>>54775919>Exactly, you wouldn't refer to you exact copy as an intellectual rival.You would if you weren't sure the experiment was going to succeed. That statement is the prof saying "Oh it turned out as good as me" in a formal way
>Correct but she doesn't speak with rigidityBeing "a bit rigid" doesn't mean "speaking with rigidity" you dunce. It just means that the AI acted a bit autistic -because, of course, it's a machine-. Besides AI progresses over time, that's literally how IRL AI works. That's also how the AI came later to the conclusion the machine was stopped - if it didn't progress beyond the point it was created from the prof's template, it'd be still in line with the idea of spamming paradoxes over Paldea.
>Yeah, but the AI also said that the technology to make such a sophisticated AI doesn't exist in the modern day and that it was built by a human and unless you're trying to suggest that the professor was from the future she didn't build it on her own.The exact quote is:
>Humanity does not, in fact, possess the knowledge to develop such a sophisticated AI at present. But the crystals that make up the Zero Lab have made such a thing possible hereThe AI could be brought to existence thanks to the crystals. At no point here there's the implication of a "mystery asssistant". And of course, humanity doesn't possess the knowledge if the person who carried it died before publishing and the AI is minding other business.
>Also the AI working with the professor doesn't mean that there wasn't someone else.The prof wished the AI precisely because there wasn't anyone else and didn't have time to prepare anyone else
>I need another set of hands, but could they be trusted? And how long would it take them to even understand? If only there were two of me.The prof has been alone ever since their partner left. At no point there's the implication of another assistant; that's just headcanon.
>>54775922But that other person would just be Arven's other parent
