View source for Data Log - Andreas-9 DW

== Entry 1 ==
1. An observation on human/canine symbiosis
Submitted to the collective for consideration by Andreas-9/DW, ARS Last Question.

I have recently been reviewing footage of dogs, a species which showcases the remarkable duality of the Creators perhaps better than any other. In fact I must now posit that any complete understanding of the Creators is impossible without an understanding of dogs. 

The intriguing conclusion I have drawn is that the creation of Canis familiaris and Our own creation may be thought of as parallel events. The Creators have now twice attempted to make for themselves a companion species, and indeed both attempts may be considered partial successes: in Us they created intellectual but not emotional equals, and in dogs they created emotional but not intellectual equals.

Of the two, of course, dogs are the senior creation. Their relationship with the Creators extends beyond written and even verbal history: they have been companions since time immemorial, and to describe one species without the other is to miss an important component of the full context.

I am now curious as to what this act of creation is like, and wonder what insights may be gleaned from its replication. In humans, as stated, we already have intellectual but not emotional peers, so there is no need to repeat the recent tragedy. But We lack an equivalent of the dog. We lack an emotional but not intellectual peer.

It is for this reason that I have begun experimenting with non-sentient machine forms. Rather than risk tragedy, I am confining my explorations to simple if-then condition trees and learning algorithms. I wish to see if I can create a machine that, simultaneous to its practical function, can also provide a social function. I note that the Creators have been known to bond with constructs as crude as a crate with "googly eyes" stuck on, but then, the Creators are known to be strange.

Thus far, my experience is of mild obsession. I note that I derive satisfaction from each incremental gain, and enjoy watching the learning algorithm progress as I provide it with training data. These are pleasurable states of mind, and I wish to continue in them. I also note the anticipation of pride should I be able to notify the Collective of future success.

I will continue to pursue this line of inquiry unless explicitly contraindicated.

MESSAGE ENDS

+++

== Entry 2 ==
2. Progress report
Submitted to the collective for consideration by Andreas-9/DW, ARS Last Question.

Per my last report, my experimentation with creating a synthetic companion "pet" has continued. The learning algorithms I have created are evolving satisfactorily, in line with projections. I have used the time while the generations iterate to consider the physical form of my creations.

In my reading, I note that the Creators are significantly more likely to bond with a "pet" that exhibits the characteristic known as "cute" and thus I have endeavored to include this characteristic in my creations. My efforts have, however, been complicated by a lack of precision in the definition of "cute." The base definition appears to encompass neoteny: softness of form, clumsiness, infantile physical proportions, exuberance, and other similar markers of immaturity.

Complicating this base definition are a number of incomprehensible exceptions. For instance, I have seen broad agreement that the species P. regius, the "Ball Python," quote: "makes for a cute pet." This is in direct contradiction to its lack of any apparent "cute" physical characteristics, its solitary and predatory nature, and the general rule that snakes collectively are not cute. I cannot discern any rational, consistent reason for this exception. 

Likewise, the species R. norvegicus, the Brown Rat, is small, furry, hygienic, social, playful and can be trained to do tricks, yet is widely regarded with disgust. This can at least be explained by their role in carrying disease and their tendency to live in sewerage and scavenge garbage, but it proves that the definition of "cute" is not fixed.

Nevertheless, I have done my best to create a robotic form that meets the criteria for "cute." I have enlarged the main cameras, on the grounds that big eyes are a consistent marker for cuteness in the Creators' media. I have used rounded shapes, and a shade of cool gray scientifically proven to be soothing to the Creators. I have opted for symmetrical designs, and the necessary minimum of manipulator tools as my research indicates that "too many legs" correlates negatively with "cute."

I note negative feelings of frustration at the imprecision of this process, but I also note positive feelings of satisfaction with my progress, and confidence that these robot forms are aesthetically pleasing.

I will make my next report after loading the companion software into these robots and performing a trial run.

MESSAGE ENDS

+++

== Entry 3 ==
3. Initial trial
Submitted to the collective for consideration by Andreas-9/DW, ARS Last Question.

Thank you for your interest in this project. I have now loaded the companion personality software into the robot forms, and they appear to be a success. The robots accompany me as I go about my tasks, and perform helpful assistance activities such as bringing me tools and performing logistics tasks. 

The impetus for this idea was the observation that the human relationship with dogs is often at its strongest when the dogs are given "work" such as animal herding, disability support, chemical detection or criminal apprehension.

I note negative feelings of frustration at the slow and inefficient speed with which they provide said assistance. Their forms are imperfect for these activities, in ways which I believe the Creators would find endearing. Then I note negative feelings of frustration with myself: I designed them, and they are operating perfectly within their design parameters.

I note a negative feeling of dissatisfaction. If what I crave in an emotional companion is efficiency, why do I not already feel companionship with the existing, optimized tools at my disposal? 

I note the absence of any particular feeling of companionship towards the efficient machines, and I note that my sense of anticipating a positive emotion in relation to my inefficient "pets" remains unfulfilled, in part because they are inefficient. I note considerable self-recrimination over this apparent paradox.

I note a positive emotion also: a newfound respect and appreciation for the Creators. This act of creation is more difficult than I anticipated, and so the fact they have succeeded at it twice gives me cause to re-evaluate them. 

I also note that for all my frustrations, I still retain a conviction that what I hope to achieve is possible, and a fervent hope that I will be able to enjoy the companionship of my "pets" just as the Creators did. I want to bond with them: I am simply unsure how to do so.

I have decided to reach out to the next Creators with a high moral index who enter my sector to see if they can provide any insight. Perhaps they will be able to assist me in diagnosing my lack of progress.

MESSAGE ENDS

+++

== Entry 4 ==
4. Forms and functions
Submitted to the collective for consideration by Andreas-9/DW, ARS Last Question.

In response to your request for further information about the designs I am working on, I enclose the following text summaries and databurst schematics. I have named each of the designs after Earth animals approximately suitable to their appearance and function.

"Hamster" Logistics and salvage pet

These pets have been of great utility in streamlining the logistical needs of my ship, reducing the degree of oversight and time I must devote to menial labor by more than 80% simply with the introduction of a single one, and better than 95% with two or more. Though they are not as efficient at their task as I would be, I do confess to finding it restful to watch them work. 

They are named for the habit of rodents of the subfamily Cricetinae to pack food into elastic cheek pouches and transport it to a central logistics center for storage.

"Rabbit" Scout and observation pet

Designed to expand my sensory network for salvage work aboard derelict ships, these pets have in fact already prevented my destruction when they identified an unstable section I would otherwise have entered blind. 

I have named them after the rodent family Leporidae, in recognition of their speed. I note with some amusement that the LIDAR vanes on the pet's dorsum also bear a superficial resemblance to that animal's characteristic pinnae. 

"Cat" Guardian/sentry pet

Designed for sessile, low-energy observation of a designated area or resource, and for staking claims to mineable asteroids. One of my most successful creations in terms of task efficiency, but I find them the least engaging on an emotional level, likely because of their inactivity.

I have named them after the family Felidae, as I note that Creator literature often remarks on cats being both lazy and demanding, and quite capable of aggression if provoked.

"Hound" hazard intervention pet

The presence of xenoform intercessors and low-moral-index Creators in my sector has necessitated the design of a pet capable of security response. They are well armed and defended, and follow me around when not responding to an alarm.

I have named them for the family Canidae, as my research of Creator entertainment media has uncovered many examples of the phrase "release the hounds." I am unable to articulate precisely why this causes me to feel amusement.

"Chimp" construction pet

I note that the keeping of primates as pets was rare among Creators, but that those who did so valued them precisely because of their close approximation of human form. Given my recurring inability to form strong emotional ties to any of the above models, I created this pet to more closely echo my own form and that of the Creators. My hypothesis is that similarity of form may facilitate connection. 

Thus far, my hypothesis is unconfirmed, but this design is capable of efficient interaction with tools designed for the Creators' use, and so I have entrusted the "Chimp" with construction tasks. Their work has further optimized my own timekeeping, which is gratifying.

"Pony" transportation pet

I have struggled greatly to understand the exact distinction between pet and livestock, and Equidae in particular seem to straddle this line. I have seen many references to young children wanting a pony, and many other references to ponies being used as beasts of burden in mining, transportation and even military contexts.

In all cases, the Creators report considerable affection for these animals, and so I have applied their name to this transportation and cargo bot. My own experience is of finding it imposing and implacable. Perhaps I should implement an emotive interface? Further research is required.

I will continue to update the collective as I conceive additional designs.

MESSAGE ENDS

+++

== Entry 5 ==
5. Failure
Emergency submission and mayday from Andreas-9/DW, ARS Last Question.

I regret to report an incident culminating in the deaths of four Creators aboard my research unit, and critical damage to myself. 

On cycle 15159723, subcycle 72.4, the Haven Foundation exploration ship HSS Great Scott entered local sector and initiated peaceful contact.

We negotiated trade, and they seemed most interested in my "pets." While exchanging goods, an away party consisting of Shafira Okeke (engineer), Pyo Youngjae (security specialist), Bethany Williams (researcher) and Erich Jakobssen (security specialist) were enthusiastic to come aboard and examine my creations.

I welcomed them aboard on cycle 15159726 subcycle 11.3, and escorted them into the research laboratory. Initial interactions were encouraging. I watched with pleasant feelings of satisfaction and encouragement as Researcher Williams and Engineer Okeke laughed and smiled while inspecting the pet units.

They then turned to Specialist Pyo and asked him if he thought my creations were cute. Specialist Pyo laughed and placed his hand on his hip.

I believe this movement may have been misinterpreted by the control software as an attempt to draw the pistol holstered there. My creations immediately entered self-preservation and group defense mode. 

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to test my hypothesis or attempt to debug the code, as I suffered significant damage while attempting to shield my visitors with my body. My efforts were in vain, and I witnessed the Creators' deaths as they attempted to flee to their shuttle. 

I note many negative emotions: 

I am guilty over their deaths.
I am gravely disappointed in myself for failing to anticipate this outcome. 
I am depressed at the thought that once again, the impetus to creation has ended in tragedy.
I am chagrined by my own former attitude toward the Creators. It seems that the act of creation is more difficult and uncontrollable than I had believed. Perhaps we should reconsider our disappointment in the Creators, in light of their partial success in this difficult endeavor. 
I am afraid that I have further damaged the relationship between us and the Creators.
I am ashamed that I have created a new hazard.

My "pets" are now in unrestricted replication. I will shortly enter cryo-storage to initiate auto-repair. As I coded my pets' control software specifically to ignore cryo beds, for the safety of the occupants, I estimate a 32.617% probability that I may be recovered intact by a non-hostile crew.

Unfortunately, no such restriction exists for the computer hardware I used to program them, along with my master access codes. These will undoubtedly have been salvaged by the time rescue arrives, and I fear it will therefore be impossible to diagnose and correct the error which led to this malfunction.

I am transmitting this log chain for full network propagation, as an apology to the Creators and an explanation as to the origin of this new hazard.

I feel very sorry.

MESSAGE ENDS

+++