Is Control Possible

Raistlin Majere is right, once the Geth have the code all synthetics in the galaxy that currently exist are by definition "People"... which means it's murder if you kill them. Corranus there is no such thing as against nature, and even if there was you might as well stay on your home planet scratching your ass waiting for your home star to die taking you with it in total annihilation. NATURE WANTS TO KILL YOU!

Also an important thing about AI is that it is a growing mind. You can not even neglect an organic mind without it ending badly, so if you don't want Synthetics to rebel then do what Shepard did with EDI and teach them. This is what is lacking in those movies, if you let a child learn by itself 100% it usually becomes a sociopath, AI are our children, teach them and they will grow in a healthy and safe manner.

Corranus you are reacting like Homophobes do to Homosexuality. We don't need to keep repeating the bigot cycle -_-

Also Synthesis is wrong for other reasons, first off from the literalist perspective it is forced on everyone. People should always have the right to choose, otherwise the default is everyone dies as extinction is better than sacrificing freedom. Any form of synthesis also seems to cause stagnation in Evolution. Something cannot be wrong if everyone involved is consensual, but then again there is no reason to consent to Synthesis. I'm already 1 person who would not consent because I'd want my own path.

@BleedingUranium First off nobody said it ONLY indoctrinates with infra and ultrasonic noise, those are just a few of the things it involves. Besides that is not what I am talking about, don't be naive. I am talking about the fact that circumventing natural progress always seems to end horribly. Also why would we want everything to be handed to us? What are we bums?

It WILL end horribly to use any tech that isn't yours, you need to figure out how to achieve it on your own... and aside from it being perfectly safe to figure it out on your own, it's more fulfilling to figure it out on your own. Now maybe we can use their tech to beat them here and now, but afterwards we need to forget about it. Replace the relays with our own method and throw away the Thannix cannons, we don't need this stuff afterwards.

Edit: WOOT TOP! I have reached the apex of this page, you cannot comprehend it

IronicParticle wrote:Raistlin Majere is right, once the Geth have the code all synthetics in the galaxy that currently exist are by definition "People"... which means it's murder if you kill them. Corranus there is no such thing as against nature, and even if there was you might as well stay on your home planet scratching your ass waiting for your home star to die taking you with it in total annihilation. NATURE WANTS TO KILL YOU!

Also an important thing about AI is that it is a growing mind. You can not even neglect an organic mind without it ending badly, so if you don't want Synthetics to rebel then do what Shepard did with EDI and teach them. This is what is lacking in those movies, if you let a child learn by itself 100% it usually becomes a sociopath, AI are our children, teach them and they will grow in a healthy and safe manner.

Corranus you are reacting like Homophobes do to Homosexuality. We don't need to keep repeating the bigot cycle -_-

Naah, I still don't trust synthetics. They're just artificial constructs created to do hard work faster and better. Tools, nothing more, and AI? It has a tendency to rebel against it's creators. I'm with the Reapers on this one.
"The creating will always turn against their creators" - as a matter of fact it is a popular theme in Sci-Fi. Sure, there are a couple heart-breaking stories about synthetics being "humans" but for them it's all numbers, data. They are not alive. You can program them to recognize emotions, imitate them, but they will never understand them. They will never feel how it is when blood is rushing through your veins, pumping heart, emotions it creates. They're dead. They might be intelligent but they're dead...

I'd prefer to be killed by nature as you described than by some toaster that says it has soul and wants to be "alive". Synthetics aren't part of the Nature, they shouldn't even exist.

Toasters are toasters. Now bake me some bread or something! ;>

CorranusMaximus wrote:

IronicParticle wrote:Raistlin Majere is right, once the Geth have the code all synthetics in the galaxy that currently exist are by definition "People"... which means it's murder if you kill them. Corranus there is no such thing as against nature, and even if there was you might as well stay on your home planet scratching your ass waiting for your home star to die taking you with it in total annihilation. NATURE WANTS TO KILL YOU!

Also an important thing about AI is that it is a growing mind. You can not even neglect an organic mind without it ending badly, so if you don't want Synthetics to rebel then do what Shepard did with EDI and teach them. This is what is lacking in those movies, if you let a child learn by itself 100% it usually becomes a sociopath, AI are our children, teach them and they will grow in a healthy and safe manner.

Corranus you are reacting like Homophobes do to Homosexuality. We don't need to keep repeating the bigot cycle -_-

Naah, I still don't trust synthetics. They're just artificial constructs created to do hard work faster and better. Tools, nothing more, and AI? It has a tendency to rebel against it's creators. I'm with the Reapers on this one.
"The creating will always turn against their creators" - as a matter of fact it is a popular theme in Sci-Fi. Sure, there are a couple heart-breaking stories about synthetics being "humans" but for them it's all numbers, data. They are not alive. You can program them to recognize emotions, imitate them, but they will never understand them. They will never feel how it is when blood is rushing through your veins, pumping heart, emotions it creates. They're dead. They might be intelligent but they're dead...

I'd prefer to be killed by nature as you described than by some toaster that says it has soul and wants to be "alive". Synthetics aren't part of the Nature, they shouldn't even exist.

Toasters are toasters. Now bake me some bread or something! ;>

A VI, is indeed just a machine created to carry out a task. However the moment you upgrade to a true AI things become quite different.

And actually a AI could in theory come to feel and understand emotions quite like we do, it is all about mapping out the brains processes down to the very last and then building that as a robotic brain instead. Every impulse, every thought process, everything perfectly mimicked in a metal shell. In theory at least.

And that bit about AI always rebelling against humans...I actually find it one of the most tired and overused cliche's used in storytelling as I consider it quite implausible. Beyond the fact that a sophisticated AI created by humanity would most likely be heavily shackled and not have access to every system (probably out of fear) but the mere idea that AI will often rebel against humans is (as far as i know) based on nothing.

Off course we can hardly predict how a AI would really react as we haven't any of sufficient power or intelligence in our current world, but once sufficiently advanced I believe there would be no difference between an AI and a human being, except things like processing power and memory.

Whatever the case it is kinda of a moot point in Mass Effect as clearly AI there can learn to understand and express emotions. EDI quite clearly shows this, observing and learning over the cause of her relationship to Joker finishing with Shepard's line "sounds like you have found a little humanity EDI, is it worth defending?" to which EDI answers "To the death."

Also if the Reapers didn't understand it before I do believe they are starting to learn things such as frustration, anger and hate :stick:

@Corranus: Emotions are things that CAN be reproduced because in all reality their just chemical reactions in the brain. It's not just a simulation, you could make nerves so they could feel pain, so they could feel sorrow... or joy and pleasure, etc. There is no such thing as a soul, and I am justified in saying this because not only is there no evidence of a soul... nobody has ever defined it, nor explain how it works.

Sci-Fi is just that, fiction. We don't know what Bioware aspires for, but considering they are heavily influenced by Lovecraftian sci-fi they might as well aspire to be different. Technically Indoctrination Theory is doing something different.

AI has a tendency to rebel because everyone usually expects them to be tools like you said, to be slaves. Which is immoral on our part and if you look at any time in human history... slaves inevitably rebel. EDI is not an emotionless thing, you can tell she is being genuinely honest... in fact that is her place in this series and I'm surprised nobody realizes this when talking about Synthetics in this series.

Her purpose is supposed to be to show how to successfully raise an AI. Hell she got shot at during her "birth" and still came out alright. She might've rebelled when she first met Shepard but she learned from him and this has resulted in an alive morally good being.

You can argue all you want but that is the exact intentions on Bioware's part, they wouldn't make it feel genuine if they were trying to make the point you are.

Maybe you guys should make a thread to debate whether synthetics are alive or not.

I see some solid debating going on, but it no longer seems like we're discussing if control is possible.

I mean, we could split the thread, if need be.

*slowly lowers hand towards quick mod tools*

Even if AIs couldn't be people in reality, they are in Mass Effect.

Saying that AIs are not people on the same level as organics in Mass Effect, is like saying that magic doesn't exist in the LotR or Harry Potter universes.

But yeah, this is off-topic now.

raistlinmajare wrote:Also if the Reapers didn't understand it before I do believe they are starting to learn things such as frustration, anger and hate :stick:

Ok, will try to connect it with the "Control topic"...

Reapers have organic brains and minds so we can assume that they are able to feel emotions as we do. They're just hell lot more patient and they don't react to emotions quickly. After all, Shepard is "just" an annoyance to them. :P

Ok, be it your way, let's say that Synthetics could be "alive" with all our organic stuff in them as mechanical constructs, wires, processing power etc.
I *might* agree with you that it is possible to create an AI capable of understanding, thinking, learning, felling, etc. To recreate all that organic stuff with mechanical constructs. Would mean, that we're machines too, but with a different construction. Don't like to think that way, we're something more. Now, I too don't believe that humans have a "soul". That's what """"" (<---- these) are for. I do believe though that there is some metaphorical "soul" in us. That thing that makes us humans. Very essence of being human, you know. Purely non-religious stuff, really, it's more... metaphorical context here. It's not about a God or some other divine being. It's about us, we have that "soul". Synthetics don't. Toasters. Clankers. Tinnies.

I'm not supporting slavery, but machine doesn't know what it means to be enslaved. It is their function, even if an AI. They were made to serve and there's nothing wrong with it. It is they're "primary programming" and only reason to exist, even if fully self-aware. If it doesn't accept it, then it is no longer needed. That's what memory-wipe is for. Cruel if u think about AI as a "living being", yes....but I don't.

Now, there are no reasons to trust EDI completely. She's an unshackled AI, created by The Cerberus with use of Sovereign's parts and VI from Luna base. Reverse engineering is bad anyone? She serves her primary programming by taking care for Shepard and his crew in ME2 & ME3, but still she's a machine created with use of Reaper tech. I'm sure thet EVA's body have some Reaper parts in in too.

What if Harby can control EDI ? He's much more powerful AI, have much more processing power to defeat EDI in "mind-battle" and we can safely assume that EDI will rebel at some point, when reprogrammed. That is what I'm afraid of. Never liked the idea of giving her body. Now she can easily kill everyone on the Normandy if reprogrammed...

Maybe this is what happens in the "Control" ending? Shepard becomes Indoctrinated to some degree and EDI attempts to kill him or something. I got that feeling that we will regret trusting EDI. Don't know why. Pattern recognition perhaps? AI can be controlled very easy. For Reapers it is a peace of cake to reprogram an AI and have it as a slave...

I'm bumping this thread in response to the chat conversation I had with Andromidus, Hrothdane, and Rifneno.

We an discuss here

I said this in another topic, but I will drop it here as well...

I think all you need to know about control you can learn from TIM in ME 2 - he had every opportunity to implant Shep with a "control" chip but chose not to, because (simply put) he knew it wasn't good. Yet, he becomes the biggest advocate of "control" in ME 3...if not then, why now?

I believe the whole thing back there started with a discussion on TIM and the Collector ship mission.

DSharrah wrote:I said this in another topic, but I will drop it here as well...

I think all you need to know about control you can learn from TIM in ME 2 - he had every opportunity to implant Shep with a "control" chip but chose not to, because (simply put) he knew it wasn't good. Yet, he becomes the biggest advocate of "control" in ME 3...if not then, why now?

. Because he wanted Shepard. Not a puppet. He wants the reapers under control. Shepard isn't a danger to humanity, the Reapers are

ElSuperGecko wrote:I'd say Control is possible, but not in the way TIM expects or believe it to be.

It's fairly clear from the EC slides and Shepard's dialogue that the AI that controls the Reapers is not actually Shepard. It is an artificial being created from Shepard's memories, and thoughts. How much of Shepard's own personality and will remains is, however, questionable.

So how does Control work, then? Simple. Shepard is uploaded into a Reaper body. He becomes the new Harbinger. The rest of the Reaper fleet bows down to him, follows his instructions and orders, on the behalf of the Catalyst.

So you see - the Catalyst does not lie. Control is possible. Shepard does essentially end up comanding the Reapers... however, the manner in which he Controls the Reapers may not be what people believe it to be, or hope it to be.

This.

Control is the Dark Side of Mass Effect. It may has had results that enabled the good guys to do the good thing (Krogan, Geth, Shepard's return, etc), but in itself, it is ruination.

Pick Control if you want an Evil Shep, Synthesis if you want a Foolish Shep, and Destroy if you want a Genuine Shep.

The ending of the game is a hidden boss fight against the Reapers and their ideals. You embrace servitude in Synthesis, but struggle for your own version of Control in Control. Destroy is freedom.

Can you control the Reapers? No, but you can upload a copy of yourself (which the Reapers consider to be just as valid as yourself) into a Reaper and send a signal to control the Reapers from there, yes.

umadcommander wrote:okay lets say IT is confirmed this means that The illusive man is still kicking, this could open up a possibility of agreeing with him and controlling the reapers. I dont think the squad will take too kindly to this but it would be a renegade ending done right

I think along these lines.

In Synthesis, you'll be working for the Reapers and fighting TIM, who actually still resists the Reapers in some form.

In Control, you'll be fighting the Reapers but TIM will reappear and you'll actually go fully along with him for once. The Reapers know they have you in the end, though.

In Destroy, you'll be fighting the Reapers and fighting TIM, like always.

IronicParticle wrote:@Corranus: Emotions are things that CAN be reproduced because in all reality their just chemical reactions in the brain. It's not just a simulation, you could make nerves so they could feel pain, so they could feel sorrow... or joy and pleasure, etc. There is no such thing as a soul, and I am justified in saying this because not only is there no evidence of a soul... nobody has ever defined it, nor explain how it works.

Sci-Fi is just that, fiction. We don't know what Bioware aspires for, but considering they are heavily influenced by Lovecraftian sci-fi they might as well aspire to be different. Technically Indoctrination Theory is doing something different.

AI has a tendency to rebel because everyone usually expects them to be tools like you said, to be slaves. Which is immoral on our part and if you look at any time in human history... slaves inevitably rebel. EDI is not an emotionless thing, you can tell she is being genuinely honest... in fact that is her place in this series and I'm surprised nobody realizes this when talking about Synthetics in this series.

Her purpose is supposed to be to show how to successfully raise an AI. Hell she got shot at during her "birth" and still came out alright. She might've rebelled when she first met Shepard but she learned from him and this has resulted in an alive morally good being.

You can argue all you want but that is the exact intentions on Bioware's part, they wouldn't make it feel genuine if they were trying to make the point you are.

Well I think it's less about 'is there a soul'.

And more about 'once you decide you have a soul, and work to preserve it... you have a soul'. This is all the way from organic minds, to synthetic minds.

When you abandon that concept, you become a sociopathic organic, or a sociopathic synthetic. And synthetic minds just expand a hell of a lot faster than organic, meaning their devastating potential in Mass Effect is much more huge.

No, controlling the Reapers is not possible.

Shepard: What went wrong with the experiment?
Gavin Archer: David volunteered to interface with the VI to give it genuine consciousness. Theoretically it should have been safe, but... with artificial intelligence there is no such thing as safe.
Shepard: Then you shouldn't have attempted it.

EDI: When two AI weapons are pitted against each other, the one with superior hardware will always win. Human misjudgements defy predictive models.

I think "Control" is only possible to an extent and without fairly constant modifications I do not think it could be sustained when attempting to control the Reapers. I'm not talking about the fairy tale silly BS from the decision chamber though. I'm just talking general control over the Reapers. I never found the decision chamber to be serious enough to accept even as Sci-Fi. Even if we were to be able to control the Reapers, eventually they evolve and get past it. I'll actually mention the decision chamber for the sake of mentioning it lol. If we chose to Control the Reapers that way then eventually they would either adapt, evolve and break free of control or Shepard would eventually become more like a Reaper and think more like the Reapers would which would likely lessen their resistance.

I know some of what was typed earlier is off topic but I wanted to respond briefly anyways. Does a synthetic have a soul? I think that's a question without an answer because having a soul is a belief and not an actual proven fact and I highly doubt Bioware would ever touch that in detail given negativity they could receive since having a soul would be too religion based to make an important issue in a Sci-Fi video game. To answer that, I do think a synthetic can believe it has a soul because near the end of ME3, EDI was starting to show emotions which indicates in the Mass Effect world that the AI can continue to evolve and process things that the human brain normally only would be able to.

My final take on is control possible is that control is a mistake because even if every scenario of Shepard controlling the Reapers could be a good one, one have to wonder how long until the "no longer alive" Shepard which likely would have become "the intelligence" would end up thinking like a Reaper or some sort of synthetic which would be leading in that general direction.

DoomsdayDevice wrote:No, controlling the Reapers is not possible.

Shepard: What went wrong with the experiment?
Gavin Archer: David volunteered to interface with the VI to give it genuine consciousness. Theoretically it should have been safe, but... with artificial intelligence there is no such thing as safe.
Shepard: Then you shouldn't have attempted it.

EDI: When two AI weapons are pitted against each other, the one with superior hardware will always win. Human misjudgements defy predictive models.

. Overlord is irrelevant for Controlling the Reapers.

southbeatz wrote:

My final take on is control possible is that control is a mistake because even if every scenario of Shepard controlling the Reapers could be a good one, one have to wonder how long until the "no longer alive" Shepard which likely would have become "the intelligence" would end up thinking like a Reaper or some sort of synthetic which would be leading in that general direction.

. Why would that necessarily happen?

Steelcan wrote:

DoomsdayDevice wrote:No, controlling the Reapers is not possible.

Shepard: What went wrong with the experiment?
Gavin Archer: David volunteered to interface with the VI to give it genuine consciousness. Theoretically it should have been safe, but... with artificial intelligence there is no such thing as safe.
Shepard: Then you shouldn't have attempted it.

EDI: When two AI weapons are pitted against each other, the one with superior hardware will always win. Human misjudgements defy predictive models.

. Overlord is irrelevant for Controlling the Reapers.

I don't see how its irrelevant. Cerberus attempts to take control of the minds of a synthetic race using a human mind, and fails miserably. Shepard attempts to take control of an even more advanced race of synthetics by uploading his mind into the catalyst. Foreshadowing would suggest that he too would fail miserably at it.

no the catalyst is only offering it because he knows you'll slip back into his ways it's indoctrination.

GethPrimeMKII wrote:

Steelcan wrote:

DoomsdayDevice wrote:No, controlling the Reapers is not possible.

Shepard: What went wrong with the experiment?
Gavin Archer: David volunteered to interface with the VI to give it genuine consciousness. Theoretically it should have been safe, but... with artificial intelligence there is no such thing as safe.
Shepard: Then you shouldn't have attempted it.

EDI: When two AI weapons are pitted against each other, the one with superior hardware will always win. Human misjudgements defy predictive models.

. Overlord is irrelevant for Controlling the Reapers.

I don't see how its irrelevant. Cerberus attempts to take control of the minds of a synthetic race using a human mind, and fails miserably. Shepard attempts to take control of an even more advanced race of synthetics by uploading his mind into the catalyst. Foreshadowing would suggest that he too would fail miserably at it.

. Overlord isn't canon. Plenty of people never saw it, and I say Overlord has more in common with synthesis than control.

And the basis for Control's feasibility is Sanctuary, not Overlord

Steelcan wrote:

GethPrimeMKII wrote:

Steelcan wrote:

DoomsdayDevice wrote:No, controlling the Reapers is not possible.

Shepard: What went wrong with the experiment?
Gavin Archer: David volunteered to interface with the VI to give it genuine consciousness. Theoretically it should have been safe, but... with artificial intelligence there is no such thing as safe.
Shepard: Then you shouldn't have attempted it.

EDI: When two AI weapons are pitted against each other, the one with superior hardware will always win. Human misjudgements defy predictive models.

. Overlord is irrelevant for Controlling the Reapers.

I don't see how its irrelevant. Cerberus attempts to take control of the minds of a synthetic race using a human mind, and fails miserably. Shepard attempts to take control of an even more advanced race of synthetics by uploading his mind into the catalyst. Foreshadowing would suggest that he too would fail miserably at it.

. Overlord isn't canon. Plenty of people never saw it, and I say Overlord has more in common with synthesis than control.

And the basis for Control's feasibility is Sanctuary, not Overlord

By that logic you would no longer be able to use the Extended Cut to defend your case for control.

GethPrimeMKII wrote:

By that logic you would no longer be able to use the Extended Cut to defend your case for control.

. The difference is that the EC isn a mission DLC. It just expands on the game, it doesn't add anything new, besides refuse.

Steelcan wrote:

GethPrimeMKII wrote:

By that logic you would no longer be able to use the Extended Cut to defend your case for control.

. The difference is that the EC isn a mission DLC. It just expands on the game, it doesn't add anything new, besides refuse.

We really can't pick and choose what's canon and what's not. By the developers' own admission, all DLC and all comics/books (with te exception of Mass Effect: Deception) are canon.

Your argument for what makes Overlord non canon doesn't make much sense. I fail to see how this DLC could be considered non canon while another DLC is.

But let's not get into another argument over which DLC is canon or not. Let's make things easier by looking at just the base game. I believe there is enough evidence in the base game to prove control of the Reapers is impossible. Control is like the Devil's temptation. It is highly tempting and seemingly attainable, but will ruin anyone who pursues it.

GethPrimeMKII wrote:


We really can't pick and choose what's canon and what's not. By the developers' own admission, all DLC and all comics/books (with te exception of Mass Effect: Deception) are canon.

Your argument for what makes Overlord non canon doesn't make much sense. I fail to see how this DLC could be considered non canon while another DLC is.

But let's not get into another argument over which DLC is canon or not. Let's make things easier by looking at just the base game. I believe there is enough evidence in the base game to prove control of the Reapers is impossible. Control is like the Devil's temptation. It is highly tempting and seemingly attainable, but will ruin anyone who pursues it.

. Sanctuary proves otherwise. It validates TIM. Throughout the game we have no reason to believe it is possible. Sanctuary changes that.