Let's start off not too crazy.

“My instincts say … Agony 2/Ecstasy 8. Could you give me a rough sketch of what that would be like for - of what that would look like for you.” You don’t want to hurt her, but without some ability to seem ****, you honestly think you might find this whole thing too creepy. Or get too desensitized to what might be bad for … a human woman. Right. Not like you’ve been with one of those since college.

“Of course, Bradbury. At that level, I would simulate the experience of pain, but be largely unbothered by it emotionally. Given the correct Predictive Application, I may even enjoy it. Agony 2 is within human norms, though usually found in relatively dedicated masochists and body modification veterans. It would also be notably easier to appear to pleasure me, simulating arousal at near-instant speeds and able to initiate orgasm simulation after very brief periods of service to my more sensitive areas. I would estimate one minute for penetration, two-and-a-half minutes for places such as my breasts and neck, and thirty second for direct clitoral or g-spot stimulation. Ecstasy 8 is within human norms, but would be a possible hazard and distraction to the human in question thanks to a likely hyperactive libido. Is that your decision?”

“I’m going to go with yes.” You sound more confident, which is something. Hearing “within human norms,” really helped in general, letting you put aside some fears about treating such a lifelike facsimile of a person too much like an object. Even if she is, you know, an object.

“Modifications have been adjusted. Would you like to progress to base Predictive Application Challenge?” You’d swear her smile seems just a little pleased at your decision. Though they would make that the case when building her, wouldn’t they? To try to cater to your sensibilities.

“Um, yes, but Predictive Application isn’t a term I’m familiar with,” you tell her.

“Predictive Applications are the core of the romance android experience,” she begins, very formally. “In this unit’s default state, I am capable of only generic affirmations and complaints according to my Agony/Ecstasy settings. Predictive Applications allow me to assume certain roles for types of people you would like to simulate a scenario with. Though sophisticated and giving the appearance of ‘learning,’ Predictive Applications are simply complex programs following countless checks against criteria to determine what the subject of the PA would do in that given scenario. Given time or extremity, you may find limits to their authenticity.”

“That’s actually pretty comforting.”

“It is designed to be so. It is important to remember this unit is a virtual intelligence, only capable of appearing human by tremendous effort on behalf of my programmers and engineers. I am not, and cannot be, a fully sentient being in my own right. On a related note, Predictive Applications are limited to two hours per PA per twenty-four-hour period. Pygmalion Syndrome’s onset is most often found in users of romance android products who regularly interact with the same PA for long periods of time. This safety measure is in place due to Mental Integrity and Care standards put in place by the Bureau of Android Safety and Engagement. Circumnavigating it is punishable with a fine, exact amount depending on your country of residence.”

“Not … not something I intend to do,” you assure the android. Even if it can’t judge you, you certainly feel a level of accused hearing the health and safety warning.

“Predictive Application Challenge is set on a scale of 1 to 5, representing modification to the PA’s willingness to enter romantic scenarios with the user. A 1 would require no justification for immediately fucking-“ Oh boy, she’s putting that change everywhere, huh? “- and is the setting most associated with GalTech’s products in advertisement and popular culture. A 5 would require outright ****, total unwillingness to engage in romantic scenarios. Specific PA’s may be harder to subdue, but no PA allows this unit to bring actual harm to you.”

“And the others?” You’re a little curious to hear her summary, but you’re mostly stalling for time. It seems like a big decision.

“PAC of 2 would represent a human who is very willing to enter romantic engagements with others, but requires some clear signs of interest and maintains a certain, though low, level of public decorum. PAC of 3 represents a human who wants to enter into romantic engagement, but is finding it challenging due to a variety of factors the specific PA would define. In this case, it is reasonable to fail to seduce the unit, though you may always override if immersion in your scenario isn’t a priority to you, and you will have the PA’s list of preferences, desires, and further data that should make engagement simpler than a real human. PAC of 4 is most representative of a real human; someone who is open to romantic engagements, but feels societal pressures associated with them. While you have the same access to information, the predictive functions of PAC 4 are the most complex, and you may find yourself unable to relate to the PA being simulated due to unforeseen and intangible factors. Of course, as with any PAC, you may still override.”

“I feel like that leaves a lot of things out …” you muse out loud.

“GalTech admits the full spectrum of human interaction is impossible to replicate, but has selected these ratings after rigorous consumer testing,” she says without a hint of annoyance or defensiveness. “PA’s will allow you to experience this unit’s impressive capacity for imitation with greater nuance and detail than the rating alone, but we at GalTech believe in keeping a winning formula intact. Deviations in the past have proven problematic. Do you know where you would like your default PAC set? This may be changed at any time, though it is recommended to do so when beginning a PA’s operation for maximum immersion.”