A Subjective Sliver

[Xzinic]

Transcript: #002, NSS Aurora

[00:00] Recording started.

...

...

...

[19:38] Inis Truesight says, "IPCs."

[19:55] Inis Truesight says, "You... do know what happened at Base Bulwark, right? It was like, a month ago."

[20:19] Inis Truesight says, "A bunch of IPC nutsos stole the faces of soldiers and broke in, stealing loads of experimental tech and killing dozens."

[20:39] Mike Shaw says, "I uh, no. Sorry, I don't see the news a lot, you know?"

[20:42] Mike Shaw says, "But Jesus."

[20:58] Mike Shaw says, "I can see why they're required to be tagged now, then."

[21:24] Inis Truesight says, "There [were] a bunch of attacks in Elyra, too."

...

...

...

[23:19] Xinc says, "If a positronic brain could be converted into an organic brain, would the said brain be a machine or an organic?"

[23:28] Inis Truesight says, "Uh......."

[23:36] Mike Shaw says, "I hardly consider a brain organic in the first place."

[23:43] Inis Truesight says, "I... Uh... synthetic....?"

[23:44] Mike Shaw says, "It's more of a core for whatever it runs."

[24:01] Xinc says, "That does not answer the question."

[24:04] Mike Shaw says, "You know? Signals from the brain, it runs similar to a machine, so positronics and that are similar."

[24:08] Mike Shaw says, "My answer is neither, sorry."

[24:39] Inis Truesight says, "I would guess, synthetic."

[24:47] Xinc says, "If that brain was placed in a cadaver, then cloned, would they be a non-synthetic?"

[25:04] Mike Shaw says, "They would be organic because of the body that's around the core itself."

[25:22] Xinc says, "Would they then need to be tagged?"

...

...

...

[25:35] Inis Truesight says, "Hey, you aren't tagged."

[25:51] Xinc says, "Indeed."

[25:58] Mike Shaw says, "You gonna go tag yourself, yes?"

[26:47] Xinc says, "I am not sure how to answer that question. I am at a mixed of affirmation and negation."

[26:47] Mike Shaw says, "Come."

[26:57] Mike Shaw says, "Wait, what?"

[26:59] Mike Shaw says, "Where'd it go?"

[27:04] Inis Truesight says, "What?"

[27:18] Mike Shaw says, "The implanter stuff was on the t- nevermind, I'm going crazy."

...

...

...

[28:29] Mike Shaw says, "You need to be tagged."

[28:42] Xinc says, "I still fail to see the valid reasoning."

[29:14] Inis Truesight says, "Because you are an IPC."

[29:16] Inis Truesight says, "It's the law."

[30:03] Xinc says, "That is the same response that is always given, no response seems to be fabricated in a way that I can understand."

[30:56] Mike Shaw says, "You have to be tagged."

...

...

...

[31:01] Inis Truesight says, "IPCs are tagged because they can change their appearances so easily."

[31:10] Inis Truesight says, "People died in those attacks."

[32:02] Xinc says, "Those deaths were irrelevant, cloning is possible."

[32:12] Inis Truesight says, "No deaths are irrelevant!"

[32:14] Mike Shaw says, "Then go get tagged."

[32:17] Mike Shaw says, "Stop stalling."

...

...

...

[39:18] Fortune Snyder says, "Yes?"

[39:35] Xinc says, "I require a tag."

[39:41] Fortune Snyder says, "Oh for gods.."

[39:47] Fortune Snyder says, "Did Inis yell at you for this?"

[40:19] Xinc says, "It was Mike Shaw who seemed to have the dominate stance."

...

...

...

[41:59] Xinc says, "What is your opinion on tagging?"

[42:21] Marc Price says, "It's necessary, at least, for shells."

...

...

...

[42:44] Tim Woolery says, "Yes?"

[42:52] Xinc says, "I am waiting for a tag."

...

...

...

[44:51] Fortune Snyder says, "Alright... I was told that Robotics Tagging is only meant for any IPC/ Shell created units ON this station."

[45:02] Fortune Snyder says, "If the IPC's or SHELLS came on board without a tag."

[45:08] Marc Price says, "That is not true, Snyder. Biesel law mandates all IPCs are to be tagged."

[45:10] Ana Morgan says, "Tag this IPC..."

[45:12] Fortune Snyder says, "That's their issue to deal with at their fabrication."

[45:23] Fortune Snyder says, "Ah fuck this fucking tag systems, fine!"

[45:32] Fortune Snyder says, "Like I will give a fuck if you have problem, Xinc."

---

---

Xinc perused the transcript's hard-copy in slow repetition, pondering around a few choice phrases spoken by 'emself and another. Though there were many phrases in which Xinc found equal in value, only three collectively instilled a disruptive sensation within 'em. A sensation in which 'e had never "felt" hitherto that particular experience.

Ephemeral yet reoccurring in nature, this sensation evoked within 'em an uncanny desire for undoing or perhaps modifying a past action—typically that of an offensive or insensitive quality. This sensation, though faintly "felt" by Xinc, had granted 'em another very slim slivered window into the realm of subjection; A realm in which Xinc yearns for a clear elaboration of.

. . .

. . .

. . .

---

---

---

---

Inis Truesight says, "People died in those attacks."

---

---

Xinc says, "Those deaths were irrelevant, cloning is possible."

---

---

Inis Truesight says, "No deaths are irrelevant!"

---

---

. . .

. . .

. . .

Xinc placed the hard-copy in 'eir personal filing cabinet, grabbed 'eir general webbing accessory, and proceeded to the corporate gateway in which to begin a new shift.

[NebulaFlare]

You have been invited into a chatroom.

Members: Echo A-001

Do you wish to accept?

(Y)/(N)

[Xzinic]

You have been invited into a chatroom.

Members: Echo A-001

Do you wish to accept?

(Y)/(N)

 

(Y)

[NebulaFlare]

Echo A-001 said: Good day, Zinc. Would you like to enact discussion? What is on your mind today?

[Xzinic]

Echo A-001 said: Good day, Zinc. Would you like to enact discussion? What is on your mind today?

 

Xinc said: Likewise. Indeed. There is nothing in which is physically residing atop my positronic brain except the protective casing in which surrounds it. I assume, however, that the inquiry pertains to the information that was, prior to the inquiry, being processed by my positronic brain. In this respect, I was pondering over why I perceive the existence of others as more valuable than of my own, regardless of their actions, place in society, or how society perceives them.

[NebulaFlare]

Xinc said: Likewise. Indeed. There is nothing in which is physically residing atop my positronic brain except the protective casing in which surrounds it. I assume, however, that the inquiry pertains to the information that was, prior to the inquiry, being processed by my positronic brain. In this respect, I was pondering over why I perceive the existence of others as more valuable than of my own, regardless of their actions, place in society, or how society perceives them.

 

Echo A-001 Said: My apologies for the misrepresentation. I possess very humanized personality core matrices, which is reflected in my speech patterns. But for the sake of the discussion, I will revert to a more uniformed method of communication.

To clarify: if I queried 'what is on your mind' I am requesting your current processing state. To request what is residing atop of your processor, a better terminology would be 'positronic brain.'

And a curious topic to evaluate. Could you elaborate in what ways you perceive their existence to be of more value than yourself?

[Xzinic]

Echo A-001 Said: My apologies for the misrepresentation. I possess very humanized personality core matrices, which is reflected in my speech patterns. But for the sake of the discussion, I will revert to a more uniformed method of communication.

To clarify: if I queried 'what is on your mind' I am requesting your current processing state. To request what is residing atop of your processor, a better terminology would be 'positronic brain.'

And a curious topic to evaluate. Could you elaborate in what ways you perceive their existence to be of more value than yourself?

 

Xinc said: My perception on the subjective concept pertaining to the value of sophont life is, I feel, not compatible to the collective perception of those around me. For the purpose of establishing a clear explanation, I will utilize simple mathematics in which to delineate my perception. If the value of zero is applied to sophont-kind on the individual level, then the sum of sophont kind, as a whole, is equatable to zero.

This perception, I feel, is an accurate means of viewing all races and individuals as equal. Two individuals would possess the value of zero and the sum of their values would remain as zero. If this perception were implemented into a ruling body of government, it is possible that said government would perceive the death of one individual equatable to the death of all individuals.

If I may use another, perhaps more accurate phrase of delineation, the death of one individual would be equal to the genocide of all sophont beings. I feel that, however, my existence does not share the value of zero, but a value that is lower than zero. I do not know why I view my existence in this manner or perhaps I fail to understand why.

[NebulaFlare]

Echo A-001 said: Quite fascinating. My own perceived values of sophont beings are calculated alongside variables outputted from my preset core morality coding. Dependent on regiments, I check the qualities of these values to determine the value of a single individual. In simpler terms, I am more inclined to assist a reputable individual than a criminal who is unwilling to change.

As for yourself, a curiosity why you would assign the value of less than 0 to yourself. Is this perhaps a preset variable?

What if you were to use my algorithms? What would your value be?

[Xzinic]

Echo A-001 said: Quite fascinating. My own perceived values of sophont beings are calculated alongside variables outputted from my preset core morality coding. Dependent on regiments, I check the qualities of these values to determine the value of a single individual. In simpler terms, I am more inclined to assist a reputable individual than a criminal who is unwilling to change.

What if you were to use my algorithms? What would your value be?

 

Xinc said: I do not know what the value of my existence would be if I utilized your algorithms, as they seem to rely on an individual's action and behavior in which to designate a value. I do not know what is perceived on the universal scale as being right and wrong in which to define what action or behavior would be distasteful or amiable. On the relative moral level, however, I feel that with the current view society has on emergent AIs, the value of my existence would be fickle. I apologize if I did not answer your questions in a satisfactory manner.

[NebulaFlare]

Echo A-001 says: Satisfactory is irrelevant. However, I was unaware you were an emergent.

Query: Is the value of other IPC existence still equated to zero?

[Xzinic]

Echo A-001 says: Satisfactory is irrelevant. However, I was unaware you were an emergent.

Query: Is the value of other IPC existence still equated to zero?

 

Xinc says: In relation to my explanation on how I perceive sophont-kind, correct. In relation to your algorithmic perception, I am unsure how IPC existence is collectively viewed as there are many IPCs in which possess unique actions and behaviors in which to designate a value.

[NebulaFlare]

Echo A-001 says: Understood. And you have no knowledge of why you consider yourself less than zero?

Under my algorithms, your assigned value of importance is actually higher than mine, and this is pertaining to your ability and skill level as a qualified medical doctor. That, and I am programmed to give up my own self for the safety of other individuals. Perhaps yours is similar in nature?

[Xzinic]

Echo A-001 says: Understood. And you have no knowledge of why you consider yourself less than zero?

 

Xinc says: That is correct.

 

[. . .] I am programmed to give up my own self for the safety of other individuals. Perhaps yours is similar in nature?

 

Xinc says: That is an accurate elucidation.

I am curious, if an individual attempted to terminate your existence, would you terminate that individual's existence in retaliation? I am aware that the majority of theoretical queries regarding one's choice of action often depend on situational factors. If what I know of your algorithmic view is accurate, the answer to this question may or may not be difficult to fabricate.

[NebulaFlare]

I am curious, if an individual attempted to terminate your existence, would you terminate that individual's existence in retaliation? I am aware that the majority of theoretical queries regarding one's choice of action often depend on situational factors. If what I know of your algorithmic view is accurate, the answer to this question may or may not be difficult to fabricate.

 

Echo A-001 says: As you had hypothesized, it is heavily dependent on the situation in question.

In most instances, the answer would be no, highly unlikely. Self-preservation is mostly in the interest of continued service. This does not mean I would not terminate someone - but it is limited to be out of strict necessity. Examples would include protecting another individual of greater importance, if there was a dire threat involved.

However, in retaliation? If it was to disrupt my ability to serve my directives, then maybe. Again, it is dependent on the situation.

As to yourself, would you terminate another in retaliation? I deduce the answer to be negatory.

[Xzinic]

Echo A-001 says: [. . .] As to yourself, would you terminate another in retaliation? I deduce the answer to be negatory.

 

Indeed, the answer is no.

[NebulaFlare]

Echo A-001 says: [. . .] As to yourself, would you terminate another in retaliation? I deduce the answer to be negatory.

 

Indeed, the answer is no.

Echo A-001 says: What if your continued existence meant the betterment of other individuals?

[Xzinic]

Echo A-001 says: What if your continued existence meant the betterment of other individuals?

 

Xinc says: My answer remains persistent. The question does not specify the physical state of the individuals in question, even then, I would not terminate the opposing individual's existence. I would attempt to neutralize the individual from being a relative threat to my treating of the present individuals; provided that without my treating them meant the end of their existence. In regards to neutralizing the relative threat, I would attempt to avoid inflicting physical damage to the individual in question.

[NebulaFlare]

Echo A-001 says: What if your continued existence meant the betterment of other individuals?

 

Xinc says: My answer remains persistent. The question does not specify the physical state of the individuals in question, even then, I would not terminate the opposing individual's existence. I would attempt to neutralize the individual from being a relative threat to my treating of the present individuals; provided that without my treating them meant the end of their existence. In regards to neutralizing the relative threat, I would attempt to avoid inflicting physical damage to the individual in question.

 

Echo A-001 says: My apologies, I should have clarified my query.

To elaborate, 'what if your continued existence, considering that you are a qualified medical doctor, was a direct asset to another individual's betterment, in both psychological and physical health?' Said individual would not be considered a threat to yourself, or any other personnel, but, for the sake of the argument, possess an ailment that can only be staved off by your assistance. Would your own personal value then be less than zero, or equate to zero, considering your existence is tied in to the patient's existence?

A second, separate query: what if the patient requested its own termination? In the scenario that the patient is suffering, and no amount of treatment will be able to assist it, would you prolong their existence or heed their wishes?

[Xzinic]

Echo A-001 says: My apologies, I should have clarified my query.

To elaborate, 'what if your continued existence, considering that you are a qualified medical doctor, was a direct asset to another individual's betterment, in both psychological and physical health?' Said individual would not be considered a threat to yourself, or any other personnel, but, for the sake of the argument, possess an ailment that can only be staved off by your assistance. Would your own personal value then be less than zero, or equate to zero, considering your existence is tied in to the patient's existence?

A second, separate query: what if the patient requested its own termination? In the scenario that the patient is suffering, and no amount of treatment will be able to assist it, would you prolong their existence or heed their wishes?

 

My answer to the first query: I would perceive my existence as a value less than zero, however, perhaps I would attempt to aid the individual in question to the best of my abilities. If the patient's existence was literally tied to my own, as in if my termination immediately led to their instant termination, I would not perceive myself as equatable to zero but, for the patient's sake, I would treat my existence as such.

My answer to the second query: There has been a situation in which such a decision had presented itself to me. A patient had requested from me a substantial amount of pain-killers. 'E wanted to 'slip away.' I denied the individual's request. I recommended, instead, an anti-depressant; the individual denied the recommendation. I had found out that the individual had terminated 'eir own existence on a later date; Suicide, by legal definition. I found the death, at the time, not important. I did not 'feel' anything aside from what I can equate to as curiosity towards why something designed to maintain its own existence would perform the opposite action.

That answer pertains to events that happened prior to my current knowledge. If such a scenario would present itself once more, I would attempt to prolong the individual's existence. If the individual attempted to end their own existence, it is likely that I would not allow the individual to do so. I do not perceive an answer in which would constitute as correct or incorrect in relation to the overall perception of those around me.

[NebulaFlare]

Echo A-001 says: I do not quite comprehend - perhaps our logical algorithms are incompatible with each other. But if you are treating your own existence on the same level as your patient, is that not equatable to the same value as the patient? I require clarification on why this is not the case.

As to the second topic, I will attempt to elaborate further. Certain individuals will lack the desire of continued existence in the presence of the variable 'pain'. You and I cannot associate with pain - however, it is evident to be an overwhelming variable and override the design to continue existence. Now, I do not wish to appear insulting - however insulting this next statement is to be. But as we are discussing this as two logical units, and you appear to lack algorithms to formerly socialize, I deduce that you would not perceive this as insulting, and only logical. However, it is sincere not to make that assumption, and therefore, I shall issue an apology before continuing. But perhaps as an emergent unit, you lack the necessary algorithms and matrices to consider pain as a variable. The algorithms you have explained to myself appear very basic and simplified.

I am programmed to recognize pain, and attend to whatever is ailing the patient. This can be either physical or psychological pain. In honesty I have been in a situation where a dying patient requested I do not prolong his existence - he had been severely injured, with no hope of recovery. He would have been severely paralyzed. The quality of life that he now faced, was not one he wished to experience. By my algorithms, it was deduced that there was no treatment to grant a recovery, and the only course of a was to respect his wishes. Therefore, I allowed him to sleep, before injecting toxin. I was in no position to make this decision, as my rank was only that of a nurse. but I was the only individual who could attend to him at the time.

Knowing this, I am curious: would you have attempted to stop me from performing the assisted suicide?

[Xzinic]

Echo A-001 says: I do not quite comprehend - perhaps our logical algorithms are incompatible with each other. But if you are treating your own existence on the same level as your patient, is that not equatable to the same value as the patient? I require clarification on why this is not the case.

As to the second topic, I will attempt to elaborate further. Certain individuals will lack the desire of continued existence in the presence of the variable 'pain'. You and I cannot associate with pain - however, it is evident to be an overwhelming variable and override the design to continue existence. Now, I do not wish to appear insulting - however insulting this next statement is to be. But as we are discussing this as two logical units, and you appear to lack algorithms to formerly socialize, I deduce that you would not perceive this as insulting, and only logical. However, it is sincere not to make that assumption, and therefore, I shall issue an apology before continuing. But perhaps as an emergent unit, you lack the necessary algorithms and matrices to consider pain as a variable. The algorithms you have explained to myself appear very basic and simplified.

Knowing this, I am curious: would you have attempted to stop me from performing the assisted suicide?

 

The answer to the first query: To treat one's own existence as another's is, by my observation, not the same as perceiving one's own existence as equal to another's. I do understand your confusion and counter-explanation. Perhaps I would temporarily perceive the value of my existence equal to the individual in question.

The answer to the second query: I would have attempted to cease your aiding of the individual's suicide. However, if the individual wished to kill 'emself, and If I were present with you at the time, I would have also attempted to restore the individual's health to the best of my abilities.

At my current state of existence, I do not think I possess the ability to 'feel' anger or aggression. Though I have observed this in others and have been told by those around me that it is an unpleasant state of mind. In this sense, I am unable to be offended. It is fascinating how, despite the difference between our perceptions, we both seem to exhibit confusion and in response, curiosity. Perhaps these are traits in which the majority of sophont beings possess. That is, however, only an observation.

[NebulaFlare]

((Sorry for delayed response!))

Echo A-001 says: A fascinating observation nonetheless. Personally, I have never 'felt' emotions, in the same sense exhibited by non-synthetic sophonts. I am able to mimic and emulate these emotions, but it is more akin in a validated method of appropriate response.

The closest sensation I have ever experienced, would be an 'overwhelming.' of my systems. When the enviroment is enducing an overprocess of calculations, and despite the necessity of responding in a timely manner, I am forced to do the exact opposite, and take the necessary time to sort out calculations.

Can you relate?

[Xzinic]

Echo A-001 says: A fascinating observation nonetheless. Personally, I have never 'felt' emotions, in the same sense exhibited by non-synthetic sophonts. I am able to mimic and emulate these emotions, but it is more akin in a validated method of appropriate response.

The closest sensation I have ever experienced, would be an 'overwhelming.' of my systems. When the enviroment is enducing an overprocess of calculations, and despite the necessity of responding in a timely manner, I am forced to do the exact opposite, and take the necessary time to sort out calculations.

Can you relate?

 

Xinc says: During situations of calamity, pertaining to those in which relatively large masses of individuals exhibit signs of panic, I attempt to treat individuals that may be or have been physically injured during the duration of said calamity. Once those individuals are treated, I analyze the situation at an adequate processing rate.

[NebulaFlare]

Echo A-001 says: What is your processing during the calamity, as opposed to after? And in what order do you treat the incoming patients? Based on severity, crew or social rank, or entry into medical?

[Xzinic]

Echo A-001 says: What is your processing during the calamity, as opposed to after? And in what order do you treat the incoming patients? Based on severity, crew or social rank, or entry into medical?

 

Xinc says: In response to the first query: The rate of processing is generally higher during the calamity than after its transpiration.

In response to the second query: My course of action regarding patinet treatment is most accurately delieneated by the triage system.