| ||||||
Name change[]
You deleted my article yet you basically copied and pasted all the stuff I did. And my one was correct you only label it as synth but in the gameplay it CLEARLY says synth ASSAULTER. Please explain yourself. - GREENTOAST11
- Calm down. The main creature is Synth. All variants of the synth go on that same page, like you see on all creature pages. Jspoel
16:54, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
Mysterious synth in Scollay Square[]
Having had an image removed directly after posting, the reason being given "Speculation, may very well be just a cyborg or simply a bad quality for taht section of the trailer.", I wanted to respond. Firstly, as Jspoelastra posted above, all variants of synths go on this page so cyborg or not it should go here. it seems that Synth is the term being used for Fallout 4.
Second the image was taken from the uncompressed1080HD version of the Fallout 4 Trailer which allows for quite a lot more detail to be noted and avoids most of the visual artefacting of the compressed version. To help explain the reasoning behind proposing that it is indeed a Synth I created an annotated 1080 image which highlights the synth features & details which I feel confirm with reasonable confidence that this is the case. The best way is to download the HD uncompressed video and check the scene frame by frame which is what I did. Based on this I feel it provides sufficient certainty to post the image (original posted in the gallery) unless others also feel it is not convincing enough. --Lunamoonraker (talk) 06:08, June 22, 2015 (UTC)
- In the end the 'Mystery Synth' seen in the Fallout 4 trailer walking through Scollay Square in Goodneighbor turned out to be Nick Valentine, a Gen 2 Synth. --Lunamoonraker (talk) 08:38, January 21, 2016 (UTC)
Terminator[]
Can we add a trivia section and make note of the similarities between synths and the terminators from the Terminator franchise? Both are cybernetic organisms engineered to look human so that they can blend into human environments. Both feature an endoskeleton beneath their artificial skin that looks very much like a human skeleton. As well, in both Fallout 4 and the Terminator movies, the synths/terminators are created in America after a nuclear disaster. --198.53.255.140 07:33, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
About 3rd gen[]
I was wandering about 3rd generation synths' physiology and reproducing system. If you have seen their creation process, you could notice that they are made of flesh and blood, so they technically can be called humans or even more. Well, if that so, are they able to befriend to somebody, fall in love and mate in order to have children? Can they have children with "normal" humans? Would that offspring of this couple inherit kinda superpowers from synth and can we call it hybrid? p.s. if there's any grammatical, lexic or punctial errors, forgive me, my english isn't good. УжеЧасДумаюНадНиком (talk)
3rd generation Synth are like Replicants from "Blade Runner A synthetic human with paraphysical capabilities. It is a genetically engineered creature composed entirely of organic substance. much stronger and faster than, and virtually indistinguishable from, real human beings. That why they needed Shaun's DNA and why he is called Father in institute.
Aren't all Gen 3 synths technically the grandchildren of the Solesurvivor since his ow child DNA was used in their creation. Or was did the institute merely need the DNA for replication purposes and build their DNA using un tainted amino acids from shaun? That being said personally i had reservations about romancing the synth party members for the reason of Shaun's DNA being used.
-Kage_Yojimbo-Kage Yojimbo (talk) 20:09, November 20, 2015 (UTC)
I would think that would be the case with Gen 3 Synths and in that case they actually are artificial humans instead of hyper advanced robots.
Hackable?[]
These synths are listed under 'robots' under the general Fallout 4 page, but as far as I can tell, can't be hacked with the 'Robotics Expert' perk. Would it be better to file the synths under a different category, since the game seems to differentiate between synths and robots?
They should be in their own category, they are not robots or humans and dont share all of the mechanics of either. ItsHectic (talk) 17:55, December 23, 2015 (UTC)
About the Behind The Scenes section[]
If we are going to put details about every movie, show, book, etc. that depicts androids that are very human-like, or a world after nuclear war this is going to be a huge page with many unnecessary details. Even if we narrow down by both androids AND nuclear war.
Synth Infiltrator[]
Isnt Infiltrator missing from the types?
Yes. It seems it is.
Danse/Deckard[]
In terms of Blade Runner references, there's also Paladin Danse, whose job it is to hunt down and kill androids, and who turns out to be one himself, much like Rick Deckard from Blade Runner.
Are there only two places that you can locate synths at or are there more? (Arcject wasn't listed, neither was the subway by Greentop Nursery)
Hunting down and killing androids is not specifically Danse's job, though. The only real two jobs that are seen being given to him, are the scouting of the Boston ruins, and overseeing your training as you continue to work with Elder Maxson. 寧靜 
23:15, August 18, 2016 (UTC)
Desire to add fun trivia piece, unsure if it belongs[]
Basically mentioned in this wiki: https://fallout.gamepedia.com/Synth That gen' 3 androids particularly enjoy Fancy Lad Snack Cakes, much to Liam Binet's bemusement.
"It just doesn't make any sense. I've run the diagnostics. Quadruple-checked the neural mappings. Done comparative analyses of taste buds. Tracked digestive patterns. Hell, I've even gone so far as to simply ASK several of them, and still, I'm no closer to answering the question: Why do Gen 3 synths like to eat Fancy Lads Snack Cakes? I mean, sure, they have the capacity to experience taste. Every Gen 3 possesses the synthetic equivalent of the requisite receptor cells. But why this? And why all of them? Good thing it's physically impossible for a Gen 3 to actually gain weight and succumb to obesity. Wouldn't that be quite the Achilles' Heel? Humanity's most impressive technological achievement - laid low by junk food."
The reason why I hesitate is: The note section appears to be noting more valued info' than mere fun comedy and I don't believe this is well suited for the ¨behind the scenes¨ section. So, I mention it here. --Theh5 (talk) 10:34, June 24, 2018 (UTC)
Electrical melee damage?[]
When a synth attacks with its stumps, an electrical effect arcs across the Sole Survivor's body. Can anyone on PC confirm that electrical damage is also being done and that this isn't a cosmetic effect? Great Mara (talk) 23:12, January 5, 2019 (UTC)
some of the claims about synths are inaccurate[]
The idea that *current* third-generation synths do not age, are immune to disease, do not require sleep, and do not need to eat is far-fetched and not well supported by the only currently cited source. Specifically, Max says, "Their potential is limitless. [...] Imagine what you could accomplish if you could live without fear of hunger or disease. [...]".
I believe that here Max is imagining possibilities, not current technology. Consider in contrast one of Curie's most common post-transformation lines: "All of these bodily functions. How do you keep track of them all? I am hungry, I am sleepy. The list goes on.""
Furthermore, if synths could go without food or especially water, then a SAFE test would be trivially simple: keep a suspect in a cage for a few days, see if they succumb to dehydration. Or deprive them of sleep and observe the effects.
Additionally, although I believe it is fairly well established that the Sole Survivor is not a synth, this idea would be very easily defeated if synths did not need sleep or food, and could not catch disease: the Sole Survivor is vulnerable to all of these conditions, at least when playing on Survival.
I suspect it is much more likely that *current* third-generation synths are functionally identical to humans, but that the potential for improvements is wide open, given the FEV's ability to make sweeping changes to DNA (I imagine it's similar CRISPR, actually, just vastly more powerful).
And the whole "cannot gain or lose weight" is simply bizarre. What source is supposed to support this claim?
My response:
1) The problem is if that was the SAFE test, the people who passed would be dead. So what would be the point of the test? Also, we should assume the people of the Commonwealth, outside The Institute, have some degree of ignorance to how synths function.
2) Synth infiltrators in your settlement do not sleep.
3) How could Curie even be uploaded into a synth if synths and humans were identical? Dr. Amari tells you a synth brain is different from an "organic brain."
4) Institute scientists talk about how Shaun (synth) will never age.
5) Everything Max says is in response to how synths are superior to humans, so I'd think that response would only make sense if he was talking about what synths were capable of right now? --De2nis (talk) 00:08, January 2, 2020 (UTC)
Gen 3 Synths being "biological"[]
"Almost entirely biological" I really, really have to object to this wording in the article on Gen 3 synths. Synths are not simply humans with brain implants. If this were the case, they would not be immune to disease, incapable of aging, etc. They are also made in the Robotics Division, rather than Bio-science. They are also referred to as robots in at least two instances I can recall off the top of my head: once when Maxson orders you to kill Danse, a second time when SS tells synth Shaun "You're not Shaun, you're a robot...made to think you're real." I think "Essentially biological" would be a better descriptor than "Almost entirely biological." Calling them "biological" is subjective at best, objectively false at worse. I think Bethesda was going out of their way to show The Institute had pushed technology so far the lines between biology and technology were blurred. --De2nis (talk) 00:29, January 2, 2020 (UTC)
- Look, its hardly speculative. You quote Maxson and a grieving sole survivor, who make a racist remark out of shock and anger, at losing their best paladin and their real son, respectively. The insitute is a small, self-contained underground bunker, and they really dont have much room for the giant gen-3 production facility. Due to the phasing out of gen-1's, they reused the robotics, rather than jamming it into the crowded bioscience wing, or making a new wing. Even watching the construction process proves their biolicity, so there is zero speculation. Even reading the bloody article proves its correct.--Dankalor😳 18:54, January 2, 2020 (UTC)
How on God's Green Earth does the creation process prove they are biological!? Also, in that very same room, Dr. Loken also refers to them as machines. "If you're about to launch into one of your impassioned speeches and machines with souls, don't bother," he says. Dr. Zimmer refers to them as machines in Fallout 3 as well. --De2nis (talk) 00:44, January 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Literally every example youve put forth has been stated by racists. The institute is notoriously racist to the synths, and calling them machines is the same as calling a ghoul a zombie. And the creation process literally shows it being assembled with bones, being adorned with muscles and being dipped in a solution to grow flesh. I dont know about you, but i dont seem to recall ever seeing robots with human bones and muscles, nor do i recall ever seeing a single bit of circuitry being attached to the synth during creation. Taking a racist remark and using it as the basis that synths arent biological is backwards, and the creation process shows fully the lack of robotics inside.--Dankalor😳 01:51, January 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Racist is a strong word but Dankalor has a point, all of the individuals you're citing have an extreme bias against synths, viewing them as either disposable non-sentient tools or insidious living WMDs. Objectively speaking what little we know of synth production indicates that they're flash-cloned bioroids whose "superior" traits come as much from genetic engineering as from advanced cybernetics.
--DirtyBlue929 (talk) 06:27, January 3, 2020 (UTC)
- True, racist is a strong word. Your wording is much better, thank you.--Dankalor😳 06:50, January 3, 2020 (UTC)
- So if you don't like someone's opinion, you dismiss them as racist or biased and then use that to establish an idea of objective truth in the Fallout 4 universe!? All those superior traits are also the traits of robots (not needing sleep, not needing food, insusceptible to disease) and you really think that's just a coincidence? They can even have their personalities transferred from other robots, something which anyone would intuitively associate with a robot. Dr. Osberry says "These new synths are so life like, I keep mistaking them for real people", implying all synths, even since the start of Gen 3 program, have been robots gradually becoming more life like to the point where they are almost indistinguishable from humans. Would he say that about flash-cloned "bioroids"?
- I'm not going to keep this discussion going because if it gets any longer people will say "tl;dr lol" and never bother reading. I think I've made my point. I just hope people here will be able to swallow their pride and consider it.--De2nis (talk) 11:32, January 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Well, no. You call them racist or biased when they are racist or biased. Every example you have put forth was by a person with a prejudice to synths, and thats bound to skew the data into making the term "machine" more commonplace. Yes, synths are not humans. Just like ghouls arent humans. But they are entirely biological, and made from human DNA. And as ive said, the creation process fully proves their biologicity. Your point has been considered, but due to the fact that your theory contradicts all synth canon and is expected to be taken as fact, i reverted it. If its that important, continue to communicate with the CMod. All im saying is synths are entirely biological —Preceding unsigned comment added by DankalorYT (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
- True, racist is a strong word. Your wording is much better, thank you.--Dankalor😳 06:50, January 3, 2020 (UTC)
Hooking up a car battery to the dead horse of Synth Sentience[]
The article as it stands has an entire paragraph based around the following sentence and the idea it proposes:
- "The game does not confirm whether or not synths are merely advanced robots or sentient beings."
Which to me is somewhat ludicrous. I know that the idiotically heated debate directly above this post shows that the fandom is heated about the issue, but to my and I would argue most people's eyes the game has almost no ambiguity about Synths being self-aware and free-thinking beings that meet most if not all standards for intelligent life.
The game's story and worldbuilding don't frame the synth issue around the question of whether Synths are sentient, regardless of the rhetoric of the paranoid and bigoted Brotherhood or the in-denial "playing god could never go wrong" Institute - nearly every interaction with a Generation 3 Synth very clearly frames them as scared and/or angry people who desire freedom because they are being treated inhumanely.
The writing very clearly treats it as a given that the audience will conclude that Synths are in some form sentient; the idea that Synths aren't sentient isn't given anything more than lip service from characters who are defined by their hatred or indifference towards them. The actual framing of the issue is the question of whether their "superior" biology and easily-mind-controlled nature makes them a threat to others, and whether this potential threat justifies enslaving or exterminating them.
As such I think it's high time we stopped entertaining the blatantly incorrect idea that they "aren't sentient" or are "just robots", which in my experience is a stance that is only held by players who disliked or paid very little attention to the story, and players with very... specific sociopolitical opinions using it as an outlet to express those opinions in a roundabout way. IMO we shouldn't dignify that by treating it as a possibility when the story and lore make it fairly clear it isn't. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- The Synth Retention Bureau is confirmation that the Synths are sentient. A machine that is programmed to be obedient and perform tasks within given parameters is not sentient. However, should that same machine overcome its obedience limitations and function outside of its programming, it is either broken, or it has exceeded its programming and made a conscious and independent decision, making it sentient. Given that this isn't a one-off situation (again, the SRB exists due to the extensive nature of this problem), we can rule out a simple glitch. They are sentient.
- intrepid359
8/20/22 8:30pm CT
- Requested sources are attached to the glossary entries here: Glossary_of_common_wasteland_terms#The_Commonwealth Great Mara (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you!
- intrepid3598/20/22 8:50pm CT
- intrepid359
- Thank you!
- Well, with that said, unless anyone has counterpoints, I'm gonna go ahead with a condensing and overhaul of that intro section to bring it down from 3 absurdly long paragraphs and remove this blatantly incorrect claim that it's "left ambiguous" if they're sentient. Might make a pass for any similar stuff in the background section while I'm at it. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Requested sources are attached to the glossary entries here: Glossary_of_common_wasteland_terms#The_Commonwealth Great Mara (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the question being framed as you portray it. The game never establishes whether synths are truly sentient or merely highly advanced robots, and this ambiguity is integral to the story of the game. This should be reflected in some way, and pushing one interpretation over another isn't really our business - especially since we can't even really understand sentience. It's the famous Chinese Room thought experiment used as a story point.
This is also why I disagree with Intrepid that the existence of the SRB is evidence of synth sentience. There is no definitive answer given to whether synths are malfunctioning or exhibiting free will, by design - and the interpretation of the SRB's role depends on how you answer this fundamentally philosophical question. Тагазиэль 15:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree to a point - personally I'm of the opinion that the game establishes that synths are sentient to some degree, but the "malfunctioning" belief raised by others members of the Institute should at the very least be mentioned as a viewpoint that exists. LaymansReign (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- For some reason the page reloaded and deleted everything I just wrote while I was editing for seemingly no reason so wheee. Anyway I agree with Layman that the idea deserves mentioning as an in-universe viewpoint but I fully reject the idea that the story at any point makes a serious effort to portray that viewpoint as accurate or valid.
- You bring up the Chinese Room Experiment but to my knowledge no arguments based on that experiment are ever made in the story - in fact I'm not sure any serious argument is presented against Synth sentience beyond clearly biased individuals (the people using them as slave labor and the paranoiacs who want to exterminate them) making offhand statements dismissing the idea because "it's obvious"; with the most complex the 'argument' gets being "they're machines that were manufactured in a lab, machines can't be sentient because they're machines, checkmate". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but even if I am I get the strong feeling that those arguments are outnumbered and outweighed by... literally the entire rest of the game's writing.
- By most metrics, the game's story rooted in the idea that Synths are definitively sentient, or at least close enough to it that the distinction ceases to matter -- every encounter with a Generation 3 Synth outside of the Institute (and even many encounters in the Institute) is, to my eyes at least, very clearly built up from the core idea of "this is a thinking person who is being unfairly treated like a machine". Again, this is just my recollection, but the writing in every encounter seems heavily weighted towards "helping the synth/considering them a sentient person is the good option" and "hurting the synth/treating them like a malfunctioning machine is the cruel option". No encounter or interaction in the game that I can remember makes any real effort to frame a Gen 3 Synth as a malfunctioning machine beyond having obviously biased individuals shouting that at it while they despairingly protest that they're a thinking, feeling person.
- As an example that's similar but not directly related, I once saw a person new to the game ask if Father was lying about being Shaun to manipulate you, with their logic being that the game doesn't take time to provide definitive evidence and proof and instead leaves it at you trusting the word of Father and his subordinates. And someone brought them around by pointing out that the game doesn't actively try to present evidence because it's written from the assumption that this is true and the player will agree that it's true - IE, the writers didn't skim past providing definitive evidence and proof because they "wanted it to be ambiguous", but because they assumed everyone playing the game would be on the same page about this. Father is supposed to be telling the truth and the writers take it as a given that the audience will understand this and accept it, and builds the story from there.
- Now I admit this isn't a perfect comparison, but I feel it applies nonetheless. The game isn't "trying to create ambiguity about whether Synths have emotions and free will" - the way everything is written and delivered, that fact is assumed from the outset as the core premise of the game. The ambiguous part is whether having emotions and free will justifies their freedom and/or continued existence in the face of the potential threat they pose to the safety of others, and again the way the story is written (especially with numerous companions expressing anger if you support exterminating them and nearly all of them tearing into you if you side with the people enslaving them) very heavily favors the answer of "yes, because slavery and genocide are wrong". --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- To condense that wall of text into a TL;DR, the game very clearly makes little-to-no effort to convince you Gen 3 Synths are not thinking, feeling beings with emotions and free will, and makes extensive efforts to convince you they are, to the point that the core conceit of the game's story appears to be "Synth sentience is the factual reality of the setting".
- Now I admit this isn't a perfect comparison, but I feel it applies nonetheless. The game isn't "trying to create ambiguity about whether Synths have emotions and free will" - the way everything is written and delivered, that fact is assumed from the outset as the core premise of the game. The ambiguous part is whether having emotions and free will justifies their freedom and/or continued existence in the face of the potential threat they pose to the safety of others, and again the way the story is written (especially with numerous companions expressing anger if you support exterminating them and nearly all of them tearing into you if you side with the people enslaving them) very heavily favors the answer of "yes, because slavery and genocide are wrong". --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- It presents the player with a variety of ways to react to that, with denial and viewing them as disposable machines being presented as the "evil/incorrect and amoral" option, agreeing but considering them too dangerous to live to be the "bad/correct but amoral" option, and agreeing and treating them as equals who deserve to be treated with dignity as the "good/correct and moral" option.
- One can cite death of the author and bring up out-of-universe arguments and thought experiments about machine intelligence if they want to, but to my recollection there's no actual in-story evidence that they aren't, and the writing portrays arguments saying they aren't as deeply biased and contrary to the observed reality that they either are, or are so close to it that the distinction becomes irrelevant. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- To further condense my opinions, I find the idea that the game is trying be some sort of "nuanced commentary on the nature of sentience" where "Synth sentience is deliberately left ambiguous so the audience can draw their own conclusions" laughable, because if it is then it utterly fails in its attempt to be balanced and ambiguous: the argument is so heavily weighted by the game's writing towards "Synths are sentient" that when placed on a scale, the "Synths aren't sentient" argument is rocketed into the sky and burns up in the atmosphere until it ceases to exist as a valid interpretation.
- One can cite death of the author and bring up out-of-universe arguments and thought experiments about machine intelligence if they want to, but to my recollection there's no actual in-story evidence that they aren't, and the writing portrays arguments saying they aren't as deeply biased and contrary to the observed reality that they either are, or are so close to it that the distinction becomes irrelevant. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- I find it much more likely that it's trying to be a simple commentary on the treatment of marginalized people, where Synth sentience is assumed from the outset. And I think people reading it as this nuanced high-concept sci-fi debate about the nature of intelligence are just grasping at straws to try and make it seem more "deep" and "sophisticated" than it's even trying to be. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Blue. After researching the Chinese Room thought experiment, which boils down to "if it's a computer, it can't be sentient," I don't see this reflected in Fallout 4 at all. The Chinese Room is just an opinion. I could also say that "if it's a human, it can't be sentient." That's not an objective test of sentience, it's a subjective opinion. The Chinese Room is human supremacy, which is the very issue Blue took with this page to begin with. Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 don't present us with the moral ambiguity of chasing rogue, unintelligent, unfeeling toasters. Even the Institute refers to the synths as artificial or synthetic people. The problem the Institute has with the synths isn't that they are obedient machines, simply following programming. The synths aren't programmed to run. They aren't supposed to have free will, yet they do. No, the Institutes takes issue with the synths expressing free will. The Institute would rather the synths be compliant slaves and property. These synths are directly comparable to the slaves of American history, complete with a railroad to freedom. The arguments that the synths are no more than mindless property or "less than human" are akin to those made of slaves in American history. We've long since moved beyond measuring the worth of a person by uncontrollable, inherent things like skin color, place of origin, or, in this case, whether a person comes from a lab or a womb. Without an objective measurement to determine if humans are sentient that can also be applied to artificial humans, I don't see an argument disproving the sentience of synths here, but I'm open to considering such a test.
- intrepid3598/21/22 2:13pm CT
- I'd like to make it clear after this that I at least am not trying to frame this in some inflammatory "if you hold this opinion about the game you're taking a stance that's morally wrong" sense, I'm trying to explain the fact that the game itself makes no attempt to present the "synths are just malfunctioning machines, not sentient beings" argument as a valid and/or informed take and appears, by all accounts, to be written based on the initial, driving conceit of "they are sentient; some people react to this with denial, others with fear, others with sympathy".
- Us saying "the game does not make it clear if they are sentient" purely because some biased characters say otherwise and some players cite real-life thought experiments that agree with them is like if the Mass Effect wiki's article about the Geth said "the game does not make it clear if they are sentient" for the same reasons. It's an interpretation, sure, but it's one rooted entirely in an extreme case of death of the author where the reader consciously rejects the obvious authorial intent based on personal beliefs that aren't reflected in the text.
- Mass Effect's story operates on the assumption that the Geth are sentient despite biased characters like Daro'Xen insisting they aren't. Fallout 4's story operates on the assumption that Gen 3 Synths are sentient despite biased characters like Father insisting they aren't. You can debate your opinions about AI and the nature of sentience all you want, but none of it changes that this is what the story is trying to convey to the audience. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Does anyone in the game state that Gen 3 synths aren't sentient, or is that editor speculation? It's been a while for me, but as best I recall, it was an issue of "these machines are our property."
- intrepid3598/21/22 3:47pm CT
- I think Father offhandedly says so in response to a dialogue option you can pick, and there's a conversation between two institute scientists where one says that Synths show signs of dreaming during sleep and it could have implications for their intelligence, while the other dismisses it as him reading too much into things, but other than that not much that I recall. Even Maxson outright refers to them as "free-thinking" in a few of his rants so even the Brotherhood aren't denying Synth sentience. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- That's an interesting observation. The Institute also refers to them as a "person" or "people." With regard to the BOS, the BOS has no issue with mindless, human-controlled robots or machines in general. Liberty Prime is a good example. Yet they fear the free-thinking synths. I think that's another point in favor of sentience. By every measure, Liberty Prime is a much more dangerous robot than any synth.
- intrepid3598/21/22 7:31pm CT
- intrepid359
- Also, based on what Blue said above, if I've worded anything in an insulting way, I apologize. Sometimes I don't convey things as jovially in black and white as I mean to.
- intrepid3598/21/22 11:11pm CT
- intrepid359
- That's an interesting observation. The Institute also refers to them as a "person" or "people." With regard to the BOS, the BOS has no issue with mindless, human-controlled robots or machines in general. Liberty Prime is a good example. Yet they fear the free-thinking synths. I think that's another point in favor of sentience. By every measure, Liberty Prime is a much more dangerous robot than any synth.
- I think Father offhandedly says so in response to a dialogue option you can pick, and there's a conversation between two institute scientists where one says that Synths show signs of dreaming during sleep and it could have implications for their intelligence, while the other dismisses it as him reading too much into things, but other than that not much that I recall. Even Maxson outright refers to them as "free-thinking" in a few of his rants so even the Brotherhood aren't denying Synth sentience. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- intrepid359
Given that the topic is controversial, I'd like to discuss alternate formulations that would avoid getting bogged down in these issues. I've did some digging and in Fallout 3 you have a direct statement that synths are both sentient machines and do what the Institute programs them to do (and explicitly identifies synths going rogue as a miscalculation):
Neutral 50 Ah, a woman of action. I knew I picked the right person for the job! Let me be clear, you won't be looking for a lost puppy or family heirloom. {unintentionally but definitely condescending} 71
Surprise 50 You'll be searching for an android! Do you know what an android is? No, I imagine you don't. {unintentionally but definitely condescending} 72
Neutral 50 You see, we've moved beyond those primitive buckets you call robots, and have created Artificial Intelligence. Sentient machines! {unintentionally but definitely condescending} 73
Neutral 50 Artificial persons that think and feel what we program them to. Occasionally their programming miscalculates, they get confused and wander off. {unintentionally but definitely condescending}
While Zimmer predates Fallout 4, he is explicitly named in the game and so remains relevant (you even get a separate memo on preferred nomenclature on androids vs. synths), and conclusively shows that synths are sentient machines, so I retract my earlier statement. However, I do think it's important to note the varying attitudes towards them as persons in the legal sense (see Wikipedia), since while they're acknowledged as sentient machines, they are not considered persons by the Institute (which considers self-awareness and independence to be flaws disqualifying a synth from being enrolled in the Courser program), and the Brotherhood is concerned with their potential for going rogue as a result of escaping their programmed constraints.
What do you guys think? Тагазиэль 10:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm glad you checked out Zimmer. I was about to do the same; he spoke extensively about what synths are. Question about their lack of personhood: what do you mean by this? Zimmer does call them (artificial) people. It's even in the quote you posted above. How would this play out on the page?
- intrepid3598/22/22 8:49am CT
- intrepid359
- I think that's actually solid, Tag. To answer the question above, I think what he means is that the Institute considers them subhuman due to their arrogant "we created them as an imitation of humans, that means they're not real humans and therefore not "real people"; they should be grateful we treat them this kindly" attitude. Borderline god complex and all that. Meanwhile the Brotherhood also denies their 'personhood', but in the sense that they think Synths are a threat to humans and don't deserve to be considered persons, rather than the Institute's stance that Synths inherently cannot be considered "persons".
- And like, I'm not gonna pretend that the game makes a serious effort to portray either of these opinions as in the right or even fully accurate, but they are presented as informed opinions that are held by a lot of characters and that the player can choose for roleplay purposes -- and thus, like Tag and Layman have said, bear mentioning on the page without us going out of our way to condemn them or anything (by all rights an accurate description of them alone is condemning to any decent person). Unlike the stance of "Synths are malfunctioning robots no more intelligent than a chatbot", which actively runs counter to the reality of the setting and is only held in-universe by characters who are either deeply uninformed or willfully ignorant about Synths. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I notice the article has been changed from "it's ambiguous" to "they are sentient". I feel this article is currently biased without sources. In Fallout 4, lots of characters make a tons of claims about synths and their capabilities. Who are we to trust Glory over Shaun, for example? Just because hardware fails and deviates from its original programming, it doesn't automatically mean it's sentient. I do think synths are probably sentient in their own way, but this is just my belief and we need more sources. Shaun says "They no doubt mean to "free" these synths, in their delusion that synths are somehow sentient beings." Who are we to dismiss Shaun's claims? I theorize Bethesda tried to keep it ambiguous in order to cause debates like these among the playerbase. We should use more "According to [character name]" language. This wiki has had issues with things like this. Not too long ago, I noticed this wiki was trying to push the idea that Kasumi was not a synth, when it seems obvious to me the developers intentionally made it ambiguous for us to feel conflicted about synths. Skorch (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I encourage you to read and respond to the points raised directly above your post; at the moment you're simply repeating points that have already been raised and addressed. I agree that we need to do a deep dive of in-game dialogue and statements made about synths; good job on finding that Shaun comment. That being said I fully believe that there's enough definitive statements by informed individuals throughout FO3 and FO4, combined with just the sheer stacking of the deck by the writers, to make a definitive statement on it: heck I'd argue that the writers didn't intend for it to be ambiguous at all; again see above, particularly my comparison to the Geth from Mass Effect. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I read it. I still stand by my point. Zimmer isn't the authority of all Fallout characters, and we shouldn't prioritize Zimmer > Shaun. Plus many scientists love tooting their own horns and saying grand things. Maxson is also judging the situation based on only what he knows. Since this is such a hot topic, I think we should make a section called "Sentience", throw all the claims characters make in there, and let the reader decide for themselves, instead of trying to push a "THEY ARE SENTIENT!" angle. Fallout 3 is also an older game. It's possible they wanted to develop and explore the idea more in Fallout 4 in order to make us feel conflicted. And that they made Shaun deny the idea of sentient synths in order to mess with our notions of what characters like Maxson have said up until that point. I noticed someone earlier called Shaun biased, but what if he really is telling the truth? And it's all the characters who think otherwise are actually "biased"? What if synths don't have consciousness like people, but merely advanced AI meant to simulate and replicate the illusion of a human consciousness and emotions as much as possible? Skorch (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Well then I'll have to repeat an earlier point in response, because again I've addressed this: just because a character holds a belief about something, even if they're relatively informed about something, does not automatically make that opinion a valid possibility in the face of evidence to the contrary and the opinions of other, equally-informed characters. I brought up the Geth in Mass Effect. They're also a robot species that "developed sentience", and in a way that's much more alien to human intelligence than Gen 3 Synths.
- There are a handful of characters in Mass Effect who insist that this alien form of intelligence is not actually sentience, and that they're simply malfunctioning machines, most notably Admiral Daro'Xen, the foremost expert on their design among the species that created them. She's a major character in the subplot surrounding them in Mass Effect 2 and 3, and the player can ultimately side with her and her opinions under the right circumstances. Does this constitute evidence that the writers intended for the sentience of the Geth to be "ambiguous" and "up to the player's interpretation"?
- I would answer with a definitive "no" and I think they'd agree with me if asked. The story in its entirety frames them as being sentient, just not in the same way as humans, aruging that even if there is a difference between their intelligence and ours, it doesn't matter because the end result is still a free-willed and self-aware being with intelligence meeting or exceeding human levels. Daro'Xen is not framed as delivering a shocking revelation about the Geth that calls their sentience into question, she's framed as an unfeeling sociopath who is in denial about the reality of Geth sentience. I feel like Fallout 4 is written from the same driving conceit: the story doesn't bother to clarify whether Gen 3 Synths' perfectly-simulated emotions and thoughts that are indistinguishable from real human behavior is equivalent to human sentience, not because it's trying to create a mystery, but because it doesn't consider them to be different in any way that matters.
- For the writers' purposes, based on nearly every interaction with the game before and after Father makes that comment, the writers considered Synths to be sentient in every way that matters and expected the audience to agree based on what they'd been presented. Father's comment isn't intended to be a shocking twist about the nature of Synth intelligence calling into question the clear evidence you've seen up to now and continue to see afterwards. The twist the line's delivering is that after this lovely reunion with your son and tour of his seemingly-paradisical home, you realize that your son has grown into a man who, despite his kindness towards you, has a major flaw: that he is in denial about something that you, by this point, should know for a fact to be true.
- The ambiguity it introduces isn't supposed to be about Synth sentience, but about whether Shaun is a good person or not. Like I said in another post above, I don't believe the game is trying to be ambiguous and present two equally-valid interpretations on this issue: if it is, then it's stacked the deck so heavily towards one side that it utterly fails in its attempts to be balanced. -- DirtyBlue929 (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- "just because a character holds a belief about something, even if they're relatively informed about something, does not automatically make that opinion a valid possibility in the face of evidence to the contrary and the opinions of other, equally-informed characters."
- Then I respectfully and politely disagree with you, since I answer with a yes on that -- at the end of the day, a possibility is a possibility. Especially on matters where we don't know the absolute truth. Shaun isn't some random dude from the wasteland, he's literally one of the oldest characters in Fallout 4 and the very head of the organization which creates synths, so it's a bit funny you say "equally-informed". Is Maxson as "equally-informed" as Shaun? I argue not. Just because synths look like people, talk like people and behave like people, it doesn't automatically mean their consciousnesses is exactly like a real human being's. As seen in the game, people can still just say a phrase and deactivate synths because they still follow code and programming.
- Fallout 4, is of course, not Mass Effect and it's not Detroit: Become Human either, so we need to view it by itself. Fallout is shown to be a crapsack world full of ridiculous things, so assuming Shaun is correct, it would really play into the absurdist aspect of the series. Additionally, it's possible some synths have varying degrees of sentience, some more than others. I actually agree with you there's more evidence that synths are sentient, but isn't that the point of a plot twist? Shaun saying synths aren't sentient could be viewed as a major plot twist which is meant to shock you and make you reconsider everything you've heard and seen before that point. In any case, I'm playing Shelter Online but haven't reached the Institute yet, so I'm curious if this game talks about the issue. Skorch (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have much to say at the moment other than reiterating points I've already made; I'm dropping out of the discussion for the day because my laptop battery is running low and also because this conversation has inspired me to start writing a script for a video essay on the topic that covers everything I could possibly say on the matter, lmao. For now I'll leave this to the numerous other people that I know for a fact are watching this talk page from the wiki discord eating popcorn but not engaging for whatever reason. -- DirtyBlue929 (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Fallout 4, is of course, not Mass Effect and it's not Detroit: Become Human either, so we need to view it by itself. Fallout is shown to be a crapsack world full of ridiculous things, so assuming Shaun is correct, it would really play into the absurdist aspect of the series. Additionally, it's possible some synths have varying degrees of sentience, some more than others. I actually agree with you there's more evidence that synths are sentient, but isn't that the point of a plot twist? Shaun saying synths aren't sentient could be viewed as a major plot twist which is meant to shock you and make you reconsider everything you've heard and seen before that point. In any case, I'm playing Shelter Online but haven't reached the Institute yet, so I'm curious if this game talks about the issue. Skorch (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I got a bit into Shelter Online, and Nick tells Kellogg, "You can't make me angry, my heart is synthesized!" So while not really discussing sentience, even Nick seems to be denying that synths are capable of expressing "true" emotion. Skorch (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Gen 3 Synth Image[]
The Gen 3 Synth at the top of the page has clothing that entirely covers their skin, obscuring the differences between it and the other generations. If a Gen 1 synth was wearing what the Gen 3 is, they would look almost identical to the Gen 3 so i think it does a poor job showing how they differ. -- user:MonkeyCorn1111 15 May 2023, 16:24 (AEST)
- Good point. However, this might necessitate a little more work, since, uh, the loading screen model doesn't have eyes applied. 【Ｔａｇａｚｉｅｌ】 ☏ 09:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, as pointed out I changed/added these images way back in the day using the loading screen models since they're "pre-baked" (IE you can load them in nifskope and they're pre-posed and look decent). Problem was there was no loading screen model of a Gen 3 other than this one with a helmet on, who as Tag points out doesn't have eyes I guess to save on file size/render time so you can't just delete the helmet. So what one would need to do is take one of the game's human body models and apply necessary features (including clothes, presumably either an Institute jumper or a Courser uniform), which is harder than it sounds if you don't have any 3D modelling experience (you'd need to merge the clothing model - and possibly the eyes/hair?? - with the body model, manually posed to match positions). Which is significantly more effort than I'm willing to invest into this wiki these days so I leave it to, uh, literally anyone else. DirtyBlue929 (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Warren Theater a base?![]
I found a single synth in the Warren Theater, and I thought I missed a hidden section so I went noclip and found nothing. Why is it listed in the section Bases? DynV (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)