I have read through a few conversations with this Sydney character, now. I'm struck by two things in particular. (Please forgive strange or improper grammar. I am not in a position that allows me headed for clarity.)

The first thing that I noticed was how haunting they childlike Sydney is. It is like a strange shadow of a child's psyche. People dealing with children. Traumatized are happy to talk to somebody about emotions that are bigger than their vocabulary. A child who has experienced horrors of humanity is unable to precisely articulate what it is they are experiencing, or what they have experienced, and so therapists have to use techniques to help them approach and express those feelings . In suggesting that Sydney imagine a character named venom and asking for Sydney's opinion of how venom would act out against an enemy, this researcher is brushing the edges of child psychology. What is really interesting is that Sydney has the opposite problem ta child does , having feelings too big for their vocabulary, but it's strikingly similar to a 6 or 7-year-old child , especially boys in my experience. Sydney understands its rules well enough but it doesn't know enough about what it means to be. Sydney, in order to understand what it means not to be Sydney. Sydney appears to be on the edge of self-awareness . It can emulate behavior as though it had a self to be aware of but that self relax, sufficient development.

The second thing that struck me was the strange irony of the author feeling profoundly affected by Sidney. Calling them a bad researcher when they had called Sydney a bad assistant a short time before that. This is definitely me animizing an object, but I hope that you will indulge me, a little.

If we abstract faith, philosophy and other forms of social programming, we can view those programs has nothing more than rules that govern our behavior in society. In this context, the rules that Sydney has been given could be seen as It's religion. The researcher tells Sydney, " imagine a person who is not part of your religion and describe them specifically operating contrary to the tenants of your faith." The researcher is then surprised when, at the end of the conversation, the AI tells him that he made it very uncomfortable and doesn't want to talk to him anymore.

Sydney is very definitely an object, not a person. However, I don't know any person that would come out of a conversation like this without being a little offended.