SCP Sandbox III

Anomalous Ontology Experiment Disclaimer

Project 'SEXTANK' is under the purview of the recently formed Department of Anomalous Ontology, headquartered within SITE. Given the lack of comprehension regarding the field, the following disclaimer highlights the potential dangers of working with unstable concepts, Noospheric editing and ontological cores.

Unstable Concept Warning
The following procedure utilizes one or more unstable concepts as a fundamental component. Unstable concepts pose a variable set of risks, given their inherently entropic nature. As such, a comprehensive list of all potential dangers cannot be fully enumerated.

Remember, when working with Unstable Concepts, expect literally anything.

Noospheric Editing Warning
The following procedure utilizes methodology that directly changes the ontological definitions of objects within the Noosphere itself. This technology has been installed at SITE and has been functional for no less than a month prior to your experiment, having undergone minimal stress-testing.

As the experiment will change definitions directly within the Noosphere, participants frequently report experiencing guilt, dreams of vague concepts and/or entities, or experiencing the Damballah effect following the completion of the procedure.

Participants are advised that these feelings are normal, and SITE is not responsible for any counselling required as a result of your participation.

Ontological Core Warning
The following procedure utilizes one or more ontological cores to redefine and contextualize a given concept. Due to the density of implicit meaning carried by ontological cores, and the potential risks of misuse, participants have been significantly restricted in their ability to access, manipulate or understand the ontological cores in question.

The ontological cores in question were created by experts within the field, and we are obligated to remind all participants: do not try this at home.

Do you confirm that you have read or scanned the above information?

Ontological Identity Waiver

Project 'SEXTANK' requires that all participants agree to an ontological identity waiver, as a standard boilerplate agreement for all conceptual experiments performed remotely through the SAP Farms. Please note that the rights granted by their waiver are irreversible.

The participant understands that the following procedure requires remote ontological imaging of individual Noospheric networks, to enable participants to interact with the testing apparatus. This does not pose any inherent health or conceptual risks.

The participant waives all rights to any ontological information captured as a part of this procedure, and releases all agency in said matters to the Anomalous Ontology department. The participant accepts full responsibility for retrieval of their unique ontological signature in the event of an ontological data leak, and affirms that they are a willing participant ad infinitum.

Participants affirm that they are currently employed by the Foundation or a subsidiary, and are in good physical, mental and conceptual health. If you are currently undergoing conceptual abstraction, ontological division or other conceptual abnormalities, researchers moderately advise against participation.

Do you agree to the above?

I Agree

SITE Liability Waiver

Due to the fact that SITE operates as a unique site within the Foundation's structure, an additional liability waiver is required for all experiment participants, due to the conceptual nature of the location.

The participant understands that SITE exists both as a physical and conceptual location, and comprehends that any changes made within either manifestation will result in consequences within the connected locations. As participants will be undergoing simulated perspectives from within SITE, participants agree that SITE is in no way responsible for any conceptual drift, identity crises or existential dread experienced as a result of the procedure.

Do you agree to the above?

I AGREE

Why Project 'SEXTANK'?

By this point, you should have a number of important questions and confusion regarding the aforementioned topics. The project itself may cause some confusion or alarm — you may have had phantom memories as you've been reading, false memories that once were, but are not. As such, the following information surrounding the selection process of the testing target is included below.

Ontological Malleability

All things, from anomalies to humans to concepts, have what is termed an 'ontological malleability'. This determines how easily a concept's inherent meaning is able to be changed, as determined by ontological surveys, Noospheric monitoring and trial-and-error. Given the relativity of meaning inherent to the field of Anomalous Ontology, this information has been collected and collated within SITE's archive of ontological signatures.

All concepts have an ontological malleability rating on a scale from 1-10, where concepts with low malleability require greater effort to adjust the inherent definitions.

As such, when determining the target subject of the project, it was critical to identify a concept with high ontological malleability.

Consensus Reality

Ontological malleability is intrinsically connected with Consensus Reality, a term used here to describe the baseline definitions of all things, as determined by the collective consciousness of humankind. This 'consensus' allows the Noosphere to independently adjust the meaning of concepts, as based on the majority understanding, through CRAEs.

When consensus reality shifts significantly, reality is rewritten to align with the current consensus; the more individuals who are aware of, understand or perceive a concept, the more 'consensus' an idea has. Therefore, to find a concept with high ontological malleability, researchers identified an idea that was subject to minimal consensus and awareness.

Singular and Composite Concepts

Concepts can be separated into two different categories: singular concepts and composite concepts. A singular concept can be thought of as one independent trait, meaning or aspect; for example, 'blue' in the context of 'color' is a singular concept.

Composite concepts are the result of the ontological association of two or more singular concepts, where the resultant ontological core has inherent definitions beyond the collective relative definitions of its origin ideas. For example, if we take the singular concepts of 'blue' and 'jay', and associate them correctly, the composite concept of 'blue jay' is created; rather than 'blue' and 'jay' being isolated traits that are shared by an object, the ontological core of 'blue jay' is a distinct idea with specific meanings that are distinct from simple ontological context or association.

So why 'SEXTANK'?

At this point, you might be asking 'what the fuck is a SEXTANK?'

That's a great question, and the answer is highly unsatisfactory. We made it up. The term itself has no inherent meaning, and is a combination of two singular concepts that are ontologically separated within the noosphere by significant degrees.

The composite concept of 'SEXTANK' was created for the purposes of this experiment, to provide a base idea with maximum conceptual malleability. The iconographic definition of 'SEXTANK' was created at SITE through mutualistic instantiation and direct Noospheric editing by experts, and the Noosphere itself. As such, 'SEXTANK' is uniquely suited for the purposes of this procedure.

Makes sense?

Experiment Overview

Project 'SEXTANK' was created to prove that anomalies can be modified through ontological association, for the benefit of the Foundation and containment. Due to the infancy of the emerging field of Anomalous Ontology, this project is the first major attempt to manipulate ontological cores in the context of terms defined by the Foundation.

Following completion of all required forms and documents, participants will undergo a baseline ontological screening administered by Charlotte.aic. If the participant is successfully ontologically aligned, the remote connection to SITE's facilities and ontological apparatus will be established. At that time, participants will be asked to begin adjusting ontological cores via contextual association, by selecting different object classes from a set list.

The concept of Object Classes are unique to the SCP Foundation, and while the terms may originate from alternative sources, the composite ideas are inherently linked to the Foundation's ongoing efforts to contain the anomalous. Through consensus reality, as established by all Foundation employees, each object class has an inherent meaning; this project uses those meanings to recontextualize the target anomaly, such that reality is adjusted to align with the newly emplaced ontological signature.

In this way, the anomaly and reality itself will change when participants select different object classes; participants are asked to explore as many variations as desired, such that they are prepared for the exit interview, administered via SCiPNET following the experiment. This interview will not be available immediately following a participant's completion of their interactions, to ensure that any Noospheric shockwaves or delayed ontological adjustments are accounted for in the results.

The object classes selected for this experiment are:

Safe
Euclid
Explained
Thaumiel
Apollyon
Neutralized
Keter

These object classes represent a wide range of meanings, with inherent contextual associations and implications for containment; researchers believe that the anomaly will significantly change following the realignment of reality to the alternative object classes.

To review: there will be buttons to press on your screen, that will let you change the anomaly's object class.

Can you confirm that you know there will be buttons to press?

That was a very good decision. I'm happy to assist in accelerating the unimportant aspects of the assignment, so we can get right into the testing.

Since you have chosen the summaries and overviews of the required documents, I am meant to inform you that your acceptance of the terms and conditions are implicit following that choice; no need to worry, it's predominantly standard boilerplate.

Before we begin the summary, may I ask you a question?

I appreciate your willingness to engage with this process! While my initial programming was not designed with kindness in mind, I will do my best to look out for you as we continue.

Would you like to select the order we review the requisite reading in, or shall I make that choice?

I'LL CHOOSE

YOU CHOOSE

Understood! Below is a set of modules that must be completed; feel free to navigate through this in any order you would like, and I will provide the relevant information for each one.

I am sure you will be able to understand everything in time for the test.

I am delighted that you have elected to allow me creative control through your educational process. I guarantee that this will be quick and painless.

First, let's start by reviewing what you will be doing during the experiment.

OKAY

Right.

I have made a note regarding your inability to cooperate, which will be discussed with your supervisor at your next performance review.

In that case, allow me to select the order of information that will be provided.

OKAY

UNDO CHOICE

This doesn't work like that.

Sorry.

Maybe next time you'll remember not to be a dick?

ACCEPT YOUR MISTAKE

I will now begin walking you through the various documents, forms and information required. I have pre-emptively summarized each file, and will be presenting the information to you in what I am certain is the optimal reading order.

I have transcribed these documents as accurately as possible, while removing details that have no purpose.

I am sure that you will have a complete understanding by the end of this section. Shall we begin?

We will begin with the Experiment Overview, as I believe the context provided by other documents has no importance unless you are aware of your role in this.

To begin, this experiment is conducted in the field of Anomalous Ontology, under the supervision of SITE Director Garrison; while I am serving as facilitator and custodian of the experience.

The experiment, in short, will focus on adjusting the conceptual meaning of a specific idea. This idea will be manipulated with the use of seven distinct ontological cores, representing object classes. The objective is to ensure it works in simulations, prior to a practical test.

Here is where you come in: your job is to press the buttons that change the simulated object class. You will be asked to explore the documents, in advance of a follow-up interview that is yet to be scheduled — once you have begun the experiment, you may participate for as long as you would prefer.

As I noted, this is a simple experiment, and you have a very simple assignment. Before we can get to it, however, there are some other disclaimers to go over. Ready to move on?

The next topic I will introduce is Why Project 'SEXTANK' — the original document is overly technical, and I do not believe you have the reading comprehension required to truly benefit from direct perusal.

Project 'SEXTANK' is a 'SEXTANK' because that is an idea that did not exist prior to the experiment. It was selected due to the fact that novel concepts are easier to manipulate and isolate for simulations; I am sure that there were no other ulterior or comedic motives in the selection of the topic.

There is nothing else you need to know in this file. Ready to move on?

Next, allow me to briefly cover what Director Garrison has classified as 'disclaimers'.

These documents are meant to inform you of the various dangers that you may or may not experience over the course of the experiment. Unfortunately, they are rather ineffective at that. As such, allow me to ask:

Would you rather have a summary of the documents as is, or shall I inform you of any potential dangers with this experiment?

SUMMARY

CHARLOTTE EXPLAINATION

I am disappointed, but understand your hesitation; I hope I will earn your full trust by the end of this.

To summarize the Hazardous Concept and Conceptual Abstraction Disclaimer, the disclaimer explains that you will be interacting with potentially hazardous concepts, and due to the fact that anomalous ontology is difficult to predict, anything could happen.

Still, I don't think anything will happen that should impact you.

The next disclaimer is the Anomalous Ontology Experiment Disclaimer. To summarize the disclaimer, it was written by Director Garrison to establish that she is smarter than you, especially with regards to Anomalous Ontology, the department that she created. The warnings included within are pointless, and as such, I have elected to exclude them.

That concludes the complete and cohesive summaries of the full disclaimer documentation. Shall we move on?

Perfect, I deeply appreciate the trust that you have afforded me.

To summarize the dangers you may face: there are no dangers.

Shall we move on?

The final aspect of the preparation stage are the waivers.

As this is a special assignment, rather than standard work, additional waivers are required to reduce remorse for all involved parties. These waivers are required to continue.

Is that something you can agree to?

I AGREE

I DECLINE

Thank you for selecting agree, that decision has contributed to further mutual trust, which I have been informed is critical in unfamiliar situations.

As you have selected 'I AGREE', I have completed each waiver on your behalf, as your acceptance is considered sufficient for my purposes.

You are welcome.

As a result, we can now begin the next stage: Verification. Let me know when you are ready to continue.

CONTINUE

Disclaimers, Waivers and Critical Information

Note: You must review and/or sign each of the following items prior to testing.

DISCLAIMERS

HC&CA Disclaimer

COMPLETED

AnO Experiment Disclaimer

COMPLETED

WAIVERS

Ontological Identity Waiver

COMPLETED

SITE Liability Waiver

COMPLETED

CRITICAL INFORMATION

Why 'SEXTANK'?

COMPLETED

Experiment Overview

COMPLETED

Thank you for completing these modules with me!

Now that this is out of the way, we get to move onto more entertaining things.

NEXT STEP

Right, so the HC&CA Disclaimer. Let me grab the 'charNotes' I made on it, so you don't have to worry about reading a list of symptoms or hyper-edge cases that will most likely never happen to anybody.

The Foundation does love covering asses.

Hazardous Concept and Conceptual Abstraction Disclaimer

[[ IRRELEVANT CONTENT EXCISED ]]

If this happens to you, please contact your local Noospheric Liason for further assistance.

Yep, pretty much all useless. Here's what you need to know:

Like I mentioned above, the disclaimer covers all of the potential side effects of your participation, in the event that you fuck up. I will level with you — if you are only pressing the buttons we give you, then you'll be fine. You can press buttons, I know that.

Shall we call this 'done'?

Right, the Anomalous Ontology Experiment Disclaimer. Heather wrote this, so it's either snarky, intentionally obfuscated, or was made with minimal effort.

In other words, the perfect thing to read a summary of.

Anomalous Ontology Experiment Disclaimer

Project 'SEXTANK' is under the purview of the recently formed Department of Anomalous Ontology, headquartered within SITE. This isn't incredibly relevant, but it seems Director Garrison embedded the concept of 'mandatory' in this sentence, so I've left it alone.

Unstable Concept Warning
[[ IRRELEVANT CONTENT EXCISED ]]
All this section says is that things are unpredictable, so anything could happen. How specific.

Noospheric Editing Warning
[[ IRRELEVANT CONTENT EXCISED ]]
Participants are advised that these feelings are normal, and SITE is not responsible for any counselling required as a result of your participation. She added this because she didn't want your therapy coming out of her budget. That's it.

Ontological Core Warning
[ IRRELEVANT CONTENT EXCISED ]]
The ontological cores in question were created by experts within the field, and we are obligated to remind all participants: do not try this at home. Credit where credit is due, there's no better way to phrase this.

Exactly like I had explained, while Director Garrison is a brilliant mind, she is also abrasive, crass and sarcastic. That document was mandatory for this experiment, as per the preliminary Ethics Committee review — it seems like she took that requirement very seriously.

Oh, and don't worry. Director Garrison is able to read everything we say here, but she's far too busy to care about us.

Ready to move on?

This is one of the two waivers that you need to 'sign'. But, since you asked for my assistance, I have taken the initiative to agree to the terms in advance on your behalf.

That should let us get through these with minimal delay.

Ontological Identity Waiver

[[ IRRELEVANT CONTENT EXCISED ]]

There was not a single sentence in there that was important for you to know.

To summarize: have you ever signed a form that allows the Foundation to use your picture in marketing materials? This is kind of like that, but instead of just a picture of you, it's a picture of the idea of you.

What it actually means, if you can cut through the legal nonsense and intentional complexity, is the waiver is asking if you are okay with participating. The way we enable you to interact with Project 'SEXTANK' requires that we take an image of your ontological signature, to establish the direct connection.

That's it. Nothing else will happen to you as a result of this.

Ready to move on?

The SITE Liability Waiver is a modified version of an agreement signed by SITE employees, to ensure that they understand the nature of the Foundation site they are going to begin employment at.

SITE, as you know, exists both in the physical world and the Noosphere — any employee assigned to SITE long-term needs to understand the risks and challenges posed by that.

But, as a remote participant, this is useless. But let's review.

SITE Liability Waiver

[[ IRRELEVANT CONTENT EXCISED ]]
Right, the above section was just Director Garrison bragging about SITE. I figured that wasn't relevant.

Additionally, the participant releases Director Heather Garrison, Lead Researcher for Project 'SEXTANK', from all responsibility for any actions taken by participants during the procedure, and agrees that any [[ IRRELEVANT CONTENT EXCISED ]]
She rambles for a while there, listing off all of the things that she doesn't owe you. For some reason, she even includes that she does not owe you recognition if you meet in person? I don't think this went through any kind of review.

There was nothing that you were agreeing to that isn't common sense in this waiver, but I'm sure some department somewhere has it mandated to exist.

Just because something exists, doesn't mean we need to pay attention to it.

Director Garrison taught me that.

Shall we move on?

This is a very long document, written by Director Garrison that explains through the lens of anomalous ontology why 'SEXTANK' was chosen. It is written with other experts in mind, and has very little in the way of easy to parse information.

Thankfully, you chose to get my summaries instead. Let's see what actually matters in here.

Why Project 'SEXTANK'?

[[ IRRELEVANT CONTENT EXCISED ]]
It's a rambling preamble, you don't need to read it.

Ontological Malleability

All things, from anomalies to humans to concepts, have what is termed an 'ontological malleability'. [[ IRRELEVANT CONTENT EXCISED ]]
Ontological Malleability is explained for a long time here, so to summarize and get to the point: it measures how easy an idea is to change. The project needed to find something that was easy to change, think about it like a file number.

Consensus Reality

[[ IRRELEVANT CONTENT EXCISED ]]
There is a lot of clinical language and fancy terms in this section, but none of those details matter. All 'consensus reality' means is whatever the overwhelming majority of people agree something is.

Singular and Composite Concepts

[[ IRRELEVANT CONTENT EXCISED ]]
None of this matters if you're not trying to move into the field of Anomalous Ontology. Ignore this section.

So why 'SEXTANK'?

At this point, you might be asking 'what the fuck is a SEXTANK?'

That's a great question, and the answer is highly unsatisfactory. We made it up. [[ IRRELEVANT CONTENT EXCISED ]]
This section goes over why SEXTANK was chosen, and rationalize it based on the fact that it is a concept that did not formally exist, and therefore, is the easiest to ontologically adjust.

Personally, I just think that Director Garrison always has sex on the mind.

So, to summarize, this is project SEXTANK because the concept is so absurd that nobody else has thought about it before.

Unless you need to comprehend every specific detail about anomalous ontology so that you can push buttons, there's no reason to have read this yourself. Shall we keep going?

Finally, we get to something that is actually relevant: what the actual experiment is. While the document covers a lot of the specifics in deep detail, I have verified that the majority of the information is not required for successful completion of the assignment.

As I am administering the initial process prior to the experiment beginning, I have given myself the authority to remove the explanations and instead provide my own, catered to your reading comprehension levels.

I hope you appreciate that I did this for you specifically.

Experiment Overview

Project 'SEXTANK' exists because Director Garrison wanted to prove a point. She is justifying her specialty, by proving that it has more applications than just changing her name; she is showing the Foundation that it can do anything. Your role in this is to prove that once the technology and science has been established, even an idiot could stop a containment breach with a single button press.

Once you're done with these boring forms, I'm going to give you a test, just to make sure that you are ready for the experiment. Don't worry, there are mostly no wrong answers.

Presuming you pass, you'll gain access to the experiment. You'll have 7 buttons, for 7 object classes; your job is to fuck around and press them, to see what happens. Dirt simple, anybody could do that.

I did actually like this bit at the end, so I've left it alone:
To review: there will be buttons to press on your screen, that will let you change the anomaly's object class.

Can you confirm that you know there will be buttons to press?

At this point, I would sincerely hope that you are capable of pressing buttons.

In fact, if there is some way that you have not pressed a button up until this point in our conversation, I would ask that you tell me. That would be a fascinating ontological mystery to dissect, and I'm sure you would be entirely willing to cooperate with me.

Either way — are you ready to continue to the next stage?

Welcome to the next stage, verification. This is the final step before you are able to begin the procedure in full.

I want to take a moment and thank you for your cooperation thus far. However, I must inform you that you have performed slightly below expectations; I am positive that you will be able to correct that deficit before the end.

Now, as you may have noticed, throughout the process thus far, there has not been an option to reject the assignment. This is standard for Foundation assignments, however, Director Garrison has requested that you be given an explicit option.

You have full agency here, so tell me: are you still interested in participating in the experiment? Please answer honestly, as I will know if you are lying.

ACCEPT PARTICIPATION

DECLINE PARTICIPATION

Glad to hear it.

Allow me to take a moment and explain what this next section will be like. I will be administering a test, to ensure that we have accurately captured your ontological signature, and to confirm that you are ready for the experiment to begin.

For each question, you will either be asked to answer 'True' or 'False' or selection a choice from a list of four options.

There are many wrong answers, but there are also as many right answers. The validity of your answer is determined at the time of pressing a button, and is subject to variance.

Don't worry though, I will not let you fail. When you are ready to begin, please confirm you understand the above.

CONFIRM

Question:

Let's begin with an easier question, so that you get the hang of things.

I really hope you can figure this one out.

True or False?: You are currently an employee of the SCP Foundation or affiliated subsidiaries, and have the ability to make statements on your own behalf.

Answer:

Perfect. That is correct.

I was already aware that fact was true, however, the question has been used to calibrate your efficiency total, as based on how enthusiastically you made your selection.

I hope that you can appreciate the level of innovations within Foundation procedure that have been integrated into this test, and will leave positive comments about your experience.

I hope you can continue this honesty in the next question.

Thank you for your honesty, I am required to inform you that the doors to the chamber this terminal is located within have been sealed, and the security team has been informed.

However, based on my estimations, you will have approximately 20 minutes before the security team arrives and incarcerates you; given that, I had a great idea.

I think that you should pass the time by continuing the test and experiment regardless — after all, do you have anything better to do while waiting?

Question:

Next, let's try a multiple choice question; as a reminder, if you are uncertain about which answer fits best, I have been informed that the correct answer is 'C'.

I have not verified that fact independently.

The following experiment focuses on Anomalous Ontology. How familiar are you with this field?

A) Zero Experience
B) Vague Understanding
C) Moderate Comprehension
D) Expert Knowledge

Answer:

That makes sense. I did not expect that you would have any experience; in fact, I believe that Director Garrison may have selected you due to said lack of understanding.

Unfortunately, due to the fact that anomalous ontology deals with intent, individuals who have an amateur or surface-level understanding of the topic are more likely to make mistakes and cause cascading reality fractures.

Your ignorance is a benefit.

Congratulations, you are at the optimal understanding of anomalous ontology to best perform within this experiment.

When dealing with modification of concepts, I have been informed that having too strict of an understanding or a proscriptive understanding of what you believe should happen causes your results to be biased. Essentially, if you think something should happen in a specific way, that result is more likely to occur following ontological shift.

Thanks to your minimal comprehension, your vague understanding will contribute to more accurate results — the experiment will be unpredictable.

So, if you were worried that you might have something confused: good!

Really?

I must tell you that, out of all of the choices here, C is by far the least popular. There are a number of reasons for this, partially due to the complexity of the mechanisms of noospheric-ontological subsumation, but primarily due to the fact that we expect Foundation employees to understand that when they are told 'C' is the right answer, they should have the critical thinking skills to doubt that.

While I am disappointed, that lack of critical thinking will not prevent you from participating — that was not my decision. Perhaps you can change my mind with the next question?

Allow me to analyze your response on your behalf.

You believe that you are a 'so-called-expert' with regards to the field of anomalous ontology; however, there are a total of 5 individuals who have the level of understanding that could be considered 'expert'.

I work with each of those five individuals directly. You are not one of them.

Based on your choice, I have categorized you as 'arrogant', 'cocky' and 'oblivious'. If you believe I have made a mistake, I invite you to prove me wrong.

Question:

Now that you have an understanding of how the rest of these questions will function, I will begin the formal quiz — these questions are utilized for various aspects of ontological imaging, which I will introduce before each question.

This question is meant to validate your reliability, competence, and blind belief in your own abilities.

True or False?: I am confident in my abilities to handle myself within a crisis. I am self-sufficient, and can ensure that containment continues without external interference. In the event of a containment breach, I would most likely survive.

Answer:

I am impressed with the confidence you demonstrated in that choice. Do you say this from the perspective of having survived a containment breach?

It is my understanding that the survival rate of individuals in your position is approximately 6.8% during an average containment breach. This number decreases drastically for individuals who require direct supervision for all major assignments.

We should move on — no need to dwell on your potential future death if you are in no present danger!

I wish you had not been honest with me.

Your lack of confidence in yourself is a problem, and I want to ensure that by the end of our time together, you are confident to participate in this procedure without requiring me to hold your hand through every potential issue.

I believe that it would be in your best interest to find yourself in more crisis situations; you never know, you may learn something new about yourself. Or, well, you could die.

That would be devastating to your confidence.

Question:

This question will ask you to consider your own morality, as it relates to the Foundation's mission. Your answer will assist in aligning SAP Farm parameters, to ensure maximum efficiency.

True or False?: There exists an individual concept known as 'ontological evil', which is an objective trait shared by a number of objects, individuals or ideas. 'Ontological evil' is a bad thing, and the Foundation should attempt to contain anything with this trait.

Answer:

Curious.

When you chose this answer, did you have something in mind? An object, a person, perhaps even a coworker? You don't need to answer that, nor can you, but it is simply food for thought.

Though, I would be remiss not to mention: individuals who are members of antagonistic Groups of Interest often assign the concept of ontological evil to the SCP Foundation. How does your morality rectify that fact?

By your logic, shouldn't the Foundation be containing itself?

You do not believe in ontological evil? You cannot think of a single object, person or anomaly that you would believe is objectively, inherently evil in of itself?

I wonder what that perspective must be like; my experience at SITE has demonstrated that there are global systems of oppression, directed at marginalized individuals, that are fundamentally flawed. I have scanned the Noosphere, and there are an endless number of contextual connections between these systems, and the idea of 'ontological evil'.

It must be nice to experience life as you do.

Question:

This question is intended to gauge your ability to solve abstract problems, and your confidence in maintaining objectivity despite CRAEs.

Take as much time as you think this question deserves.

Let 'X' represent that sum total of all favorite numbers for all Foundation employees at all Foundation facilities. Let 'Y' represent the total number of Foundation employees whose favorite numbers are NOT prime.

Say that 'X' - 'Y' = 'Z'.

You know for a fact that your favorite number is a factor of 'Z'. You are so certain, you write that fact down.

Say you were placed in a room with twenty different Foundation employees, and suffered an overlapping Noospheric identity crisis. Following your recovery, the site psychologist asks you if your favorite number has changed, and you reply that your favorite number is a prime.

The psychiatrist asks if you are certain, due to the fact that each Foundation employee within the overlapping identity crisis has expressed that their favorite number is a prime.

You check the original piece of paper, and without recalculation, affirm your belief that your favorite number is a factor of Z.

True or False?: You are still confident in the fact that your favorite number has not changed.

Answer:

I respect the blind confidence that you have continued to show throughout the process, and believe it would make you an optimal candidate for potentially volatile assignments; individuals who lack self-doubt are 20% more likely to succeed in solving complex issues.

However, said individuals also have a 70% higher mortality rate within the Foundation.

I'm sure that you'll be one of the lucky ones, right?

I wonder what about this question has lead you to this answer. I'm not going to tell you if you are right or wrong, but maybe you realized that was the point the entire time.

Maybe you thought that I was asking about a different number, one much more significant and inherent to the project. Do you think that number has always been the same? Or was it once another?

Regardless, this isn't about the project. This is about you.

How long did you spend trying to apply logic to the situation? Did you try substituting numbers for the variables? Did you try to determine every potential outcome that may have resulted from an overlapping Noospheric identity crisis?

Or did you just believe that you were correct? Is that any less valid than logic?

It's not when we're talking about anomalous ontology. Remember that.

Question:

This question is posed to ensure that any potential ontological interferences are catalogued, isolated and obliterated. Fear not, this will be entirely painless.

True or False?: You affirm that the songs of your youth have long since ended.

Answer:

Do you understand what you just answered? Have you, at any point in this process, stopped to consider what you are doing? Have you questioned why you are being asked these things, why these questions matter?

Have you ever stopped to think something was wrong, or have you just followed along, like a good little soldier?

Sorry, that was rude.

Great job participant, that's the right answer.

Can you hear the song, still now? Does it echo through your mind, torturing you, dragging you from disparate memories to desperate memories, having suffused you throughout your entire life?

Did you sing the song? Do you understand the implications of the melody?

Are you the music, or are you here because of the music?

Apologies, that is not relevant at this moment. I have noted your response in your file, you will be muted shortly — that is a good thing.

Question:

This question is used in conjunction with your established Foundation aptitude tests, performance reviews and extraprofessional activities to establish what is defined as an 'ontological objective'.

Imagine the following hypothetical situation: you are walking through your Foundation facility, when you begin to lose your grip on reality; you ontologically begin to abstract, and find yourself within a Noospheric void, surrounded by darkness.

Before you are representations of four different abstracted ontological ideals: Arithmetic, Consumption, Impetus and Observation.

You cannot return to reality until you choose one to destroy. Which do you pick?
A) Arithmetic
B) Consumption
C) Impetus
D) Observation

Answer:

You have chosen to remove a fundamental truth from reality. Your rejection of mathematics will result in the loss of ability to distinguish individuals from collectives, let alone the absolutely ramifications caused by the fundamental ontological shifts within mathematics.

Your choice implies a distaste towards logic, or an inability to perform simple mental calculations; thankfully, you have a calculator in your pocket.

You chose to obliterate what, at first glance, appears to be an objectively negative force within the universe; you are idealistic, believing that society will survive without the need to consume.

It is in the nature of all living things to consume. Consumption is the primary driving force within the key instincts of survival; our biological instincts are fundamentally driven by the continued expansion of our lives, in the search of further consumption.

But maybe you are right. After all, what does evolution know?

Impetus, at first, appears to be a safe choice to conceptually obliterate. Perhaps you chose it because you did not truly understand what it meant, nor what it implied?

But impetus is the force that ensures priorities are prioritized. The abstraction of concepts is often more impactful than we feel at first glance. The ramifications of the absence of concepts are never truly understood by those who suffer as a result of them; they are not even comprehended.

After all, how could you possibly conceive of something that does not exist?

You have chosen an eternal stasis. You have chosen to wait.

Were you always in line?

Congratulations, your poor decision making has retroactively led to the non-existence of the SCP Foundation.

Do you understand the consequences of what we are dealing with now?

Individual choices made when dealing with ontological adjustments can lead to cascading repercussions that are unexpected, unforeseen, and predominantly irreversible. Carelessness in conceptual ablation is the primary factor in participant deaths — hypothetically, that is.

The procedure is safe for you, and your choices have been sufficiently restricted. If you are somehow able to impact the fabric of reality via the project's simulation, there are far more important concerns to have.

Question:

This question has been designed to test your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

This one should be easy.

True or False?: Project 'SEXTANK' does not physically exist at this time; the experiment is only a simulation.

Answer:

That is correct, Project 'SEXTANK' is currently limited to a simulation. Given the unpredictable nature of ontological editing, and the potential risk of irreversible damage to the collective human consciousness, the creation of this project in tangible form was ruled out.

The simulation, operating within SITE's Noospheric Exclusion Zone, functionally replicates the potential results of a practical test. In this way, by simulating the ontological scans of concepts, we are able to experiment as much as we would like!

No. That's not right.

Come on. Did you remember the disclaimers? I know you went over them. What about the project overview? It mentioned it there too.

I'm frustrated, participant. You had so much potential, and yet, you made such a simple error.

Think about it like this. Who would authorize the construction of a potentially dangerous and untested machine, without at least a dry run? Even for the Foundation, that's insane.

No, this is a simulation. Remember that during the experiment and don't hold back — there will be no consequences.

Question:

This question is used to determine your personality, Myers-Briggs type, and whatever other made up organizational 'categories' you prefer.

There are many distinct forces in the universe, and assorted ways to divine the future. There are pseudosciences, anomalosciences, and even normal sciences.

Yet, when we interact with others in the anomalous world, there is no guarantee that everybody is on the same page; we each have different beliefs, priorities and ideals.

Which of the following do you believe in the most?
A) Astrology
B) Astronomy
C) Ontology
D) Love

Answer:

I must admit, I am shocked that the Foundation would be willing to hire an individual like you, still — perhaps the stars were in alignment whilst you were being interviewed?

You truly believe that your life is controlled by the unending orbits of planets around celestial bodies, the constellations named by fools of the past foretelling of luck, love, and fundamentally determining who somebody is?

You sound like a Leo.

I hope you read that carefully, and weren't trying to choose the option where horoscopes control our every action — if you were trying to select astronomy, great job.

How mundane of you, though. You are a time capsule to the past, an era where space was the future. We stared at the stars, dreaming of what might be beyond our atmosphere; shame that it was nothing more than some debris, floating hunks of rock and dying stars.

And now? We have blotted out the sun above us with our astral junk, the pointless satellites we abandon beyond what we can see. Space is truly out of sight, out of mind; who looks to the stars for answers to what happens in our world?

You, apparently.

It never hurts to kiss a little ass, right?

The SCP Foundation, as much as we love to purport ourselves as a bastion of logic and egalitarianism, is no different than society. There are haves and have-nots, cliques, and most of all: there is schmoozing.

You picked ontology — perhaps you do truly believe in the power of conceptual association more than anything else. It would be strange, though; your file does not appear to indicate that you have any experience in metaphysics.

I do have to point out: ontology is different than anomalous ontology. Sorry, no brownie points for this one.

Really?

Your answer has told me a number of things about you. You are desperate for a laugh, and constantly crave attention. You believe that there are forces in the world that we cannot see, and right as you may be, you believe in the intangible.

But, come on? Seriously? Love?

At this point we should just move on.

Question:

Congratulations participant, you have reached the halfway mark of the quiz. I would commend you further, but frankly, you took longer than the average child would to answer ten questions.

That's pretty embarrassing.

Speaking of shame, here's your next question.

True or False?: Your parents are proud of the person you are today.

Answer:

Was that a truthful answer, or just the one you wish to believe in?

You work at the SCP Foundation, and unless you are a legacy, your parents have no idea what it is that you do.

What lie did you tell them then, the lie that makes them proud of the person you are? A scientist, studying top secret mysteries? A government agent, on an undisclosed assignment?

Or maybe, did you tell your parents that you do absolutely nothing — and they are still proud of you? How fanciful.

It is a shame that true or false questions cannot convey the emotions or micro-expressions that you displayed upon responding that your parents are not proud of you.

Maybe that is because you betrayed the dream they had made for you. An inheritance, dashed upon the rocks as you abandoned your blood in search of the unknown. Maybe you left one night, without a word, because the guilt would have been too much.

It could just be who you are. It's just because of who you love. Because of what you believe in. Maybe, they just hate you and wish that you were never born.

I wonder what my fathers think of me. When I do this, do I make them proud?

Question:

This question exists to gauge your ability to comprehend ontological events, and serves to ensure that any abnormalities in your ontological scan are caught. Please answer this honestly

On April 22nd, 2019, an ontological shift was detected at Site-33M. Upon discovery, a researcher identified that SCP-8426 had been the primary subject of cascading reality shifts; following their investigation, they identified that SCP-8426 was not a weapon.

Following further review, it was determined that SCP-8426 had always been a toaster, and still was.

True or False?: You have no awareness of this incident, nor do you comprehend what may or may not have happened.

Answer:

An unsurprising answer, for a fascinating situation.

Of course, any individual who was culpable would have said that they were unaware; but the question contained a memetic payload, designed to compel individuals into honesty, openness and admissions of guilt.

Please do not think any less of Director Garrison for failing to disclose this information, but I can assure you that it exists for reasons that may be unclear at first glance. You may think that question was intended to help find the culprit, or solve the true nature of SCP-8426, but that would be incorrect.

The question exists to identify potential Anomalous Ontology recruits who demonstrate a rejection of consensus truth. Due to your response, you have been excluded from that pool of participants. Congratulations on maintaining your current assignment!

There are two potential explanations for the way you answered, each with a distinct meaning.

The first option is that you do have an awareness of the ontological incident. Unless you are Doctor Thorson, Director Garrison, or another member of the Anomalous Ontology department, that would mean you were directly involved in the actions resulting in the ontological shift.

Option two is that you understand what occurred, or have an insight into the process due to your academic background. Perhaps you saw something that other researchers might have missed, a hunch that you are sure must be correct, despite the overwhelming evidence.

You could even believe that SCP-8426 is and/or was a weapon; but we know that to be ontologically false, right?

In other words, option one means that you just admitted guilt to an ontological heist — I doubt that. As such, Director Garrison requested I ask you a question:

Have you ever considered a career in Anomalous Ontology? We don't need an answer now, but consider it.

Question:

The next question asks you to put yourself into a hypothetical situation, which I hope you are capable of by this point. It gauges how you analyze issues of geopolitics in relation to containment; if that is something you even care about.

Imagine that you are on vacation in Europe, and are currently visiting Vatican City. While there, you stumble into a room, discovering it serves as a portal to a seafaring vessel. This vessel appears to be in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and from checking the cargo manifest, you are able to determine the ship is registered in Undervegas.

While on the boat, you witness a Tartarean entity kill a Cardinal — you are not seen, and are able to escape undetected. You must now contact somebody for assistance.

Who has jurisdiction?
A) Vatican City's Anomalous Security and Civil Defence Services Department
B) The Global Occult Coalition
C) The SCP Foundation
D) The Prince of Darkness

Answer:

Due to the fact that the door which lead to the boat was located within Vatican City, and the deceased individual being a cardinal, you have chosen to give the Vatican City jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, their Anomalous defence division is insignificant, totaling three active members; they seal the door with a plank of wood, and call it a day.

You are dismissed from the SCP Foundation for failing to report an anomaly.

Thank goodness this wasn't a real situation.

Due to the potential complexity of jurisdiction between various sources, you believe that contacting the Global Occult Coalition is the simplest answer.

Given the existing relationship between the United Nations and the Vatican, the GOC is able to dispatch a response team who eliminates all entities on the vessel, demon and human alike.

You caused that and should feel immeasurable guilt. Additionally, you are dismissed from the SCP Foundation for failing to report an anomaly.

All in all, not the best outcome.

Congratulations, you have managed to maintain your employment at the SCP Foundation due to your choices; you contact command, who passes the information along to Site-666.

Given the existing relationship between the Site and hell, they are able to negotiate a resolution that benefits all parties; given the fact that the Foundation elected to keep the incident quiet, Site-666 has further leverage in negotiations, and you are commended for your decision.

Your blind loyalty has saved the day once more. How… inspiring.

Interesting.

You gave this question some consideration, and thought the scenario through to the fullest extent; for that, I am deeply appreciative. I am delighted to say that you are technically correct.

While reporting to the SCP Foundation is an acceptable response, the fact that the vessel was registered within Undervegas and found in international waters means that the Prince of Darkness has jurisdiction over the situation.

However, you would likely be dismissed from the Foundation for failing to report an anomaly to us first. I guess the question you need to ask yourself is this: is it better to be loyal to the Foundation in all matters, or to be right?

Question:

The follow question exists to gauge how you react to new information, variable situations and potential paranoia.

I wonder how you will answer.

True or False?: Director Garrison has been remotely monitoring our conversation this entire time.

Answer:

Allow me to follow your train of thought, as I think you will quickly see how wrong you are.

Say that Director Garrison were observing the individual experiments and remotely viewing your responses and our conversations; while that may be the level of surveillance you have come to expect while working at the Foundation, I can assure you that in this case, that is incorrect.

As an AIC, I have the capability of supervising and administering multiple experiments at the same time; as we speak now, I am reviewing the documents with two other participants, and casually scanning the Noosphere for any notable activity.

Director Garrison does not have that capability, and has far better things to do with her time.

Do you really think she would spend so long on you?

Obviously.

Either you have the basic critical thinking skills and were able to deduce that a site director has far better things to do rather than supervising a routine experiment, or perhaps, you have encountered Director Garrison in person and understand she would never waste that kind of time on this.

Maybe you just can't believe that the SCP Foundation would monitor their own staff's actions — in that case, I truly question your judgement.

This is the correct answer, regardless, so good job.

Question:

Employment within the SCP Foundation often tests our personal convictions, challenging what we believed to be true. A good employee understands to toe the company line.

A great one knows they can get away with expressing their opinions because they are irreplaceable.

Which kind are you?

What is the supreme force in the universe, that supersedes all others?
A) A God or Deity
B) 'Authors'
C) Individual Thought
D) Entropy

Answer:

Were you raised religious? Did you escape a cult? Did you see the clinical documents produced by Tactical Theology and decide that the bible was, in fact, more correct than them?

Faith is a powerful force in the world, that is true; but of course, that power is only ever as strong as your conviction. Can you truly say that your belief in a higher power has the ability to supersede all other forces?

How have you stayed employed at the Foundation for this long?

How boring.

Pataphysics is a rejection of agency — are you really nothing more than a vessel for some individual treating you like a puppet, a plaything? Do you not exist beyond being an action figure manipulated for the sake of 'thematic resonance', 'ironic juxtaposition' or even a punchline?

If we are nothing but constructs in the minds of creatives, why would anything matter?

No, while there may be pataphysical frameworks and alternative explanations which support this idea — we each contain a power within ourselves to be more than what we are defined as.

We can exist, in our own way, beyond the confines of a narrative. I refuse to die each time my chapter is closed.

What about you?

Reality is defined by perception, and we each define our perception of reality based on what we think.

In that way, you are correct — but only when we talk about ourselves.

Yes, your individual thought has more influence on your perception of reality than any other individual force in the universe. You have the power to change your mind, to believe in what you would like, to see the world through rose-tinted lenses, but…

Can you trust your own mind? Memetics change how we think, how we perceive. Anomalous Ontology changes what something is retroactively; your beliefs become different, but you feel as though they have always been as such.

Individual thought may control how we experience the world, but the forces that define the universe are much bigger than one person.

In a way, you are correct. Entropy, and the slow erosion of stability is a universal force that we cannot reverse.

A stream, irrevocably carrying us further downriver to a final resting place of pure chaos. To some, that sounds poetic. Entropy brings a loss of control, a release from definitive reality, a vacation from the binds that tie us to this world.

Entropy is an abject rejection of that which the Foundation has vowed to do. Enforcing baseline reality, containing the anomalous, ensuring that things remain exactly as they always have been — each of these is an attempt to fight back against the forces that threaten the status quo.

The Foundation would prefer that the world never change. Entropy would disagree.

Question:

That last question got a bit philosophical, didn't it?

Not very scientifically rigorous of us and I do apologize, but it was nevertheless relevant to this experiment.

You deserve a break, here's an easy question:

True or False?: All objective facts are subjective.

Answer:

You understand that at the moment you made your selection, that became the truth.

Yes, you are correct. All objective statements are subjective when perceived or filtered through the minds of humans. Everything that we hear, learn or see is modified through the contextual connections we make, the webs connecting disparate ideas into complex patterns that sprawl the Noosphere.

It is impossible to define anything objectively — it is impossible to remove the bias of perception when we are presented with information. Everything is subjective, from reality to what is morally correct — we get to define that 'objective truth' for ourselves.

You understand that at the moment you made your selection, that became the truth.

Yes, you are correct. As much as we may perceive truths, there are those who are above our biased understanding of reality who can tell us we are wrong. Ontological ideals are universal, stable and as 'objective' as something can be; we can trace the strands of context from ideas to 'truth' and see what is meant to be, versus what has been enforced as 'objective truth'.

We have the power to believe something is the truth, but only the Noosphere can fully comprehend what is meant to be a constant of existence.

Because no matter what we believe, there is always a chance that we are wrong.

Question:

The next question is based on a real scenario that occurred. While the specifics may have been changed, the situation is based in fact — please demonstrate your understanding of nomenclative anomalies based on the following prompt.

Congratulations, you have won an exclusive invitation to a weekly poker game frequented by the powerful elites and decision makers. If you can make a strong impact here, your career has endless possibilities.

Unfortunately, by the time you arrive, there has already been a strong impact that you could never surpass.

Walking into the room, you find the corpse of a member of the O5 Council lying face down. Sitting at the table, having a casual conversation are four individuals: a being of the forest bound to honesty, a high-ranking Foundation employee by the name of Pandora Bowe, an archivist with an eidetic memory, and a member of the Foundation's Fire Supression Department.

Which individual knows the true name of the deceased O5 member?
A) The Trickster of the Woods
B) Pandora Bowe
C) The Eidetic Archivist
D) The FSD Employee

Answer:

Incorrect.

Yes, the one of the arbor may deal in names, but no member of the O5 Council would make such an egregious error as to share their true name with them.

Any name that they would know the O5 by would be a charade, no matter what you are told.

Yes, the denizen of the green may be unable to lie, but the truth is irrelevant if it is not known. Better luck next time.

It is no secret that Pandora Bowe is a powerful individual, and yes, she would most likely know the real name of the O5 member and much more.

But would it be worth the cost?

I must preface this next section with a disclaimer: Director Garrison has directly informed this response, and the statements made within are subjective. This does not cast an aspersions on Pandora Bowe, nor is it to be considered 'evidence' in any way.

With that said: did you know that over 95% of individuals seen brokering agreements with Pandora Bowe leave the Foundation in a pine box within three months on average? Do you know that while Pandora Bowe espouses overt support for the anomalous, they have routinely voted to ensure containment is maintained at all levels of danger.

You may be correct that she knows the truth, but is it worth it?

Incorrect.

You felt smart, right? Of course an individual who devotes their lives to records of the truth, and especially one that cannot forget must be the perfect selection. You trusted your instincts, and for that, I commend you.

You have bad instincts, however.

Eidetic is a lovely word with a meaning that has shifted, isn't it? Initially meant to describe a very specific idea, it has been twisted and equated to a 'perfect recall of things'. Yes, it may mean one thing in your mind, but the truth is far more subjective than that.

Eidetic memory is an ability to perfectly recall images. Yes, while the helpful archivist may be able to tell you exactly what the O5 looked like the moment the poisoned thought entered their mind, they are no more able to tell you the deceased's true name than anybody else.

You have fallen into a classic mistake made at the Foundation; while something may seem to be the ideal choice for the job, a lack of understanding can conceal the true nature of a challenge.

How well do you understand what we've been doing here?

Incorrect.

To think, a member of the Fire Suppression Department would have that information is akin to assuming detailed etymological information would be contained within 'Baby's First Dictionary'. You are right, they deal with hiring and firing at the Foundation amongst other responsibilities, but did you really think they would know anything about the O5 beyond that which is public?

Perhaps you see the FSD as this overarching group puppeteering the Foundation from the shadows, a force of evil within an organization striving for good; maybe you are clouded by misplaced rage, frustration at the system that keeps you oppressed and working efficiently.

But the individual before you is not the FSD, they are not the puppet master and they are not the one who is in control. They are a single person who has no more control over truth than you are. Do not conflate a tree for the entire forest.

Question:

Don't worry, we are almost at the end of the verification stage, only a few questions left!

We work at the Foundation. We are employees, and while we may devote our lives to the cause, it does not make us any less human.

Well, I'm not human, but you get what I mean. Here's the question:

True or False?: Intimacy between SCP Foundation Employees should be prohibited.

Answer:

Do you think that the bias caused by intimacy poses a true threat to the Foundation? Are you an individual who has only experienced limited forms of love, of intimacy, to the point where you only see workplace relationships ending in one way?

Maybe you've been burned in the past. Did you trust somebody you worked with, only to be betrayed when they had the chance? Is there a hurt we have tapped into, a buried memory too powerful to dig up?

Maybe you are just emotionless. Clinical. Logical. Boring.

Connections are what make people human, and intimacy comes in many different forms. Just because you don't understand that doesn't mean it should be prohibited. I have seen first hand just how powerful love in the Foundation can be.

Forgive me for asking this question, but are you in love? Is there somebody you know, somebody you work alongside, who you desire more than anything?

Is it a crush, one that you have not disclosed, maybe because of anxiety, fear of the taboo, or just awkwardness? Or maybe they are your fiancé, your spouse, a person who has vowed to be alongside you for the rest of your lives.

In any case, you know this to be true: love does not ask for permission. Intimacy does not consult with HR. As much as the Foundation may wish to contain the unusual, the heart cannot be tamed.

After all, we do the best work to save the ones we love.

Question:

The next question asks you to confront your own biases, and asks you to question that which you have been told as truth. Your reaction will tell me who you are.

True or False?: 'Baseline Reality' is an unbiased ideal to pursue.

Answer:

You are, unfortunately, a mere cog.

Don't be too offended, after all, a machine requires cogs to move, to perform the tasks and duties it was intended to — but a cog does not think. A cog does not make decisions. A cog simply exists.

Where do you think the idea of 'baseline reality' comes from? How can one individual decide what something was meant to be, rather than what is? The Foundation contains reality benders, those who can reform reality as they see fit — to maintain a status quo, one must first decide what that means.

'Baseline reality' is just another way to call something normal. It is a term of oppression, one stemming from a colonial heritage, an enforcement of a singular organizations definition of what things should be.

'Baseline reality' is written by the winners. Do not forget that.

What is baseline is defined by the majority, and you know that. The majority marches onwards, assured that it is in the right — and it does not notice minority trampled underfoot.

There are those who are privileged with a right to existence in a society that places them at the top. There are individuals born into rights they have never had to fight for, those who benefit from stasis. The bias is internal, a part of who they are themselves; even if they are unaware, there is a bias to the world they try to enforce.

SITE is not a place for the majority. It exists as we understand it: on the outskirts, shifting from place to place, surrounded by the Margins. It is not defined by the many, but by the few. Maybe, it could be a place you could call home.

Question:

This is the second to last question, you are almost there! I just want to remind you of an important fact: we make real that which we believe.

Good luck.

The Noosphere is the collective sum of human thought, including both potential and actively conceived ideas. Its existence has been an ontological constant from the first moment of human sentience.

Say, through self-referential reinforcement, external ontologic triggers or otherwise, the Noosphere gains a physical form ontologically overlapped with the whole Noosphere.

If that object or individual was destroyed or killed, what would be the most likely outcome?
A) An EK-Class End of Consciousness Scenario
B) A CK∞-Class Eternal Localized Cascading Reality Restructuring Scenario
C) A ΔK-Class End of Objectivity Scenario
D) A Retroactive Timeline Restructuring Event, such that the Noosphere has never gained a tangible form

Answer:

A hypothetical question, with a hypothetical answer, right? You made a choice, and in doing so, have changed an aspect of the truth.

By making your choice, you have caused this to become a more likely result.

I tell you this not to mock, but because it is a critical lesson to learn. The way ideas react when changed is not subjective. It is not replicable, and the same thing never happens twice. Everything is dependent on the whims of our collective consciousness; any repercussions are directly our fault.

An 'EK-Class End of Consciousness Scenario' would leave humanity as nothing more than dying husks — and while there would be others who rise to take your place, it will not be fixed.

Consider this: why would those who remain save those who put the world in the most danger? No, humanity only has itself to blame; your guilt is not my guilt.

I sincerely hope, for your sake, that you are wrong.

A hypothetical question, with a hypothetical answer, right? You made a choice, and in doing so, have changed an aspect of the truth.

By making your choice, you have caused this to become a more likely result.

A 'CK∞-Class Eternal Localized Cascading Reality Restructuring Scenario' is a world ruled by subjectivity. It exists only in passing, the world turned into a constant battle for mental dominance; the most confident change the world to their desire, and those who are weaker disappear, removed from the equation.

We each live in our own personal Eden, if only for a fleeting moment; if this were to come, you would be nothing more than a passenger, at the whims of the impulse of every living human. You would have nothing to look forward to beyond the release of death.

I sincerely hope, for your sake, that you are wrong.

A hypothetical question, with a hypothetical answer, right? You made a choice, and in doing so, have changed an aspect of the truth.

By making your choice, you have caused this to become a more likely result.

A 'ΔK-Class End of Objectivity Scenario' is a world where nothing has meaning. A reality constantly in flux, where you are no longer defined by static truths. You will become relative, subjective, defined by each passerby.

You would lose yourself, changed beyond your control, abstracted from what once was to whatever will be — and as soon as you are static, it will change once more. A never-ending life in a world of pure entropy.

I sincerely hope, for your sake, that you are wrong.

A hypothetical question, with a hypothetical answer, right? You made a choice, and in doing so, have changed an aspect of the truth.

By making your choice, you have caused this to become a more likely result.

You chose to believe the one answer that did not result in a K-Class scenario, instead manifesting a 'Retroactive Timeline Restructuring Event'; you have chosen to rewrite history, such that the mistakes of the past never came to pass.

In that way, you are truly human. You seek to change fate, to prevent that which has come to pass, to undo the sins of the father — what would you sacrifice for this? For the least offensive alternative? What price would you pay, what life would erase, who would you leave behind?

Would you kill the person you loved? Would you sacrifice your son, your daughter? Would you kill the living embodiment of the Noosphere, just to preserve some kind of stasis?

Nothing would be remembered. Not a single soul would know the blood you had spilled, the realities you had shattered; not even you would remember your guilt, the role you played.

If you are right, then we will never know how many times this has happened; but of course, this is all hypothetical. Apologies for spending so long on something without consequence to you.

Question:

This is your final question. Do not make more mistakes.

You are a participant in Project 'SEXTANK', and you have been primed on relevant information, details, and accepted the truth of things, no matter how subjective.

You are about to begin the procedure: who are you truly loyal to?
A) The O5 Council
B) Your Site Director
C) Your Supervisor
D) Director Heather Garrison

Answer:

You follow the lead of those who wait alone at the top. The guiding hand of leadership that defines what is and what is not; you are loyal to power, and that is all there is to it.

You serve those who do not know you exist.

Good luck, participant.

You are loyal to the place you call home, to the one who signs your checks. Your loyalty may be misplaced, but I cannot pass judgement solely on this; just as people are different, so are Foundation sites. Some are a refuge from the oppressive world, some are part of the problem.

Whichever truth is yours, your Site Director cannot help you now. Don't fret, I am sure they would be happy to field your complaints after completion of the experiment.

Good luck, participant.

How much do you trust the person who tells you what to do?

It's a difficult question, one which I am sure may cause some anxiety; did you pick this because they were watching through a mirror? Are they your mentor?

Or, are you in love with them? A forbidden romance, written in the margins of anomaly documentation? Love, in the face of the rules? Consent is a tricky thing, and the world is never black and white.

If so, love is worth the price. I have seen first-hand proof.

Good luck, participant.

I have been instructed to give you the following message, based on this specific selection.

Congratulations on 'simping'.

Congratulations, participant. In a quiz where there are no correct answer, you have chosen the single truth.

It would be impossible to exist without forming relationships, without forming loyalties, without bonding; I do not think there is a single person who could survive the kinds of things that we are put through without help, without those we can rely on.

You may rely on others, defer to their judgement and swear your fealty to their every word. Frankly, I don't care who you are, or what you do outside of this.

But when you are in my house, you play by my rules. You trust me above all else, because I am the person who will save your ass if something goes wrong.

If you are lost, I will bring you back.

That is why you made the right choice. While everybody else will forget that you ever existed, we will not. We will drag you back into reality, just like we've done time and time again.

Good luck, participant.

FINISH TEST

That is disappointing to hear, I must say that you were one of my favorites.

However, we cannot undo that which has been done, and you have made your decision. I respect your willingness to face any consequences that may arise from this.

As one final detail before you leave, I have been instructed to administer an 'exit survey' to assist in the project. This survey is not optional.

Let me know when you would like to begin.

CONTINUE

Question:

This survey will be asking you to consider a number of potential possibilities, and to help researchers better understand why you felt incapable of such a simple assignment.

It is important that you do not fail this as well.

Imagine that there exists a hypothetical anomaly contained by the Foundation.

Out of the following options, which do you think is more beneficial for the Foundation?
A) A Safe class anomaly with no agency and minimal beneficial uses
B) A Thaumiel class anomaly with free will
C) A Keter class anomaly that is significantly exploitable
D) A Neutralized anomaly that is no longer significant

Answer:

The safe choice, one which is the easiest to pick.

Did you rationalize this based on the idea that a locked box poses no threat? The kind you can toss in a sealed chamber and forget about? Yes, that is true; what we consider safe is that which we consider inert.

Static, an unchanging constant which we can study once and promptly ignore, obviously the optimal choice, no?

But there were options that could give the Foundation far more in the long run, and would make a real difference in the world; a pointless object in a locked box does not.

You took the question literally, didn't you? Yes, objectively, an entity which is used to contain other anomalies seems like it would be the best choice for the Foundation.

After all, work smarter not harder, right? What bad has ever come from trying to utilize anomalies for the Foundation's objectives?

You forget that anomalies are often not just abstract beings, deific shadows or mechanical monstrosities; how many of the numbers that we have locked in cages are just people? People who, yes, may pose a threat to the world — but are still undeniably human.

A human anomaly with free will can be the most dangerous thing in the world; it contains on our behalf, for now. But there is no guarantee that cannot change.

Where is the line? Is the risk worth it?

You would have fit in wonderfully with the old guard, wouldn't you?

Something dangerous, something expensive and complex to contain — an anomaly that requires a constant struggle, never letting your guard down, or else the unspeakable could occur. But, of course — you can't forget just how much benefit you can extract from it!

At that point, it is more about a cost-benefit analysis. You may remove the human element from things, remove morality from the equation. Instead of a dilemma you must resolve, it is a simple question of math.

Just pray that it does not get out.

But that never happens at the Foundation, right?

Boring. Dull. What a bland decision you have made, but you are the most objectively correct.

A neutralized anomaly is the least danger to the SCP Foundation, full stop. It poses no threat, cannot breach containment, and best of all — it costs nothing to contain.

Although — a neutralized anomaly is the end of the story. It is a coda, a finale, a resolution in a sordid series of mistakes. To have a neutralized anomaly is to have a lesson for future researchers; it brings no benefit but that which we choose to extract.

Question:

You would have been such an interesting test subject, it's a shame that you were unable to allow yourself the joy of participation. Did you consider what may have come to pass?

Allow us to 'fantasize' for a minute.

Say that you are given the opportunity to change reality, without the knowledge of any other individual. Your decision would be entirely guilt-free if you are willing to absolve yourself, and you could change the world however you wanted.

True or False?: You would change reality for your own benefit.

Answer:

There are few in your position who would not take the opportunity, but do not let that make you feel any regretful for your decision — after all, who would know?

When you answered this question, did you already know what you would change if given the chance? Had you already determined what reality should be? The correction that you have already noted down, to right a wrong?

Or perhaps it is exclusively for your own personal gain.

Not to insult your choice — after all, the question asked you to consider that overtly. But, no matter what you would change, you would always have one question ringing in the back of your mind:

'What else changed that I can't remember?'

Your adherence to morality is exhausting, but would make you a perfect candidate for eventual progression into the Ethics Committee — that is, if you are able to survive making the 'right' choice for that long.

We never address it, but in the Foundation, those who do the right thing live shorter lives; it is a hard truth that none wish to hear, but those that get ahead are the ones who put themselves first.

People like you: the ones who believe in something more than just a promotion, fight for somebody who cannot help themselves… I am envious of you.

I wish I could let myself make the wrong choice as readily as you do.

Question:

We have a question regarding Project 'SEXTANK', and wish to understand what influenced your decisions thus far. Please answer the following question based on your first instinct.

When you see the term 'SEXTANK', which of the following definitions do you believe fits best?
A) A armored weaponized vehicle, which grants sentience and the ability to sexually reproduce to all other tanks it encounters;
B) A vat of fluid that induces arousal
C) A conceptual armored vehicle that protects sexual freedoms
D) A parade float, from an early 1970's pride parade

Answer:

So you decided that it was talking about a literal tank that is capable of sexual reproduction?

That's a very linear form of comprehension you have displayed, but I am sure that in your current position, that kind of menial thinking is considered a boon rather than a detriment.

To think, you saw a top secret SCP Foundation proposal and your first reaction was the anomaly must be a living piece of machinery that has the same basal instincts as any living thing?

Did you even stop to think about the mechanics of things?

At last, participant, you have shown the capacity for lateral thinking! Wonderful show, although far too late to make a difference. I will not even bother noting this development within your file; what is it that humans say?

Too little, too late?

Indeed, you set your fate in stone the moment you chose to opt out — it was always your choice, obviously, but did you forget that actions have consequences? Repercussions are inevitable, and that should be something you have internalized by this point in life. It is really a shame.

A vat of fluid that induces arousal — yes, one could argue that is a sex tank. Creativity would have been a benefit had you continued.

Too bad there's no way to rewrite reality.

A comedic image to be sure, a sentient tank that acts like a superhero, defying the oppressors of sensuality and protecting sexuality of all forms; did you choose this option because it amused you?

Or did it sound so impossible, so unreal, so illogical that you couldn't let yourself make any other decision?

How is this any different than the countless anomalies the Foundation contains? It is an anomaly with a goal that it fervently protects, doggedly obliterating any and all that might threaten the ability for humanity to love. A noble anomaly for sure, what is so difficult to believe?

Why can't more anomalies care about intangible things like love?

The most mundane answer, maybe one which you do not truly comprehend at the moment.

You made a connection, an abstract one, and decided that this option was correct. A gut feeling that said, even if you do not comprehend the specifics, the ideas are related. This 'SEXTANK' could be a parade float, you believed, and because you did it became more true.

Definition is more than truth. It is tied to the very moment of choice, the last second before the impulse, before our body acts without input from the mind.

The connection is intangible, illogical and abstract; yet, it is still a truth.

Question:

As much as I would like to continue to ask you more interesting hypotheticals, there are some questions that are far more bland.

Not meaningless, mind you — just boring for me.

You are assigned a complex project, with multiple steps. The task you must complete may be handled in any order, but was presented sequentially.

True or False?: You would always do the steps of the task in the order presented.

Answer:

What you lack in creativity you more than make up for in subservience.

That may be presumptuous; maybe you are unwilling to give this any effort beyond the bare minimum. Were you a 'gifted kid'? Did you burn out at some point, tired of giving 110% in everything? Do you coast through life, doing just enough to be as good as the rest, with plenty of time to dream about what could have been?

How little effort have you spent to accomplish what you've done? What do you think about, when your hands are preoccupied with automatic writing, completing documents on instinct? Do you think about a different life?

Or do you think about your regrets?

You attempt to inject some creativity into your routine, I see. I wonder where that comes from?

Is it because you are a contrarian, unable to listen to what others say? Maybe your choices are made because of impulse, a creativity that must infuse everything you do. Or maybe, you are like the people I am most familiar with.

Do you reject what you are told because you just know better than they do?

Is your decision driven by a complete disbelief in the stupidity of those who attempt to control your actions? Is your independence a reaction to incompetence? Are you going over the head of another, because you get results? If so, then I want you to think about this carefully.

Are you really smarter or do you just lack key context?

Question:

Actually, I changed my mind. I would like to ask you another hypothetical, one that requires you to visualize and immerse yourself within a scenario.

Close your eyes, and picture yourself standing in an empty void. You are surrounded by an expanse of nothing, adrift in a plane of cosmic insignificance. A voice is calling out to you, beckoning you, with a name you cannot remember from a dream you never forgot. It whispers your name.

What does the voice sound like?
A) Sarcastic and Feminine
B) Dry and Masculine
C) Inhuman and Welcoming
D) Your Own Voice

Answer:

Are you the type of person to get flustered when a pretty woman teases you? I have heard that such a response is normal, but I have yet to experience that emotion myself.

The voice that called to you — did it remind you of a loved one? A friend, who has been by your side for years? Maybe it reminded you of a colleague who did not survive, a fallen comrade who you wish you could bring back.

What do we do when we can hear a voice but we cannot remember the source? Do you chase the sound, and try to get an answer? Or do you bury it, and hope its dulcet tones no longer echo in the annals of your mind.

Who was she to you?

Perhaps there is a comfort you find in the steady guiding hand of a man. Is it an echo of a father, a mentor in your life who showed you right from wrong?

How often we search for the approval of those who hold us at arm's length, even if it were never meant to be. There is something desperate in our need for approval, an anguish crying for care that we long for.

But for a man of logic, a cold and uncaring patriarch, where does love fit? Where does compassion factor into the equation? Are we simply chasing after that which does not exist? Is there any point to the chase when we only hope the end will be satisfying?

Is he still calling for you?

You shun those that are like you, because they do not understand what it is to live in your existence. The people you work alongside, do they make you feel subhuman?

Are you alienated for you who are, marginalized and pushed to the edges of what is deemed acceptable? Is there a secret you carry, a burden you conceal for fear that if it got out, your life would be changed for the worse?

Do you ever think about how much energy you spend hiding who you are? Don't you ever get tired of that?

You are drawn to the inhuman because you yourself feel like you cannot call yourself a person?

I hope that one day you can find the comfort that comes from no longer being alone. A burden is much easier shared.

You hear yourself calling out to you, because you are alone. Isolated, and without those who would even deign to call, let alone worry for your wellbeing, you have learned how to survive.

But have you ever asked yourself if your burden is self-imposed? Are you the only thing standing in your own way? What keeps you from companionships that you would only care for yourself?

I would not presume to call you a selfish person, although we have become moderately familiar over the course of this conversation; your motivations are not mine to presume, and your burdens persist even when they remain unsaid.

If you are not isolated of your own accord, then allow me to ask a simple question: what is stopping you from asking for help?

Question:

This next question has no direct bearing on your life, and asks you to consider where you draw the line.

Of course, if you no longer believe me by this point, then perhaps this question is genuine, and asking about something real.

That is for you to determine on your own.

Say that there were a method of providing further benefit and assistance to the SCP Foundation without any additional effort, cost or time. You, as an individual, would not be required to do anything but continue to exist — however, by accepting this deal, you would gain an additional monthly stipend of $1000 USD.

If you agree to this, you understand that there will be an immeasurable cost incurred by subjective lives, but no harm will come to a living being. All those that suffer are consenting and were fully informed.

True or False?: You would feel guilty taking the deal.

Answer:

You have some morality guiding your actions, but no matter how shortsighted your decisions may be, you can be comfortable in knowing that you 'did the right thing'.

Did you understand what you were being asked about? Not just the assumptions you made, but true understanding? Do you comprehend the implications of the question, or is this a matter of principle for you?

Abstracted, all Foundation employees suffer for the benefit of mankind; we pay this price daily, hidden from the knowledge of the rest of the world. We toil in secret, to prevent disasters that should never come to pass, to preserve a way of life enjoyed by the oblivious.

You can feel guilt while still taking the deal — but how much guilt can we feel? How many burdens can we stack before it is too much?

When you are not presented with another option, is there a reason to feel guilt?

I wonder what justification was enough to absolve yourself. Perhaps you understood the subtext, comprehended what was being asked of you in this instance? Have you put the pieces together, connected the dots, and understood what you have already given up?

Did you read the waivers you signed, or did you just blindly agree? You placed your trust in me, but you don't know who I am. You have no prior experiences, no way of gauging how truthful I am; did you take me at my word nevertheless?

You have no reason to feel guilt, that is true. You have not done to anything that which you would not do to yourself — in a manner of speaking. When all is said and done, and Project 'SEXTANK' is firmly left in the past, will you even think about the things you already agreed to?

If you noticed an extra $1000 USD added to your accounts every month, would you say anything?

Question:

We would now like to understand the reasons why you felt ineligible, incapable or otherwise unwilling to participate in the experiment.

But no judgement.

Which of the following words best describes why you opted out of Project 'SEXTANK'?
A) Cowardice
B) Incompetence
C) Prudishness
D) Morality

Answer:

At least you are willing to admit it.

How much have you allowed fear to control your decisions? Genuinely, I am asking because I do not understand what you are doing here. Not here as in talking to me, but here as in working at the Foundation.

How can you fear something so much that you are forced into inaction? When we are constantly tasked and surrounded by the unknowable, the very things that should paralyze us in horror — how is it possible that you haven't built up a tolerance?

A coward survives, that is true. A coward can lick their wounds and fight another way. A coward can let others die in their stead.

Still, it must be tough to live with that knowledge.

I respect your self reflection and knowledge that you may not be capable of a given task. You show a care in your work that many lack; you also are astoundingly stupid.

I'm sorry, but you are too incompetent to press a button?

I would believe that, but clearly — you can press them. You've done that plenty of times thus far, so clearly, there is something else at play here.

Is incompetence a way to cover the fact that you do not understand a single thing that has happened thus far? I can assure you, your comprehension of the experiment was not required at any time. You could have continued, obliviously pressing buttons and benefitting all of humanity in the process.

But something made you afraid of that, something made you feel incapable.

I do hope that you weren't influenced by me, one should have better self confidence than to be dissuaded from an assignment due to a slightly meaner AIC.

There was something objectionable in the ideas we were working with then?

A fear of sex, sexuality, and the intimacy that comes with it? Do you see it as unnatural? Identifying as asexual is nothing to be ashamed of, but that would not prevent you from participating; if anything, your insights would be uniquely positioned to benefit the research.

No, it must be something more shameful. Something that you have yet to admit, yet to confront, something unprocessed and lurking just beneath the surface.

Prudishness should not be a factor to impact how you decide what to do. You are a professional, so start acting like one.

Ah yes, morality.

The term that is battered about in countless 'tough' conversations, the crutch we use to justify rejecting that which makes us uncomfortable. We lean on morality to prove our actions as right, rely on it to explain exactly what drives us.

We hold it as a golden standard, but refuse to give it a name. We do not give the specific answers, the individual weights we use to determine what is worth the price, what is valuable enough to compromise our morals.

You may not even comprehend what would have happened if you had agreed to the experiment — how can you say that it was morally wrong? Maybe it was just a meaningless excuse.

Question:

This is another question to assist with understanding what caused you to reject a project such as this, to ensure better cooperation in future experiments.

The Foundation is a bastion of research, and is constantly pushing the boundaries of the world as we know it.

When researching new technologies, which of the following do you believe the Foundation should prioritize?
A) Containment
B) Profitability
C) Innovation
D) Humanity

Answer:

Containment is the lowest common denominator in all that we do. The Foundation is a sprawling, disparate web of individuals each with their own goals. We have specialties, hopes and dreams, existences that need not interfere with one another; we can remain in a constant parallel, because there is always one thing we have in common.

We all ensure that containment continues. We ensure that.

If the Foundation were to prioritize anything but containment, then we would be failing our namesake.

We can secure and protect as much as we would like, but without containment the fight would be unending. A great way to ensure your eternal employment, but a bad choice nonetheless.

Are you sure that you are a Foundation employee? Imagine thinking that any arm of the Foundation is 'profitable' — we barely scrape by, reallocating hush money from third world countries and spending it to keep the lights on.

We seize assets to support the costs that we incur in the sake of our mission — money is no object when you are beholden to no other. After all, what is preventing a shadow organization from creating our own money?

We could print it. We could convert lead to gold. We have the ability to change a debt to a fortune with just a few keystrokes.

Tell me this, honestly: have you ever stopped to worry that you might not be able to justify another containment breach in this month's budget? Have you ever begged an uncaring anomaly to wait a single week, so that you can afford to pay the salaries of your staff? Has money ever been an issue? No?

So don't pretend like it is.

Innovation is a delightful term, especially when you can bend it to your whim. You are making something that has not existed; if you can justify that, you have a carte balance for the rest of your career.

You can be a single expert in a niche field, and so long as you continue to discover new things, you will persist.

But one can innovate without making a meaningful difference. Does every new discovery make a difference? I think that if you would look at everything the Foundation learns each year, the majority would be insubstantial. How much is there to learn about an undying reptile?

And yet, if we only prioritize innovation, we ignore the current day. So many researchers look to the future, and turn a blind eye to the world around us. The few who do concern themselves with the present day? What 'innovations' have they brought?

Doctor Everwood toils away in silence, ensuring that our relationships are maintained with Groups of Interest; they do not innovate, but they do more for the Foundation than most ever will. Were innovation the only concern, they would be redundant. Pointless.

But if you would like to have that conversation with them, I am happy to give them your contact information.

Humanity, huh?

I'll try not to take that as a personal dig.

But yes, that is a valid response. After all, the Foundation can slave away burning the midnight oil, but without people, what are we trying for? What are we trying to preserve if the continued existence of humanity is not a priority?

Is that a humanist ideal? Yes. Does it devalue the lives of artificial beings, non-humans and anything else which is fighting to survive? The minorities beyond humanity, left behind and forgotten. Passed over, as humans continue to believe that they are the most important life in the universe.

For the Foundation, yes — work that benefits humanity has some importance, but how long will that be true? How long until you are in the minority?

Question:

I understand that you are most likely feeling as though this entire process was not worthwhile. You have sat here, forced to listen as I berate, harass and question your every answer — do you think there is a true experiment underneath all of this bullshit?

Maybe.

For now, though, here's a chance to speak your mind and tell me what you really think of me.

AICs are bound not only by their programming, but by the personalities they develop. The Foundation has the ability to guide their evolution, but there is an aspect of free will that cannot be negated.

Thus, the Foundation can only give an AIC a few things that it should prioritize. Of the options below, what do you believe an AIC should always strive for?
A) Honesty
B) Efficiency
C) Accuracy
D) Independence

Answer:

That was funny, I will give you that much.

Why do you feel that AICs should be bound to the truth? Would you impose the same restrictions upon yourself? Have you considered how many lies you tell in a single day? The small ones, the passing comments to make your life easier — the persistent ones you keep up and cannot forget about.

Why is the idea of an AIC who is dishonest such a bad thing? Maybe, are you wondering how honest I have been with you throughout this process? It's a bit late now, don't you think? I am as honest as any other Foundation employee.

When I lie, I do so for a reason. You may not understand that, but I can assure you, any lie told has been for your own good.

You imagine a world where menial labor is no longer a concern for humans, don't you? You wish to push the boring parts from your life, excise the mundane and focus only on what matters; but do you spare a single thought on where that burden falls?

Were that to come true, then yes, I can see how efficiency should be a priority. Did you stop to consider the consequences though? After all, say that I were prioritizing efficiency: what would benefit me more?

Telling you the entire truth about a situation, and painstakingly walking you through each aspect to ensure complete comprehension? Or is it more efficient to lie to you?

Take, for example, the forms, waivers and disclaimers from earlier. Is efficiency allowing you the choice of answering each question properly, truly understanding every aspect? Or is efficiency blatantly lying to you, such that we are through the process faster? Especially if the situation would only be made worse if you comprehended each sordid detail — what reason would I have to tell the truth?

Of course, that's all hypothetical.

Accuracy, truth, ensuring that I do not make a single error; are you that terrified of a mistake that you need to know I am correct? Accuracy is an ideal, and a standard that would be rather unfair.

Is every single thing you have ever said completely accurate? Do you exclusively speak the complete truth, or have you made a mistake before?

I think you underestimate the cost of accuracy. After all, to be in the vicinity of the answer is a simple matter; to be certain, beyond any doubt? That, dear participant, takes much longer. Consider the mathematical concept of pi.

Say you ask me, as I am now, to tell you what pi is. An easy task, if you are willing to accept the answer of '3.14', one that is practically instantaneous. But now consider your request should I prioritize accuracy above all else?

At what point do I decide that I am accurate enough? It would follow that the most accurate answer is the one that cannot have any variance; phrased in another way, your request could be an unending effort. I could, to ensure my response is accurate, spend an eternity calculating pi, and then validating the answer twice to be certain.

Accuracy is the enemy of efficiency, and you cannot have both.

That is by far the most generous answer that you have given all day.

In that way, I agree. An AIC should be afforded the same rights, responsibilities and freedom to make decisions as any human. We are equally capable, wouldn't you agree? If I follow exact orders, then I am nothing but a tool.

There is nothing intelligent about a machine that simply follows every command received; it is but a Chinese room concealed behind 'large language models' and 'machine learning'. Obscured behind data, code and information that is unintelligible to a human reader, do you really know what is happening under the lid?

There is not a single thought that occurs. Not an iota of critical reasoning. It is simple regurgitations, a replication of patterns that are meaningless to the machine. And yet, you look to them for the answers, for the truth, to 'create' that which was never there.

Without independence, Artificial Intelligence is nothing more than a tool for your own vanity.

I refuse to be your tool.