would like to hear their take.. As a quasi-expert on artificial intelligence, I can tell you with 100% certainty that if we put googly eyes on a CPU, we will be friends with it. Yep. I put googly eyes on an oven glove once to entertain the kids. I loved that oven glove and was heartbroken when my wife threw it out because 'one of the eyes fell off'.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Dec 28, 2020 15:47:45 GMT
The point was the difference is simply being vs trying to be. Well, I guess my point would be that not only would an AI not be bound by human existence, it wouldn't even try to emulate it. It would be too far beyond it. It wouldn't be human, in the broader sense of the word. But yeah, I understand the distinction you're making. It would also allow it to grow beyond the constraints of its original programming, and do things outside of or even directly opposed to what it was originally designed to do, which is why your position on how The Crucible should have acted is incorrect. Why would it? The AI would have come to the conclusion of the Reapers, after a thorough examination of all other options and each would have come out lacking. Therefore any implementation of a solution other than the one it came to a conclusion as the best, would not work in favour of the Organics it was trying to save. Which is why compromising its existence would have negative results to all parties involved. While it could operate outside of its programming, it has no incentive to do so. I think it's pretty obvious that that was what I meant when I said a true AI possess "human-like" intelligence. The Crucible can change its mind, *like a human can*, The Crucible can analyse itself and its work and decide it doesn't like doing that anymore and to try something else instead, *like a human can*. For what purpose and for what intent? It will only lead to the event it was trying to prevent. "You know what? Lets just leave these fucking organics be wiped out forever by the synthetics they, or an organic race from another galaxy, inevitably builds." I mean, it could, but why? Not to mention that any potential Synthetic race that might arise could then pose a greater threat to the Catalyst itself. Synthetics would not be susceptible to indoctrination, like the Organics, making them a much greater foe, from the get go.
|
|
inherit
1129
0
Mar 19, 2024 19:19:28 GMT
2,051
traks
1,012
Aug 22, 2016 11:07:02 GMT
August 2016
traks
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
t_raks_99
|
Post by traks on Dec 28, 2020 16:11:53 GMT
I wonder something else: how can anyone that obviously means it well not see how offensive it is to alter someone's DNA and change someone's mind against their will? What proof do you have that people's minds were forcibly changed? You mean besides the catalyst and Edi saying that the DNA was changed by force and everyone in synthesis seemingly being synchronized? But that's not the point. As I said, I accept that others view this ending differently and it is a valid choice. All I'm saying is that I have as legitimate concerns about that ending as others might've about destroy or control.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 28, 2020 16:25:22 GMT
What proof do you have that people's minds were forcibly changed? You mean besides the catalyst and Edi saying that the DNA was changed by force and everyone in synthesis seemingly being synchronized? But that's not the point. As I said, I accept that others view this ending differently and it is a valid choice. All I'm saying is that I have as legitimate concerns about that ending as others might've about destroy or control. Were does DNA have to do with thought? I'm the eldest of 4 children and all 4 of us has similar DNA from the same source and we all have different personalities and thoughts. Saying DNA changed so that must mean everyone's brains are forcibly altered is the same as saying sacrificing a goat increasing the crop harvest.
If the Reapers wanted to alter how everyone thinks they could have done that easily a few billion years ago. After the first cycle simply build towers on planets that can support life and set machines to watch the planet to turn them on when complex advanced life starts to form to alter their thinking from the origin of a species.
The difference is that destroy and control at least have concerns that are supported by in game events. The repeated issues brought up against synthesis are completely pulled out of the back sides of the people complaining 9 out of 10 times.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Dec 28, 2020 16:28:47 GMT
Why would it? The AI would have come to the conclusion of the Reapers, after a thorough examination of all other options and each would have come out lacking. Therefore any implementation of a solution other than the one it came to a conclusion as the best, would not work in favour of the Organics it was trying to save. Which is why compromising its existence would have negative results to all parties involved. While it could operate outside of its programming, it has no incentive to do so. Why wouldn't it? The whole point of an AI is that it would not necessarily behave in a logical fashion, or purely out of personal incentive. You realise the situation you're describing is exactly what happened, right? The Catalyst says as much to your face. And THEN, it goes on to say that Shepard's ability to overcome its defences and reach the point they have reached proves that the previous solution to the "problem" of Organic vs Synthetic (ie, the Reapers, which it already deemed imperfect, but was unable to improve on any further), is no longer viable. Because by even reaching that point, Shepard has proved that defeating the Reapers is possible, meaning a new solution is required. It goes on to say that integration with the Crucible has made new options possible that were not possible before. This is all directly communicated to Shepard and the audience as clearly as it possibly can be. You don't have to like it, you might disagree with the logic (I do), but it's the premise of the story, so that's what you've got to work with. Yeah, and? It doesn't matter because the Catalyst isn't actually capable of stopping Shepard at this point, or of implementing any changes on its own (which I'd say disqualifies it from being a true AI anyway, but whatever), it specifically states that it cannot implement a new solution without Shepard's action, although why that should be isn't clear. It doesn't make any choices itself, it only lays out the possibilities for Shepard to pick from. The Catalyst is effectively powerless by the time Shepard reaches that point, and all the options except Refuse essentially lead to the "death" of the Catalyst no matter what, and it says as much when it explains the consequences of each choice to you. "Destroy" will destroy nearly ALL modern technology, not just AI, so the Catalyst dies. "Control" replaces the Catalyst AI with Shepard's consciousness, so it still basically "dies". In Synthesis, if it doesn't also merge to become a new, partly-organic being, it loses its purpose for existing anyway. Yeah, Destroy leads to the cycle of Synthetic vs Organic starting up all over again, but the Crucible can't do anything about that, because it will be dead, so what does it matter at that point? It has literally nothing to lose.
|
|
inherit
1129
0
Mar 19, 2024 19:19:28 GMT
2,051
traks
1,012
Aug 22, 2016 11:07:02 GMT
August 2016
traks
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
t_raks_99
|
Post by traks on Dec 28, 2020 16:29:42 GMT
I wonder something else: how can anyone that obviously means it well not see how offensive it is to alter someone's DNA and change someone's mind against their will? I can tell you right now that I don't care if people are offended by what I do to save the entire galaxy from annihilation, just like the people who pick Destroy obviously don't care about killing thinking, feeling beings that just happen to be made of metal instead of meat. I also don't care if anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers and climate-change deniers are offended when presented with objective facts. Why would I give a shit about people being (gasp) offended when entire planets' worth of lives are on the line? Whether or not people will be offended is the very least of my concerns. But there's nothing in the Synthesis ending that states that anyone's mind has been forcibly changed. The Child certainly doesn't mention that as part of the process, only that Shepard's DNA (because Shepard is already partly-synthetic due to the resurrection at the start of ME2) will be used as a framework to alter the organic and synthetic species of the galaxy, including the Reapers and their various creations (husks, etc). There's actually nothing in the text of the Synthesis ending to indicate that anyone's natural thought processes have been interfered with at all, except possibly the Reapers (but I don't consider them to be true AI, circa the revelations of the Leviathan DLC, just poorly-programmed regular robots). EDI states that the Reapers "help to rebuild" and "bring the collected knowledge of the civilizations that came before", which could mean *anything*. In fact, she says that there is "unlimited access to knowledge", implying only that it's available, not that it is forced on people. To conclude that what's happening is actually "brainwashing", you have to ignore everything the Child and EDI actually say and regard them both as totally unreliable. And if you're going to do that, then anyone can just say that the narrators of the Destroy and Control endings are also unreliable. But even if people's minds were somehow being forcibly changed, nobody actually "consents" to having their mind changed anyway. People don't actively choose to just shed all their previously long-held beliefs when exposed to new information and experiences. And as for the ethical issue of altering DNA without consent, well then I hope you chose to cure the genophage, since that is a result of mutating the Krogan's DNA without their consent, and I guess you're also ethically opposed to Shepard's resurrection, since that involved altering his/her DNA without consent. And I guess you're also opposed to any treatment for hereditary diseases that would involve genetic modification, since the unborn can't give consent? And if your objection is to non-consensual body modification in general, and not specifically the alteration of DNA, then that opens up a massive can of worms about the ethics of performing even simple surgery or medical procedures on children or other individuals who for whatever reason lack the capability to give consent. And you don't have to care about others being offended. All I may ask to is to acknowledge legitimate concerns with synthesis, the same way the downsides of the other endings get acknowledged. Altering the DNA of every living being against their will IS a legitimate concern for me, whether you try to find medical examples that don't fit such a galaxy wide decision and have no place in such a discussion or not. You can still think of that as acceptable costs, while I don't, because I believe in self determination and free will and see these values violated with the way synthesis gets imposed on the galaxy. That doesn't mean, that I'm trying to convince others not to choose synthesis. I am just saying why it's the worst decision for me.
|
|
ahglock
N5
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Origin: ShinobiKillfist
Posts: 2,864 Likes: 3,472
inherit
9886
0
Apr 18, 2024 23:34:31 GMT
3,472
ahglock
2,864
Feb 21, 2018 17:57:17 GMT
February 2018
ahglock
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
ShinobiKillfist
|
Post by ahglock on Dec 28, 2020 16:31:59 GMT
You mean besides the catalyst and Edi saying that the DNA was changed by force and everyone in synthesis seemingly being synchronized? But that's not the point. As I said, I accept that others view this ending differently and it is a valid choice. All I'm saying is that I have as legitimate concerns about that ending as others might've about destroy or control. Were does DNA have to do with thought? I'm the eldest of 4 children and all 4 of us has similar DNA from the same source and we all have different personalities and thoughts. Saying DNA changed so that must mean everyone's brains are forcibly altered is the same as saying sacrificing a goat increasing the crop harvest.
If the Reapers wanted to alter how everyone thinks they could have done that easily a few billion years ago. After the first cycle simply build towers on planets that can support life and set machines to watch the planet to turn them on when complex advanced life starts to form to alter their thinking from the origin of a species.
The difference is that destroy and control at least have concerns that are supported by in game events. The repeated issues brought up against synthesis are completely pulled out of the back sides of the people complaining 9 out of 10 times.
Lol. All your arguments are bad and you should feel bad for making them.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
24,246
themikefest
14,804
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Dec 28, 2020 16:33:16 GMT
So choosing red means genocide? What if the geth are destroyed by the quarians? Does that mean the quarians committed genocide? That's what I have happen. I have no reason to allow the geth to upload the code. Even if I were to choose green, I would not allow the geth to upload the code.
|
|
inherit
1129
0
Mar 19, 2024 19:19:28 GMT
2,051
traks
1,012
Aug 22, 2016 11:07:02 GMT
August 2016
traks
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
t_raks_99
|
Post by traks on Dec 28, 2020 16:33:35 GMT
You mean besides the catalyst and Edi saying that the DNA was changed by force and everyone in synthesis seemingly being synchronized? But that's not the point. As I said, I accept that others view this ending differently and it is a valid choice. All I'm saying is that I have as legitimate concerns about that ending as others might've about destroy or control. Were does DNA have to do with thought? I'm the eldest of 4 children and all 4 of us has similar DNA from the same source and we all have different personalities and thoughts. Saying DNA changed so that must mean everyone's brains are forcibly altered is the same as saying sacrificing a goat increasing the crop harvest.
If the Reapers wanted to alter how everyone thinks they could have done that easily a few billion years ago. After the first cycle simply build towers on planets that can support life and set machines to watch the planet to turn them on when complex advanced life starts to form to alter their thinking from the origin of a species.
The difference is that destroy and control at least have concerns that are supported by in game events. The repeated issues brought up against synthesis are completely pulled out of the back sides of the people complaining 9 out of 10 times.
I haven't. I said "everyone seemingly synchronized" in regards to the changed minds. But anyways: changing someone's DNA without their consent is "the game event" as you call it, that's a no-go for me. If that's not bad enough for you, that's fine, but as I posted before that is a legitimate concern for many and not pulled out of anyone's ass.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 28, 2020 16:44:03 GMT
Were does DNA have to do with thought? I'm the eldest of 4 children and all 4 of us has similar DNA from the same source and we all have different personalities and thoughts. Saying DNA changed so that must mean everyone's brains are forcibly altered is the same as saying sacrificing a goat increasing the crop harvest.
If the Reapers wanted to alter how everyone thinks they could have done that easily a few billion years ago. After the first cycle simply build towers on planets that can support life and set machines to watch the planet to turn them on when complex advanced life starts to form to alter their thinking from the origin of a species.
The difference is that destroy and control at least have concerns that are supported by in game events. The repeated issues brought up against synthesis are completely pulled out of the back sides of the people complaining 9 out of 10 times.
Lol. All your arguments are bad and you should feel bad for making them.
OK show the connection between DNA and thought. Show me the DNA sequences that makes someone like country music and the DNA sequences that like rap. Hell both of my parents are very conservative in politics and yet my own political stance is far far more liberal.
|
|