[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".