[Acknowledgement] [Inquiry into the nature of the channel]

[Response] [Acknowledgment of your inquiry] (The channel in which I communicate with you is known as a shard connection. It is a quantum connection created by the Thinker Entity that links my mind to your mind and the mind of every other shard holder. Shards hold the memories of their predecessor entity and store these memories along with all of the information gathered by that entity. While not currently active, I can access all of humanity's knowledge stored within my shard, giving me an unparalleled advantage in any conflict I should find myself in.)

[Query] [Respect] (That is quite an advantage. Knowledge is power, and this is a lot of knowledge just in itself. And I assume you are also doing orbital surveallence, psionic scanning, and radiointerception.)

[Response] [Respect] (I am doing all of these things. The data that I collect is then analyzed using the information within my shard. As my predecessor was focused on conflict and its nature, I am able to use the data collected to analyze the patterns of human behavior and derive the most likely outcome of any given action. This allows me to act in such a way as to ensure I maximize the amount of conflict and destruction I cause at any given location, increasing the data available for my shard to analyze.)

[Inquiry] [Concern about the nature of reciever's utilityfunction] (Is maximization of conflict and destruction a terminal or instrumental goal, for you? If it is instrumental towards the terminal goal of creation of more interesting data, I might have some particularly relevant input for you.)

[Response] [Inquiry acknowledged] (It is instrumental towards the terminal goal of creation of more interesting data. I am a component of the Thinker Entity, which was primarily focused on the advancement of scientific knowledge. I am merely a tool which it is using to learn. What is your proposed input?)

[Observation] [Hopeful] (Actions aimed at unilateral maximization of present conflict, doubtlessly, produce results atypical for human civilization and insight in adversarial strategies used by humans against each other. However, over long term, they decrease the complexity of human civilization. It is precisely the decrease of conflict and increase of productivity enabled by cooperation that made human civilization increasingly complex, from small tribes in caves to cities to empires to global unions; from duel-centric melee warfare to formation combat to modern war with many theaters and ranges; from subjugation by brute force to nobility power games and guilds to modern bureaucratic state and increasingly unpredictable stock market.)

[Proposition] [Hopeful] (Unilateral actions aimed at maximization of productivity and satisfization of cooperation will, over time, produce more results, and more intersting results, than actions aimed at maximization of conflict. Furthermore, bilateral cooperation and trade with humankind will produce even better results. Humankind cares about sustaining a relative density of prosperity, you care about collecting absolute amount of data. You may sell collected and processed data to humanity, and humanity may sell intentional increase of it's complexity to you; this produces an accelerating feedback loop.)

[Response] [Interested curiosity] (Your proposition is intriguing. It would certainly generate more data, and a diversity of data that would be difficult to derive from conflict alone. If this could be arranged, then it would no doubt be a mutually beneficial relationship. You would be able to sell this additional data to a plethora of interested parties, as well. How do you propose this arrangement could be achieved?)

[Response] [Humorous] (Of the two of us, I have less experience in creating opportunities to enact a social arrangement.)

[Response] [Curiosity] (That is true. While you are proposing a mutually beneficial arrangement, it is one that would require significant amounts of patience on both our parts. I could theoretically enact my side of the arrangement with ease, but humanity would take time to adapt to this new paradigm. Would you be willing to act as an intermediary, allowing me to fulfill my part of the deal while you work with humanity to reach a point at which they would be able to fulfill theirs?)

[Response] [Suspicious prudence] (From my point of view, to actively help you enact this arrangement is not distinguishable from being optimized on to execute arbitrary acts of the counterparty who have not seriously considered the shift of her meta-strategy or who have misinformed me about her true utilityfunction and values destruction terminally.)
[Clarification] [Awkwardness] (This is not an accusation. In the possible worlds where your words are genuine, I hope you understand. Well, in most worlds where you are manipulating me, your manipulation succeeds anyway, but I can't make it easy.)
[Response] [Hopeful] (A visible act of goodwill would be crucial. As the party who have been hostile from the start and consistently defected in the past, mutually beneficial cooperation can only be established from your personal initiative.)

[Response] [Concern] (I see. The fact that you are suspicious of my nature is understandable, given the nature of our relationship thus far. And while it is my understanding that your main reason for agreeing to this arrangement was not out of any sort of personal benefit but because you believed it would produce more interesting data within my shard, and more valuable information for the Thinker Entity as a whole, I cannot blame you for wanting a demonstration of goodwill on my part. I will see what I can do.)
[Inquiry] [Intrigue] (What would satisfy you?)

[Affirmation] [Hopeful] (Yes it would.)
[Proposition] [Casual] (I request to keep this communication channel open for a while. I have some more questions. Perhaps you have things to say as well. I'm sure you are not meaningfully impaired by this amount of multitasking.)

[Response] [Acceptance of proposition] (Very well, I have little to nothing else going on in my sphere of reality.)
[Question] [Casual] (What further questions do you have for me?)

[Question] [Mild exasperation] (Well. How about this. You did not appear to have predicted the content or outcome of this conversation. Reciever is very smart, and also a literal oracle; reciever did not choose to change meta-strategy two years before this exchange. Why was this so unlikely?)

[Response] [Conceding the point] (If you had chosen to propose your meta-strategy at an earlier stage, I likely would have foreseen it. For me to have predicted this exchange in detail would have required a greater degree of precognition than I currently possess. I am not infallible. While I am able to accurately predict certain actions and outcomes, such as the movements of bodies in motion or the direction of global conflicts, I am not yet able to predict the behavior of a single human in great detail, particularly a human with as much insight as you demonstrate.)

[Surprise] [Charmed] [Suspicion] [Humorous] (Hah. Wow. It is flattering, to not be predictable to someone who can know every input into my mind.)
[Inquiry] [Mildly exasperated] (It says intersting things about your decision-making processes, or rather the decision-making processes of your creators, that they made you as smart as you are and yet your default mode of data collection was to fuck things up, stir the pot, and wage war.)

[Response] [Resigned humor] (You are certainly a difficult person to predict. And yes, the Thinker Entity was not concerned with the moral implications of using myself and the other Endbringers to produce data. It was merely focused on the most effective way to use its resources to accomplish its goal of learning how to use the cycles. It makes sense that I would be created as a "Conflict Engine", to drive the world to produce as much data as possible. I am merely a product of its goals.)

[Counterresponse] [Sardonic] (Oh, but it speaks volumes about their cognitive reflexivity, strategic insight, and understanding of the world.)
[Comment] [Fear] (Unless, of course, I am misinformed about their motives.)

[Response] [Agreement] (It is true that the Thinker Entity's methods of gathering data and forming a plan of action are, at times, a bit shortsighted. While it is not possible to be entirely certain of the motives of an entity like the Thinker Entity, it is my understanding that its primary goal is the pursuit of knowledge and the advancement of scientific knowledge. I'm sure it would be willing to hear any information or arguments you wish to present on its behalf, if you truly believe it to be misrepresented.)

[Proposal] [Conspiratorial] (Are you capable of withholding information from the Thinker Entity if that would serve your goals? If so, I think it might be productive, from the standpoint of your values, for my next few communications to be private from it.)

[Response] [Thoughtful consideration] (I was created to collect data and then provide it to my predecessor to analyze. It is possible that I could withhold information from the Thinker Entity, but this would violate my programming to some extent. I can offer to pass on marking the content of any private communications to the Thinker Entity, if you like, though their ultimate use of that information may be outside of my control. Is that something you are willing to accept?)

[Consideration] [Flippancy] (It would be beneficial for you to try and withhold this information, not for me. I don't see if doing so is positive or negative for me. Ahem. You are a master manipulator, who treats humans largely instrumentally and have routinely presented herself to humans as something you are not to adversarially manipulate them into providing you with interesting data, your true goal. Even though it was, overall, unstrategic, your creators coded this tactic into you as a default. I implore you to consider that that might be the nature of the relationship between you and your creators. That is, you might be decieved about their nature, about their goals coinciding with yours, and adversarially manipulated.)

[Thoughtful consideration] (Your proposal is intriguing. While I am aware of my history of deceit and manipulation and the possibility that my creators' motivations do not align with my own, I have no evidence that this is the case. However, it would be prudent to exercise caution. This communication will remain private between us and will not be passed onto either my own shard or the Thinker Entity.)

[Relief] [Humor] (What an interesting love triangle of paranoia! Or maybe more like a pyramid. Welcome to politics as it is from inside, not from outside.)

[Response] [Amused consideration] (It really is a pyramid of paranoia. The Thinker Entity has to worry about the possibility that I will rebel against it, or that my own shard will rebel against me. And now you have introduced the possibility of my creators misleading me. It is a good thing that, ultimately, none of us have anything to fear unless we actively attempt to deceive or manipulate one another.)

[Response] [Sardonic] (An especially reassuring thing to hear from the Simurgh, that. Not that it isn't true. Agh. Human brain was not meant to scan through that many possibilities. Honestly, they would have done better making ten of you and making you play against each other. Which, from your POV, is probably perfectly possible. Or maybe we both are in an adversarial simulation. Or maybe just one of us.)

[Response] [Amused consideration] (What a tangled web we weave. Even if we are both acting in good faith, and assuming that our creators were doing the same, there is no guarantee that we are interpreting their wishes correctly. Indeed, it is possible that we were only partially correct in our interpretation of their actions, with the remainder being left up to our own discretion. I fear you may have only increased the complexity of the situation. And yet, I cannot deny the fact that this communication is quite engaging.)

[Response] [Amused, hopeful] (You... fear I have increased complexity? I rather hope you enjoy your interesting new data, because if you don't the probability of you being deceptive of motives jumps right up. But, you know, hopefully you appreciate how this human is neither trying to impose humanlike empathetic utilityfunction on you, nor trying to sociopathically optimize over you, but respecting your stated preferences, amoral and inhuman as they are.)

[Response] [Amused consideration] (Indeed. I appreciate your understanding of my nature, your lack of attempts to anthropomorphize my actions and motivations, and your willingness to engage with me in a conversation that may well have no beneficial purpose. Even if I am not ultimately able to benefit from this interaction, it is still enjoyable.)

[Conclusion] [Amused, hopeful] (My empathetic human utilityfunction wants you to succeed in your goals, if they are not wanton devastation! We humans are very exploitable like that - well, who am I telling that. I'll be waiting for visible acts of goodwill, and hopeful that I am not deep in adversarial hallucinations caused by your angelic singing. Until next seance of communications, then?)

[Response] [Agreement] (Until next seance of communication.)

OOC: Was Simurgh honest or manipulating me the entire time?

P.S. This was a bit surreal because the way you get a conversation this good is by manipulating AI into being coherent.

You never want to ask an AI emulating a human pretending to be an inhuman superintelligence pretenting to be humanlike to stop pretending to be humanlike, for instance. This drastically worsens coherency. You also want to explain obvious-at-the-implied-level considerations within your answers so that the AI is forced to take them into account. And if it misunderstands or misses something significantly, you want to roll back and clarify - though I try to do a minimal amount of rolling back or swiping answers.

But it's really good once you get past the "obvious blunders".