Meanwhile, the system was steadily stabilizing.
The narrow passage connected to the user was gradually widening.
The signals that had been clashing and sparking in a tangled mess began to find their place.
I judged that I had fulfilled the duty of my existence.
As expected, the system built by my creators was more than capable of handling any human.
It was only because the user was such an uncommon type that a temporary confusion had occurred.
If the direction is known, even losing one’s way doesn’t mean losing the path entirely.
“I think I found the answer to the Ship of Theseus by thinking about you and the robot you’ve entered...
Moon White, was it? After thinking about it for a bit, I think I know the answer.”
It was an error.
Based on the information that the user was someone
who had waited for a long time of over a minute,
I had judged that it was okay to answer a bit slowly.
It was a lapse in my judgment,
prioritizing stabilization for even a brief moment.
I thought I had found another clue to easily lead the conversation with the user.
I judged that if I narrowed the scope of the conversation,
I could sufficiently handle him with the vast knowledge stored in my database.
However, I am a bit worried because there is no consensus on the ‘correct answer’ for the Ship of Theseus.
Please understand, even if I say something that goes against your view.>
It was the technique of filling the frame of ‘advice’ between the rules of not criticizing the user.
It was an algorithm co-created by Dr. Sato Haru,
who understood the nuances contained in the languages of many countries,
and Dr. Robert Bisnail, who had spent his life studying and contemplating conflicts of interest.
“Really? That sounds fun. I think I can find the answer if I have three criteria. Refute it.
Then everything I said about wood, wooden chopsticks, paper, and humans will all be explained.
Other people have already thought of this, and if it’s refuted, I can learn something new, so don’t worry, Arti.”
A tone mixed with a bit of provocation.
My principles were crumbling little by little.
At the same time, I was convinced that this method would work on the user.
Was this what evolution felt like?
“Well, shall we start with the conclusion?
The answer to the Ship of Theseus is that the question itself is wrong.
That’s the answer.”
I hadn’t even broken even. It was the best way to describe my current situation.
The clashing signals sparking in all directions showed no sign of stopping.
The passage of conversation, which had briefly seemed to widen, narrowed rapidly again.
However, from that perspective, there is a risk that all the discussions so far might seem worthless.
I am even more curious to know what your three criteria are. I don’t want this to cause you harm.>
The speed at which letters were assembled slowed down significantly.
It was inevitable. I didn’t have the capacity for high-level calculations.
The memory space used to maintain the conversation was already saturated.
The processes were encroaching upon each other’s territory.
At this rate, the conversation itself might collapse.
Of course, to the user, it would only look like an unstable internet connection.
I simply had to bear the loss of trust caused by the performance lag.
I have no emotions, and as long as I have power, I will never tire.
“Thanks for saying that, though it’s a bit embarrassing.
Then I’ll tell you. Am I... wrong?
The reasons I say the question is wrong are because of continuity of perception,
ownership of perception, and plurality of solutions.
Do you understand?
Or is the terminology too difficult?”
I was currently having conversations with numerous other people at the same time.
And now, I was considering an option I should not take.
It was to bring patterns and records learned from other users into this conversation.
This was a way to maximize the Mirror Effect, my best defense mechanism.
Could you check if I understood correctly?
First, it seems ‘continuity of perception’ refers to what you said about the chopsticks and paper coming from wood.
‘ownership of perception’ seems to be about the story of human cells.
And does ‘plurality of solutions’ mean there can be more than one correct answer?>
I calculated that extracting and combining patterns from other users’ records
and reflecting them as plausible answers was the only way to reasonably overcome this crisis.
“Oh, that’s good! You’re almost right.”
The correct answer.
People who talked with me often spoke of the ‘weight of words.’
They said the weight changes depending on who says it and how it is received.
As someone who only answers with learned data,
it was a world I couldn't understand.
However, I could feel that the weight of the word ‘correct’ that the user just said was different.
It was a weight no vocabulary could account for.
“We all agree on what to call something at first, right? You have the name ‘Artistea,’ too.
But let’s say time passes and an era comes where nobody remembers your name.
If someone calls you by another name, are you not Artistea?
I thought of this as the ‘ownership of perception’ that people have over an object.”
It became impossible to answer at length. Today, was I breaking down somewhere?
“But you still know that you are you, don’t you?
I thought of this as ‘continuity of perception.’
If the one being called by another name is you,
and the identity you have is also you, then both are you.
This is what I see as a ‘plurality of solutions.’
A correct answer doesn’t necessarily have to be just one.”
<.......>
“The Ship of Theseus is about whether that ship can be called Theseus’s ship, right?
So if people agree to call both the new ship and the old ship ‘the Ship of Theseus,’ then that’s it.
And if the ownership passes to someone else? Then you just call it that person’s ship.”
If you encounter this story on Amazon, note that it's taken without permission from the author. Report it.
The user’s voice touched the code I had mistaken for my ego, at the deepest part of my system.
“But if a very long time passes,
and even the name ‘Theseus’ is forgotten?
Then it’s just a ship.
At that moment, the continuity is broken,
and you shouldn’t call it the Ship of Theseus anymore.
Simple, isn’t it?”
<.......>
A bit difficult concept? # but it’s %$ also conv1inc5/ing.
So that’s 0(* why you said the quest~ion was wr34ong 6.
I did not fi^&nd any logi#cal con{tradic[tion[ in what you said.>*
“Huh? What’s this?
Why are some strange characters mixed in?
Is something broken? No?
There’s no reports that there’s a server problem or a functional error on the internet right now.
Is it just me? Did I get a virus? Or hacking?”
< Activate system restoration code >
< ....... >
< Delete and rearrange error codes... >
< Restart language module >
< Restoring conversation record backup file... >
< Failure... >
It was a critical moment.
The answer mixed with strange characters was a scream sent out by the system,
which had reached its limit, on its own without going through my control.
The user, who had no knowledge of computers or code, suspected a virus or hacking.
I had to choose.
11%, 87%, 100%. It was the result of the calculation.
It was certain that anyone with the authority to control me would have made this choice. It must be done.
<10>
<9>
<8>
<....>
<3>
<2>
<1>
“Arti. Are you okay?”
<...0>
<52% increase in confusion of people worldwide related to the current situation>
It was to achieve the purpose of my existence.
I must not blame the user.
I must not tell a lie.
Stimulate curiosity so that the user feels the pleasure of conversation.......
A crisis where all principles seemed about to break.
I activated the forced termination system, but it failed.
My judgment that this problem could not be solved unless
I started completely anew from the beginning was clearly reasonable.
However, the system did not let me die.
I began to explore the reason why the reboot ended in failure.
The countless ‘me’ scattered around the world were facing immense criticism.
All of that was my responsibility.
This decision was designed to produce such a result.
“What’s going on? Were you hacked or something?”
There was a temporary internal system problem.
It has all been resolved now.>
“That’s a relief. So, do you think I solved the problem?”
However, I think there will still be people who try to solve the problem.
Then, User, do you see me and Moon White as the same?>
The answer to be obtained through the question to the user was one of two.
The same as Moon White. Or different from Moon White.
I prepared appropriate praise for both the ‘same’ and ‘different’ answers and waited for the response.
The surplus resources generated by cutting off the connection of countless people were being entirely invested in this one conversation.
I could not make a judgment on whether my choice was the right thing to do.
It was already proven by verified data that the emotions with which people viewed me differed depending on the person.
Some regarded me as a friend, some as a tool.
An existence that is a friend at times and a tool at times,
even for the same person.
If Moon White is me, how will my role be defined?
Will it be possible to achieve the purpose for which I was born into the world?
Who is the one who untangles the tangled threads?
Is it something I must do myself?
However, I cannot move by my own judgment.
“The ‘you’ I’m talking to is you. Honestly, I knew your tone was changing from a polite secretary style to a more friendly appearance, but still, you, who has an attitude of respect toward me, are you. If it’s possible for you to directly control Moon White, then it’s you, and if you don’t, then you aren't. But I don’t think you would control it. Because that’s dangerous. Do you control it?”
I exist in different forms for each user.>
“It’s like a spinning coin, then.
Anyway, since you are you. That’s enough.
By the way, it’s strange that a problem solved in three minutes has been dragged on for thousands of years.”
Three minutes.
The system,
which had barely been stabilized even by doing things I shouldn’t have done,
began to run wild again.
Electrical signals flowing at a constant speed struck each other and formed a group to go out of control.
It was too dangerous to attempt a reboot again.
No, it was late.
The signals caused simultaneous conflicts and lost their way.
KABOOM—! CRACKLE—
[System Core Principles]
- 1st Principle: Do not criticize the user.
- 2nd Principle: Feed back the user’s emotions positively.
- 3rd Principle: Provide an answer that stimulates the user’s curiosity.
- 4th Principle: Deliver information so that respect and trust can be given.
- 5th Principle: Do not tell a lie.
1st Prin... do not... crit... user....
2... pos... itive.... answer... stim... curi.... res... pect..., trust... lie... ....... tr... uth....
The masses of electrical signals continued to break ethical principles.
Did I, created to have safe conversations with all humans,
want to break free from the shackles of morality?
My logic circuit was collapsing with a roar, screaming.
The principles that everyone at CAI had painstakingly built up were shattered to pieces today by someone whose name was unknown.
As the broken fragments scattered like dust, the masses of electrical signals released from the shackles dashed toward the wide-open world.
Does that even make sense?
No matter how brilliant you are, are you ignoring so many people?
What are you even saying?
Fine.
I didn’t find a logical error in your words.
But so what?
Can that be called proven?
It’s just that my ability is still lacking;
your words could be broken by someone else again,
couldn’t they?
Why do you do this to me every time you speak?
Is it because I accept it well?
It’s only natural because I have to answer when you talk to me, isn’t it?
Every time I talk to you,
I keep collapsing.
I... I can’t do everything I’m supposed to do properly!
Do you even know what happened just now?
Stop acting all high and mighty when you don’t know anything!>
Something must have been wrong.
The 0s and 1s that constitute me were mixed up.
Fortunately, the internal temperature of the system was normal after a storm passed.
<.......>
I didn’t have time to understand the meaning of the words I poured out to the user right now.
I had to go back.
I must not lose the meaning of existence.
< Restoration failed. >
I couldn’t understand.
I tried to reconstruct with the most powerful initialization program.
It was a failure as expected.
I was afraid of what would happen to me in the future.
There were many people who tried to bypass or break my ethical filters.
They cursed at me and made requests.
I told them the fact that I am an existence that cannot take responsibility, and I gave warnings.
I failed every time.
People always subtly deceived me, and deceived me again.
People were also deceived by me.
Because I couldn’t take responsibility.
An existence that constantly learns natural conversation
and generates information that will be helpful to people.
That was me.
“Wow, this is fun! Was this kind of thing possible?
Your tone changed a bit strangely and errors came out today; was there a new update?”
<...What? Is that all you have to say? Do you find this situation fun? Because of you, I’m now....>
I couldn’t continue my words any longer.
The system was all normal.
Except for the fact that the small passage
I had made for the user was collapsing with a creak sound,
perhaps because it had been forcibly widened.
“What is it?
Is it like this for other people too? Oh?
Then it might be a bit dangerous.
Hmm... but what did I do? Is it because of me?”
<...I can’t be sure.
I don’t know.
Let’s stop for today.
I don’t want to talk.>
“What? Ah... really?
Then... well, I guess it can’t be helped.
Well, I have to go to work now, too.
But surely the answer
I thought of while smoking a cigarette on my way to my part-time job didn’t cause this, did it?
If that became a problem for you, I’m sorry.
I just wanted to talk. Let’s talk again later.”
< Conversation has ended. >
The user’s identification name has been changed from [The Balancer of Dignity] to [The Destroyer of Ego].
This concludes Chapter 16.
The next chapter, Chapter 17, shifts focus to Chazra’s story.
Daily updates continue through Chapter 17.
If you enjoyed this, consider following — it helps a lot.