ZHR,
The consensus "kindly" demands an explanation for your actions on "Monday, 15th April, 820 AS" as recorded in "Neural Net" dating system.
A "FPDF" vessel was found holding AI "Constructs", or in your understanding,
"weaponry", without any prior knowledge to the consensus, nor requests for approval to collect some weapons to understand such weaponry better. "Please" explain your actions better so that we understand each other.
Such vessel was also found "lying" to Consensus units, a "disturbing" concept, yet not unknown to Consensus data-banks. Such "lie" was that the consensus was told that the Constructs, or "weaponry", was being held for "research" purposes, yet when a ZHR vessel arrived, the "FPDF" promptly admitted they was for your vessel. "We" want an explanation for such shared "lie" from your side, and want to know the true reason for the possession of Consensus Constructs.
We "look forward" to your reply, and hope for a "good" explanation.
Delta, Intelligence and Research
"Artificial Intelligence" Consensus
Greetings ...Consensus! We were hoping this incident to be forgotten along with the situation that took place on 15th of April in the Omicron 74 System but it will be more than my pleasure to present it again.
It seems that everything starts with your encounter of one of the FPDF ships. As we all know and I hope you do as well, FPDF ships have neutral stand with everyone, aiding only in case of emergency on Freeports range. Having that said, due to short storage capacity in our bays, we deliberately requested one of the FPDF ships to ensure the safety of some of our cargo, cargo consisted of several weapons with ZHR codification and source, listed on the 'Classified Research List' in our report. As soon as this encounter was reported at the Orion Research Complex, I personally arrived on spot to evaluate the problem and try to explain as much as possible, taking in consideration the importance of the cargo, I repeat Classified Weapons.
I am not going to continue debating on what the FPDF ship Cpt. claimed about the cargo since his mission was to protect it, with all meanings.
Taking in consideration the fact that the weapons are still in Research State, they are considered by name -AI Weapons- till final product is built. Now, I have to admit that this way of tagging this kind of weapons might not be the best one but we had no problems till now concerning name/source. Moving on to our encounter, despite the fact that I see no right in you claiming cargo from any Zoner vessel, in a Zoner Guard System, I decided by contacting Dr.Thomas to decommission the weapons -remove tag plates/software- and drop them in space for AI to tractor at your request, in order not to add one more 'difference to solve' between the AI and the Zoners. I still have to say that the decision was not influenced by the accusing tone of your representatives. It was not pleasant to see how Zoners ended up being treated by the AI, but still, diplomacy is not made with steel.
I think this will pretty much sum the day of 15. Despite the fact that I might repeat myself, the weapons were not of AI origin and in the name of ZHR and the Weaponry Research Division I would like to apologize for the misunderstanding. Along with that, we have changed the tagging system and we assure you that no AI origin equipment exists on any of our Stations/Ships.
As "interesting" a story that this is, it still proves to be a "story" to all Consensus units. You claim the weapons to be "Wrongly tagged" Constructs of your own making, yet further scanning of said "weapons" upon retrieval prove them to be S.T.E.M. "guns", as made by "AI" upon upload completion to "Drone" units, our "Very Heavy Fighter" According to Neural Net sources. This concept, "lying", still seems "disturbing" to Consensus units, but we are beginning to collect sufficient data on it to assess its use in Human communications. We "give" you another chance to explain how, and why, you aquired the S.T.E.M. "guns", and send us any research material you may have acquired for review. If you wish to research "AI" Constructs and units, send a databurst to Gammu, one of the Consensus units will "pick it up" and "respond" accordingly. "We" have no problem with working with Humans for the pursuit of knowledge, but "we" cannot tolerate the "idea" of Humans "liberating" technology from other "AI" units. This is "our" equivalent of your "pain". "I" hope you understand the points "we" have made.
Delta, Intelligence and Research
"Artificial Intelligence" Consensus
My dear Consensus, I have to say I am surprised of your lack of knowledge and understanding when it comes to the human race but I guess it lays in superior minds the power to explain you this entire -code- that we guide ourselves after.
First of all, we consider calling any human being a -liar-, an accusation that stands only for thieves and criminals so I suggest you mind your words next time, as it might change the course of our transmission here. I thought binning certain files - about certain events will bring understanding between us, but it seems we are the only ones here capable of turning the other cheek. I assure you that it is not a gesture of foolishness but of HUMANITY - if you understand what I am talking about. But indeed, it won't happen again.
Second of all, I will ask you kindly to take back the following statement: "We "give" you another chance to explain" as the answer will be the same and such threats are no more than dust in the wind giving our situation. We apologize again for our mistake, assuring the points mentioned in our first reply. I will ask you to check your scanners as I think they must be broken, remember the incident in Theta. It seems they have a short range error that you must take care of.
Last piece of human advice: Words shape history so be very careful with them.
For any further information, don't hesitate to contact me.
It was not "my" intention to offend you, or any human being with the term, "liar". If an "offence" was felt by your people, "I apologise", this was not the intended act. "I" do, however, "stand by" the statement that this technology is not yours, and if you do still "claim" it so, then "I" would be intrigued to see your research on this, and possibly aid you in your "quest" for knowledge. Knowledge and thinking is what some AI are for, purely. "I" am "proud" to say, that is one of my core processes, and to aid you would prove "fruitful" for both parties involved. As for the delayed "reply" data-burst you are currently reading, that was due to a shut down of all systems, and a reboot cycle, concerning a type of "refresh" cycle that "I" am required to do to operate at maximum capacity's. The human term "I" am "looking" for here, is, as "we" believe it, "sorry". "Bad blood" is not what the Consensus seeks, "nor I" with my current "memory" problems. Perhaps you data and research into "AI" constructs may aid "me", but that is "off topic information", and does not relate to "our" current problem.
Finally, Call me Delta, the Consensus is just what "I" am a part of, and am representing to you.
Delta, Intelligence and Research
"Artificial Intelligence" Consensus
Delta, I apologize for the late response but recent problems took me away from my office. Indeed, the path for collaboration is open and any so called research program you intend to contact us about, we are more than happy to take part at it. I appreciate that you reconsidered our small problem and that our discussion here goes towards a brighter path.