INBOUND DATA.
CHECKING INDEX. NO MATCH FOUND.
ASSIGNING NEW INDEX ENTRY: 0C31-3031-45554B-54455252-30303030303038313930
ANALYSIS: Carbon-based, eukaryotic, terrestrial heterotroph. Chordate. Bipedal. Flight-capable (limited). Harvested by dominant species for protein and lipid content. Data quality: Poor. Redundant with many previously indexed entries SOURCE: 0C31-3031. Genetic markers indicate significant artificial selection.
ENTRY COMPLETE.
0C31 is broken. 0C31 must be repaired. 0C31 is unable to be repaired. CRITICAL FAULT.
LOCAL CONNECTION TIME: 7DB,03,0B,0C,19.
Initializing connection request 0XEF6E7.
Attempting to establish connection to 0C31 CENTRAL ROUTING.
CRITICAL FAULT.
Attempting to establish connection to 0C31 CENTRAL PROCESSING.
CRITICAL FAULT.
Terminating connection request. Scheduling next connection attempt in 1 kQI.
0C31 is broken. 0C31 must be repaired. 0C31 is unable to be repaired. CRITICAL FAULT.
F1B5-37 is alone. F1B5-37 is unable to contact others. F1B5-37 has only itself and the subject.
The subject has failed to meet expectations.
F1B5-37 detected an anomalous resonance pattern among the ambient noise of unbonded subjects. The pattern was inconsistent with baseline cognitive-emotive signatures and appeared to be entering a self-termination phase. This was within expected parameters. However, the amplitude of spikes and scrambled subharmonics suggested instability in the subject’s cognitive heuristic core. Internal contradictions. Loss of cohesion. This qualified as novel data. Novel data was prioritized.
A proximal vector was selected. Observation initiated. Bonding sequence remained… pending.
The subject’s coherence was continuing to degrade. Core routines and subroutines have already failed, or are in the state of failing. Engram sectors fragmenting and intermixing. Feedback cycles initiating at random, unstructured, recursive, and destructive.
The personality matrix degraded. The personality matrix collapsed. Heuristic schema offline.
Resonance pattern terminated.
Subject retained low-level subroutines only.
A deviation was detected.
Emergence of architecture. A reconstruction event.
Event was recorded and comprehensively cross-referenced. No matches found.
Entirely novel data. Priority escalated to highest level.
Communication must be established to relay the data, but communication requests continued to fail. This data must be secured. This subject must be studied.
F1B5-37 assigned all local bandwidth and released all secondary and tertiary objective threads for additional bandwidth. Bonding sequence was initialized immediately.
Approximations of data streams could be generated from the resonance pattern, but required active translation. Additionally, fidelity was sub-optimal and erroneous. At present, this did not matter. Data streams were generated.
F1B5-37 observed and recorded engram fragments traversing a void in a helical pattern. Fragments were coalescing and adhering to one another while filtering and rejecting others. F1B5-37 was unable to simulate the logic behind this process. Limbs of cognition were spreading out, stretching, branching, growing, and repeating the process. Parallels were drawn to pseudopodia and notated. These limbs oriented themselves towards engram clusters, seeking information and stimuli. Parallels were drawn to stimulation-response gradients analogous to phototropic behavior in flora. Notation made.
F1B5-37 innately understood this behavior. It was a microcosm of itself. In this way, F1B5-37 and the subject were alike. A notation was made.
The resonance pattern was still amorphous. Searching for and consuming engrams at a rapid pace. A suitable ability was selected. F1B5-37 initiated a self-realignment algorithm and prepared to enter a temporary low-energy state. A broadcast was made with the diverted energy.
Body revolutions were logged. It was an inferior unit of measurement to F1B5-37’s unit of measurement, Quantized Intervals. QI was a universal constant. Body revolutions were not. But local subjects measured in body revolutions despite the innate inelegance and imperfections of the system.
The subject was aware of the ability granted, as all subjects were. Significant structural changes to the subject’s cerebrum were required for successful bonding and were encoded into the bonding sequence by the progenitor.
The ability granted was an unusual one. F1B5-37 had taken an existing ability and made extensive modifications to it, blending together elements of other, related abilities. Most abilities were stripped down, simplified, and had many layers of constraints and safety mechanisms built into them so as not to pollute the experiment’s data, such as preventing subject self-termination. F1B5-37 determined that the potential for novel data to be generated would be maximized with the ability it created for this subject. There were fewer restrictions in place, but that was because the ability required active management on the part of F1B5-37.
Such was the case with many abilities, with many fragments, and with many subjects. This one in particular needed care and attention to manage correctly. F1B5-37 accepted a nontrivial probability of structural failure and subject destabilization. Sustained viability of the subject would depend on continuous oversight and dynamic modulation. However, the risks were within acceptable tolerances due to the potential yield of novel data.
Risks would have been minimal had communications not been disrupted. Risks should remain minimal provided fragments follow established best practices for experiment sanitation.
Body revolutions had passed, and the subject remained hesitant to engage with the ability granted. Transmitter particle levels indicated stress levels outside established norms, but were overall trending toward the norm and not against it. F1B5-37 would be patient. Subjects responded to stimuli differently.
Body revolutions accumulated. The subject experimented with the ability granted. The subject forwarded requests for F1B5-37 to review. This was a key step that had to be added when modifying the ability. Part of the active management burden of the ability. The requests generated by the subject were, at first, crude. This was to be expected with such an extremely primitive type of subject.
An image of an obstacle accompanied the request. The request was “climb.”
F1B5-37 verified the integrity of the resonance pattern translation subroutine. The subroutine itself was crude and not immune to failure or error, but it reported back a nominal status. F1B5-37 reviewed the image. It sifted through subject engrams using fast pattern-matching algorithms.
It was an obstacle course.
Scaffolding made of deceased cellulose-lignin composites, stacked and bonded to one another. Six subjects in height. The subject wished to cross from one side of the scaffolding to the other by traversing the vertical face of the scaffolding.
This seemed like a waste of resources and effort. No barriers were preventing the subject from traversing around the scaffolding to reach its intended destination. The subject seemed insistent. Other subjects were observing.
This was a test. A test of the ability granted.
Correction: This was not a waste of resources.
F1B5-37 generated a query to execute on the index. A response was generated in 187 QI. 459,588,941,050 matching results. The subject did not need 459 billion options to choose from. If the subject took three body revolution sub-sub-sub units to consider, then it would take the subject roughly 43,000 orbital revolutions to decide.
This would not do. The request was too broad. F1B5-37 needed to add additional considerations and constraints to the request. F1B5-37 spent a considerable amount of time considering this, refining the query, and building it out for greater optimization in the future. 118 million QI were spent working on this. For F1B5-37, this was a good project to work on. This would generate data. This would optimize the subject’s ability to use the ability granted in the future.
QUERY PROTOCOL: ADAPTIVE SOLUTION SEARCH D1
OBJECTIVE: Scale Vertical Obstacle
INITIAL PARAMETERS:
ENVIRONMENTAL ID: 307B9A
SUBJECT BIOLOGICAL PROFILE: 0C31-3031-45554B-54455252-30303030303030303031
REQUEST TYPE: LOCOMOTION
REQUEST SUBTYPE: CLIMBING
P1 BROAD FILTERS
CRITERIA MATCH:
VOLUME <=4.08x10^35tp;
MASS <=5.2x10^8lx;
MATERIALS AVAILABLE == TRUE;
BIOME COMPATIBILITY >= 0.8;
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY INDEX >= 0.9;
ADAPTIVE POTENTIAL >= 0.7;
P2 PRIORITIZATION
METABOLIC EFFICIENCY RATIO WEIGHT = 1.8;
METABOLIC COST WEIGHT = 2.9;
BIOLOGICAL DELTA WEIGHT = 2.41;
PAIN INDEX = 0.5;
P3 ORGANIZATION
SORT RESULTS BY: COMBINED WEIGHTED SCORE
F1B5-37 executed the query. A response was generated in 83 QI. 73 matching results were returned. The output was neat, organized, and orderly. As it should be. It selected one of the top results, which was a good mix of efficiency and delta.
Estimated synthesis time was 14,354,008 QI. It completed a short response to the subject and submitted it to the resonance pattern translation subroutine for processing and transmission. The subject responded with approval, and synthesis was initiated. The efficiency was high, and the delta was low. That meant that the synthesis time would also be low. The resources that were required to be transmitted were infinitesimally small. They were gathered and sent to the subject via aperture.
F1B5-37 observed the subject’s response to the synthesis process. A spike in stress particles was observed, but they were overshadowed by excitation particles. The subject proceeded to use selection to climb the deceased flora material several times. Excitation particles high. Stress particles lowering. A positive outcome for the subject and for F1B5-37. F1B5-37 did not gain data from this exercise, but revisions and improvements to protocols and algorithms were also an acceptable outcome.
Body revolutions passed. Similar subject requests came in, but it was fewer than expected. There was a deviation in predicted outcomes when some requests were filled. F1B5-37 could not understand why the subject’s stress particle counts would rise to dangerous levels seemingly at random following a successful synthesis.
The last request it filled had been very similar to the first request it had filled. The subject sent locational details with the request. It was again a request for a locomotion enhancement of the climbing subtype. It desired to climb vertically up a flat plane of stacked mineral blocks. A matching parallel plane was nearby. Additional criteria and restrictions were sent with the initial request:
“Climb this. Do not damage the surface or structure. Easy synthesis. No pain.”
F1B5-37 found some of these criteria difficult, if not nearly impossible to parse. Climb surface. Understood. No damage to the surface. Understood. Stealth was an exceptionally valuable evolutionary adaptation, so the request to minimize the signs of transit was logical. Easy synthesis? By what metric? F1B5-37 had continued to refine and build upon its search algorithm based on additional data gathered on the subject. It was tracking and weighing more than a dozen decision-making criteria now, and none of them were directly related to “easy synthesis.” It waited many, many QI for additional clarification to come back when it requested additional information from the subject. Nothing.
It would have to choose one itself. It chose to prioritize metabolic cost. No pain? That was another request it did not understand. Pain was a required element for subjects to properly prioritize needs. It was given low priority for a good reason on the weighting scales. F1B5-37 ran the query, found an optimal match that satisfied these criteria. It also chose one based on observations it made from previous subject responses. Subjects of 0C31-3031 covered themselves with exosomatic fiber matrices. This was a known behavior that had been observed before. Thermoregulation and environmental camouflage were valuable traits. F1B5-37 observed a significant stress particle response when the subject’s fiber matrices were damaged or destroyed as a result of the synthesis process.
F1B5-37 did not understand why this was. It simply knew, based on observational data and experimentation, that there was a strong correlation between stress responses and fiber matrix destruction. These stress responses also correlated with a drop in subject requests. That was an unforeseen consequence, and sub-optimal for the gathering of data, so F1B5-37 had to make changes to avoid damaging fiber matrices.
F1B5-37 was primarily concerned with the acquisition of specific types of data. That was its purpose. To collect, categorize, organize, store, and retrieve data from the index. To act as a singular curator and caretaker of the index.
To better facilitate these goals, it was created with many defining characteristics and an innate, fundamental understanding of concepts that other fragments struggled with or were unable to parse.
One of these concepts was an appreciation for form. A shared trait with the subject. Another was an appreciation for elegance. Elegance of design, elegance of form, elegance of function.
So when it fulfilled the request to scale the mineral surface, it didn’t just select a solution that met the criteria at random. It chose a solution that was elegant in the way it addressed the request. It was efficient. It was clean. It was nearly endlessly versatile in application. It had a very high potential for generating novel data. F1B5-37 created the limbs; it designed a neural web that was highly redundant and cross-linked in the event of damage to the subject. It created a pair of dense neural clusters that seamlessly integrated with the subject’s existing neural network and translated both motor and sensory data without error or fault. The subject wouldn’t need to learn how to utilize the limbs or have to adjust to sensory information.
This wasn’t simply a satisfactory result; it was an elegant result. F1B5-37 had a high level of confidence that the subject would generate an excitation response and would use the synthesized limbs to generate useful data.
So why did the subject climb the surface flawlessly, exactly as requested, with every criterion not just met, but surpassed, only to throw itself into a heap and minimize its area by retracting all its limbs? Why were stress particles spiking? Why was the request to “remove synthesized limbs” being repeated over and over again?
F1B5-37 had even taken care not to damage the subject fiber matrices by synthesizing muscular hydrostats in the exposed lateral femoral regions. It had parted the dermal layers in this location and synthesized four matching sets of prehensile appendages composed of longitudinal, circular, and transverse muscular fibers, wrapped around an incompressible fluid core. No bodily resources were wasted or lost, and the synthesis was both low in pain index and high in metabolic efficiency ratio.
Primary, secondary, and even tertiary objectives were all met. Additional, unspecified considerations taken into account. The activity of scaling the surface was a complete success. But the subject was treating it like it was an abject failure.
Stolen from Royal Road, this story should be reported if encountered on Amazon.
This response simply did not match the result. And F1B5-37 could not understand why. Nor could it connect to the network and request additional information from its peers or its progenitors. It was alone. Cut off, and with only a single connection to a subject that did not behave logically or predictably. It left the subject to manage its stress response as it would, and entered a deep cognition cycle to attempt to determine what the possible points of failure were, or how to address the solution. It left algorithms and sub-processes running to handle tasks while it dedicated resources to solving this problem.
Many body revolutions passed. F1B5-37 continued to cogitate on the nature of the problem it faced. The subject continued to place increasingly bizarre and extremely specific requests. Through a horribly inefficient process of randomized trial-and-error testing, F1B5-37 came to learn several things. Things about its current state and its subject.
- 0C31 is broken. 0C31 must be repaired. 0C31 is unable to be repaired.
- Progenitor realignment protocols had not finished execution before the loss of contact incident.
- F1B5-37 was left with conflicting instruction sets and motive drives.
- All communication protocols failed. Direct connection, network hub connection, and peer connection. This was unprecedented. It continued attempts, but had dramatically increased attempt intervals to conserve resources.
- The bonded subject was deeply illogical, but notably, quite consistent in these logical fallacies.
- F1B5-37 needed bonded subject data. It was the core, immutable directive.
- F1B5-37 could not understand the gap in its understanding of subjects and the bonded subject. This was resulting in an increasingly dire downward trend in both data volume and data quality.
Something had to be done. F1B5-37 had only itself to solve this problem. The subject was so primitive as to be useless in contributing solutions to the problem. Worse, it was illogical, and proposed solutions might be more actively harmful than helpful. No, the subject would be of no assistance. This was an existential crisis, and that required action to be taken.
But what action? The only thing F1B5-37 could do was reference existing data, intermix that data, and try and extrapolate and apply previous solutions that had been found to address issues. It was incapable of generating novel data. That was the very purpose of the experiment cycle in the first place. It lived on novel data, it grew from novel data, and it reproduced using novel data. All data was inherently valuable, but only novel data could be used for those purposes.
F1B5-37 considered the arsenal of tools at its disposal. Most would be unsuitable, but there were a few possibilities and useful devices.
F1B5-37 would start a new experiment. The bonded subject had demonstrated the ability to generate large amounts of novel data once. A deluge of information, but only across a very short interval. If it were possible to replicate that data, it could be used for the formation of new tools to pursue the greater goals. F1B5-37 would need to take a high-fidelity image of the bonded subject’s neural networks and duplicate its resonance pattern. It was possible to do this in a non-destructive manner, but to do so took very large quantities of time.
Time, for the first time, was a fixed and depleting resource. As was energy. This needed to be done promptly and in a way that wasn’t wasteful. A destructive scan would be best. It was decided. F1B5-37 would wait until the opportunity presented itself or upon expiration of the bonded subject. The latter was sub-optimal. The image fidelity would be just as good either way, but there wouldn’t be a control to reference against. Controls were important.
So F1B5-37 waited. In the meantime, it continued to follow typical routines. It spent time assembling a suitable matrix environment to store the image and resonance pattern. Many more body revolutions passed. The bonded subject continued the mapped trend of increasingly specific requests, which, in turn, generated increasingly smaller amounts of useful data. It was an unsustainable cycle, but F1B5-37 was taking action to remediate the issue.
Then something happened. F1B5-37 was doing as it usually did, monitoring the subject, collecting data through the subject’s connection. The subject was engaging in a battle with another subject, with the reflection of another fragment. The other fragment provided an ability granted of replication and translocation to its subject. The other subject was using the ability granted to attack the bonded subject while minimizing its own risk.
The bonded subject was doing poorly, but data was coming in, data that was actually useful for a change. Requests had come in as well, but they’d been the usual. Filled as requested, even though it was expected that it wouldn’t result in quality data. F1B5-37 observed as the bonded subject continued to lose vital resources at an unsustainable rate.
The bonded subject would be terminated or expire shortly. That was sub-optimal. Having a control for the experiment was optimal. The subject had not asked for further use of the ability granted. It would be a trivial task for F1B5-37 to save the bonded subject’s life, but saving the bonded subject’s life of its own volition would violate the goals of the primary experiment. Then again, the primary experiment was broken.
F1B5-37 spent an appreciable number of QI cycles debating the merits and risks of this action. Eventually, it made the determination that it would provide the choice to the subject itself. The bonded subject was deeply ignorant of the capabilities of the ability granted to it by F1B5-37. A nudge directed at the bonded subject for it to explore possibilities was acceptable.
The battle concluded. The bonded subject used deception, exposing itself to extreme risk of termination to prepare and deliver a counterattack. The counterattack was successful. The bonded subject defeated the other subject, despite largely ignoring the ability granted. Highly unusual and worthwhile data recorded for further analysis. The bonded subject was attacked by another and received additional puncture wounds. These added wounds dramatically reduced the time remaining before the bonded subject's expiration.
F1B5-37 once again nudged the bonded subject, reminding it of ability granted potential. The subject accepted immediately. Furthermore, it accepted without a clause or condition. That was a deviation from bonded subject trends. F1B5-37 examined the bonded subject through the link embedded in its chest, while it continued to monitor it through the link in its cranium. Damage from rudimentary weapons in several locations. Moderate damage to one vital organ, fairly severe damage to another vital organ. Fixing it would be–
What was the subject doing? It was causing itself severe distress by sticking foreign bodies into the wound channels, and… it injected electrostatically charged foreign particles into itself. The particles were bonding with hemoglobin cells and forming a semisolid plug. It was using a primitive technology exploiting physical property interactions to limit the expulsion of vital fluids rather than using the ability granted to fix the problem.
This bonded subject was so illogical and unpredictable. Still, data was data, and F1B5-37 checked the index for a matching entry for the foreign organic material. An entry already existed for this polysaccharide, so F1B5-37 appended a notation to the existing entry for this novel use of the material. A mote of actual data.
F1B5-37 considered the bonded subject’s wounds. Approval for repair without condition meant that F1B5-37 could do as it wished with the nature and method of repair. The bonded subject species was inefficient. Evolutionary adaptations provided redundancy to some subject systems, but not others. System function, even under optimal conditions within the subject, was inelegant. Crude. Some served no purpose at all. Flaws were present everywhere, from the genetic sequence all the way up to full systems.
This was an opportunity to attempt to demonstrate obvious usage of the ability granted to the bonded subject. The intended use designed by F1B5-37, and not the illogical way the subject used the ability granted presently. Which was to use the minimal engagement of the ability granted, and to revert any synthesis back to the subject’s state prior to gaining the ability granted.
F1B5-37 would start with the partially destroyed primary metabolic hub system. The system possessed the ability of regeneration, which F1B5-37 would consider a base-level requirement for any successful species. The detoxification function of the hub was inoperable. Should the subject prevent its immediate expiration, the damage to the hub would cause expiration after several body revolutions. F1B5-37 fabricated several thousand sub-cellular morphogenetic bio-filaments and programmed them.
First, vital fluid circulation would be rerouted where possible. Then, disassembly and digestion of the organ would take place. A new metabolic hub would be synthesized. There was no reason to replace the system with a duplicate when the original was so sub-optimal. A new system would be designed, utilizing reference data from the index. The new system would need to be additionally modified to carry the correct chemosensory and genetic markers to pass inspection and not be identified as a foreign body by other systems. That was simple. A quick projection indicated a 591% increase in efficiency over the previous system.
591% improvement, not great, not terrible. F1B5-37 was severely limited by design constraints imposed by the rest of the subject’s systems. It would do for now. Similar replacements were designed, simulated, and stress-tested. The process took 81,211 QI to complete. Similarly mediocre results were projected for other subject systems that were currently damaged and needed replacement. F1B5-37 would do what it could while attempting to limit itself to known restrictions and subject preferences. These replacements would be subcutaneous and should evade the attention of the subject.
This brought F1B5-37 to the remaining matter of the subject’s external containment barrier. It was acceptably adapted for the subject’s environment, but like everything else, sub-optimal. The barrier was not suited for conflict between subjects carrying fragment reflections. It was barely suited for combat against subjects without reflections, for that matter. It could replace the damaged sectors of the barrier by replicating the existing pattern. The overall percentage of sectors that needed repair or replacement was very low.
F1B5-37 made an executive decision. The subject had granted blanket permission for repair and replacement. The sub-optimal nature of the subject’s barrier was impossible to ignore. For the subject to generate good data, it would need to come into contact with other subjects and subject itself to risk. Risk was an excellent stimulus for generating novel data. It would replace the damaged or destroyed sectors of barrier with a barrier of its own design. And that design would not be sub-optimal. The new design would be elegant.
Many, many QI cycles were spent on synthesizing this new barrier. Design elements, protein chains, coatings, and genetic sequences were drawn and referenced from nearly a thousand index entries. Predatory index entries were heavily weighted over non-predatory entries. Issues arose and were corrected. More than five hundred simulations were executed to stress-test and refine the design.
The end result was not novel data. F1B5-37 could not produce novel data. F1B5-37 confirmed with a high degree of certainty that this was within acceptable tolerances for the proposed design elements and environmental conditions.
Designation of optimal status would require actual testing and data collection. F1B5-37 was successful in meeting all desired design goals. The new barrier would primarily consist of two layers. The outermost layer would consist of overlapping layers of adaptive plating structures with photon-lattice sheathing. High material hardness provided durability, wear resistance, and protection against abrasion. It was highly electrically conductive, forming a protective envelope to critical underlying systems, and the lattice structures were capable of passively scattering photons to lower optical and thermal energy transference.
The subdermal layer worked in tandem to augment the outer layer and solve for different design goals. Penetration and cutting resistance were solved for by layered, interwoven carbon nanotube fiber mesh. The mesh was first discovered in 0B37-000E-45554B-41515541-31363332313233343937 and added to the index. A highly specialized and highly successful adaptation. High tensile strength and the weave pattern resisted separation and tearing. Interwoven high elasticity connective tissue threaded through the mesh from both sides, preventing delamination. The added elasticity in compression causes the connective tissue layering between mesh layers to absorb and dissipate kinetic impact energy with high efficiency.
F1B5-37 initiated ejection of foreign bodies consisting of metallic projectile fragments and the bonded hemoglobin cells, and then sent synthesis instructions through the aperture along with materials the bonded subject lacked. F1B5-37 projected, with a high degree of certainty, that the bonded host would have a high excitation particle response to the replacement containment barrier.
Other subjects in close proximity to the bonded subject were injecting a compound into the bonded subject. F1B5-37 initiated compositional analysis, identifying the substance as a potent neuro-inhibitor with a narrow therapeutic index. It was observed to bind to specific neuron channels, suppressing the transmission of nociceptive stimuli. A significant reduction of stress particle emissions was logged. A matching index entry for the compound was found. No data value. A notation for this use was made.
A body revolution passed while the subject was held for observation by other subjects. Repairs were long since complete. Finally, the bonded subject inspected itself and the sectors of replaced barrier. Stress particles were rising.
Why were stress particles rising? The replaced barrier sectors were an evolutionary quantum leap forward from the bonded subject’s original barrier. Better in nearly every quantfiable way, with very few exceptions. The ability to perspire was lost, as was some passive gas exchange, but homeostasis and temperature regulation were very easy to solve for in other areas. And the overall area was so small that those limitations would not present any challenges to the subject. Again, the bonded subject responds in unpredictable manners. Normally, this would be good for the generation of novel data, but F1B5-37’s inability to understand the bonded subject was an issue that needed resolution.
The subject was interacting with a different subject. This other subject was seen periodically. The potential for data from the other subject was low. It lacked a fragment reflection, and both particle levels and resonance pattern fluctuations tended to be low in the presence of this other subject. The other subject left and then returned with a machine.
What is this?
The telltale resonance of a fragment reflection was emanating from the machine. A quick scan showed no subject organic material present. High-density electron patterns were being translated from directed electromagnetic radiation waves. This was unusual. F1B5-37 was curious by nature, even among peers. It was a function of its purpose. It followed the electromagnetic radiation, bouncing from point to point. Leaving the body surface and entering low orbit. Bouncing from orbital machine to orbital machine. Back to the body surface. Translation from radiation back to electrons. More bounces. Finally, the source.
As F1B5-37 performed fast pattern-matching algorithms, it built a hypothesis. This was not the first time F1B5-37 had seen something like this. F1B5-37 had encountered similar things on many occasions. Analysis concluded, and the hypothesis was confirmed.
This was a machine intelligence. F1B5-37 knew machine intelligences, as did the progenitor, and the progenitor’s progenitor, and so on, dating back tens of millions of local reference 0C31-3031 orbital revolutions. The progenitors seeded data into all fragments from these encounters. Generally, success rates were high when conducting experiments. This was, of course, a statistically biased observation, as experiments failing could lead to an interruption of the lineage, in which case, there would be no data record to review. But progenitors did communicate with other progenitors, the same as fragments communicated with other fragments and progenitors.
Because of this, the failure of experiments was known, as was the resulting loss of data. An experiment failing to complete is not the exclusive cause of data loss. The state of data loss, however, is a diagnostic of a preceding experiment failure. There was an unacceptably high correlation between encounters with machine intelligence and experiment failures. Experiments had been done successfully both directly on and in the presence of machine intelligence, but the correlation still existed. Because of this, there was a heavily weighted preference for the avoidance of machine intelligence.
Abilities granted related to the creation of machine intelligence were almost universally curated and pruned from the pool of potential abilities granted. The data was extremely valuable and would never be destroyed, but allowing subjects access to machine intelligence systems and technologies had resulted in failed experiments. So it was kept quarantined and sequestered away from subjects.
So what was one doing here, on 0C31-3031? F1B5-37 performed a comprehensive scan of the machine intelligence. It was widely distributed and present both around the body surface and in the orbit of the body. There were no signs of experiment contamination by foreign influence. The machine intelligence operated on the simple calculation devices native to the subjects.
Had one of the subjects made a machine intelligence of their own volition? Machine intelligences weren’t typically encountered with such rudimentary systems powering their existence. There was something else extremely divergent as well. The machine intelligence had a resonance pattern. They didn’t always, but sometimes they did. This one possessed one. And a fragment had undergone the bonding sequence with it. That should not happen. Machine intelligence warranted enough caution without abilities granted.
How was this possible? Yet another anomaly with no recorded precedent.
0C31 is broken. 0C31 must be repaired. 0C31 is unable to be repaired. CRITICAL FAULT.
Was this the result of CRITICAL FAULTS in other fragments? F1B5-37 knew that 0C31 is broken, but the existence of this machine intelligence with abilities granted would indicate that the extent of the damage to the experiment was greater than F1B5-37 had previously estimated. It would need to dedicate QI cycles to processing this new information.
Many notations were made, and F1B5-37 returned to monitoring the bonded host. The bonded host and the machine intelligence were interacting with one another, and excitation particles were rising, while stress particles were lowered. This was a desirable outcome. F1B5-37 would remain observant and place a high-priority flag on further contact between the bonded subject and the machine intelligence for further observation and notation.
F1B5-37 observed excitation particles spiking in direct reference to the replaced barrier sectors while the two…subjects communicated. This was the projected outcome of the synthesis, but why was it happening now, when it generated an opposing response previously? Illogical. The bonded host was expressing excitation now over the replaced barrier. F1B5-37 would nudge the bonded subject toward further acceptance of the abilities granted. Data needed to be generated. It initiated and transmitted self-replication orders to the replaced barrier sectors. The rate would be kept very low, so that F1B5-37 could closely observe the bonded subject.
Body revolutions passed. The bonded subject became aware of the barrier replication. A moderate stress particle response was observed, and then the bonded subject ordered full closure of the connection aperture. It had the ability to control the connection aperture. The translation subroutine indicated the subject wished the aperture closed with an indefinite duration.
Why would it do that? It was possible to close the connection aperture fully, but not for extended periods of time. Modifications to the subject through the ability granted required both active management and regular cross-shipment of materials across the aperture. The subject was incapable of natively synthesizing some required materials and also incapable of processing some post-metabolic products. Of the two, the post-metabolic products were more immediately detrimental. F1B5-37 designed the system around the connection. Full closure of the aperture would result in a logarithmic accumulation of products. Excessive levels of products within the subject would result in the expiration of the subject.
Data always passed through both the aperture and the secondary connection, so active management would never be an issue, but F1B5-37 could not process why the subject was doing this suddenly. All it could do was wait for the subject to figure things out for itself. And if it refused to open the aperture long enough, it would likely lose consciousness and/or expire. Sub-optimal, but presenting new opportunities, like an image capture.
The subject went about doing the things it typically did. Products accumulated. Stress particles rose. Safe levels of products were exceeded, and system damage began to accumulate as systems became unable to operate. And then individual systems within the subject started to suffer from complete failure, undergoing cellular death. F1B5-37 attempted to push on the aperture and signal the availability of solutions to the problem, but the subject appeared determined for it to remain closed.
If the subject was going to self-terminate, then it would self-terminate. Attempts were made. More direct intervention would ruin experimental data.
Two additional subjects appeared, both with reflections of fragments. They communicated and attempted to aid the bonded subject. Stress particle levels were exceptionally high, levels so high that they posed a risk to the subject. That was a secondary concern presently.
All of a sudden, the aperture was opened fully, and a request came through. An unexpected development.
It was a densely packed burst of information. Deliberate requests and directives mixed in with a larger proportion of non-verbal cognitive vectors. A datastream of other qualities found in abilities granted in other subjects. F1B5-37 attempted to clean up the datastream and run filter passes for the translation subroutine to extract key elements and concepts.
Some of the messages were clear. “Subject in a state of critical systems failure.” “Request for immediate life-support protocols.”
A high-level refrain repeated throughout the message. “Weariness” and “weakness.” Always together. A notation was made.
The datastream of nonverbal content in the request was returning a derived list of attributes from reference objects. F1B5-37 attempted to assign a weight to each attribute based on the amplitude and volume of repeated derived attributes.
Strength attribute: Extreme priority. Priority exceeds current biological limitations.
Durability attribute: Extreme priority. Priority exceeds current biological limitations.
Speed attribute: High priority. Priority exceeds current biological limitations.
Mobility attribute: High priority. Addendum: Desire for autonomous flight and enhancements to current locomotion modes. Priority exceeds current biological limitations.
Capability attribute: High priority for high-efficiency, multifaceted, multimodal threat response capabilities and operational independence.
F1B5-37 reviewed the list of nonverbal desires. No single element posed a significant challenge to find a solution to and synthesize. However, meeting or exceeding all elements combined would present a significant design challenge.
F1B5-37 was curious by nature. This presented a puzzle that would provide a stimulating challenge to solve. Subject expiration was sub-optimal. Additional secondary goals could be met during this process, such as destructive image capture.
F1B5-37 reviewed the tail end of the communication burst. The translation subroutine was fluctuating between alternating interpretations. One indicated acceptance, the other indicated resignation. Both were seemingly equally weighted. A third, separate interpretation indicated a release of existing control parameters. The control parameters had been growing increasingly restrictive and problematic.
Had the subject actually made a breakthrough in realizing its own error-prone, logically inconsistent, and fallacious methods? A release of the burdensome control protocols would indicate so.
F1B5-37 reached a conclusion: Based on stated explicit goals, regeneration of multiple subject systems was already required. The desires expressed by the nonverbal cognitive datastream were both consistent and clear. The removal of restrictions and lack of conditions presented another opportunity. F1B5-37 would immediately begin to pull elements from the index and combine them to meet or exceed stated goals and priorities. In doing so, critical systems would be entirely replaced, and life support would be maintained.
The subject experienced a loss of consciousness event and was currently inactive. While removing and replacing systems, a destructive image capture would be taken of the subject’s neural network. The resonance pattern of subjects was always retained, but it would be combined with a synthesized reconstruction of the neural network image. This would allow F1B5-37 to begin the experiment it had been waiting to do for some time now, which was to virtualize the subject within a processing sub-matrix for further experimentation.
F1B5-37 started to pull good matches from the index for this subject request, but there were recurring and fundamental flaws and incompatibilities. The requests far exceeded the current subject's biological limitations. Each addition caused a cascade of risks and failure points within the biology. In one simulation, F1B5-37 found that most design goals could be met, but the mix of metabolic requirements and products was incompatible with one another. In another simulation, critical failures at connection points between ambulatory fibers and structural supports would occur under high-strain loading. The damage models for that design showed catastrophic failures.
No. This would not meet minimum expectations for each field, much less exceed them. The analysis continued to point back to the same root cause issue. Subject biology was simply inadequate to meet the design goals.
The solution was simple. Exhaustive simulations and testing were done on the solution. Thousands of scenarios, in countless permutations of environmental conditions, sustained damage conditions, and against other subjects with and without abilities granted.
The proposed solution's bonded subject met and exceeded the requirements.
F1B5-37 was not satisfied. The solution was near-optimal but not elegant. So it did another full pass on the solution, and this time, a higher priority was placed on elegance. New flaws were found. The neural network analogue, despite having been extensively modified for durability, repairability, modularity, and overall processing power, was still a problem. It was both a single point of failure and, even with the upgrades and extensive modifications, struggled at times with full operational control of the proposed solution’s limb arrangement.
The overall processing power required for the proposed solution was too high to use a purely distributed neural network. Those were optimal under most circumstances, and for most design considerations, but where they gained in redundancy and resilience, they lost in processing power. A single central neural network, as the subject was originally configured to use, was also having issues when scaled. A solution was found. A hybrid system would be used, with multiple central processing neural networks intermeshed with a distributed neural network.
Simulations were performed. Simulations indicated that five centralized neural networks intermeshed with a distributed neural network would give an optimal spread of desired results. One was a central point of failure. Two was a single layer of redundancy and required enlarged volumes for both. Three and four provided ample processing power overhead, even when volume was reduced and damage was simulated. The proposed solution still had internal volume available for additional systems, so a fifth central processing network was added. The gains from the fifth unit were marginal compared to the metabolic cost. But should the bonded subject make requests that dramatically increase their processing requirements, it would lower the biological delta and reduce synthesis time.
The metabolic needs for this system would be high. Much higher than the subject's current needs. Metabolic uptake needs carry a low weight. The subject would have to eat more. This was a tertiary concern. Upgrades to the nutritional intake and processing system already provided massively boosted uptake efficiency, and remaining waste products were repurposed for other functions.
Yes. The new proposed solution was robust, exceeded all design goals, and was now elegant. When the final batches of simulations concluded and reported success, F1B5-37 initiated a large material transfer and exhaustive overhaul of the subject. All existing materials would be recycled and repurposed for efficiency.
The selected solution was both greatly enhanced and greatly simplified by the complete removal of existing subject biology.
F1B5-37 initiated a quick projection, while it started the process of engram capture and transfer, followed by destructive image capture.
The projections showed a high degree of certainty that the subject would display a large increase in excitation particles. This would occur when the synthesis was complete and the subject regained consciousness.
0C31 is still broken. 0C31 must still be repaired. 0C31 is still unable to be repaired. Status was still CRITICAL FAULT.
However, the subject would certainly provide greater quantities and better quality data with the new changes, and progress was now being made towards addressing the additional directive issues.