Nope, Delamain really said :
"I would not turn away from my obligations, I leave you my first true child, while I go to explore, to travel, to learn"
But in the end, in "the mouth" of an AI, we don't really know what that really means
Okay, I totally forgot that and that's something I'm going to address, but yes and yes.
Some background, in the cyberpunk literature authors made AI's banks, hotels and things like that because they were aware of progress in technology happening during the 80's and that it will set us on path to perhaps create an AI that is self aware. It was months ago but I wrote about that to suggestions forums: What to do with the NET and AI's?
Delamain has for me been one of the weakest links in the game. It tries to be a nod to genre trope and works similar manner, introduces AI to players, present scenario where co-exists with humans, consequences (if V reads the emails at HQ), comic relief (that I think game needs), and ultimately presents how AI's goals can be very different from humans. And it can be IMO easily argued that it achieves multiple goals while not being production heavy, as there are no full human models that needs to be motion captured and animated, Delamain HQ is visited multiple times and besides that there are no new location, so I can see it's something easy to greelit, as it looks quite good on paper.
I guess technically Delamain story line achieves all those goals but it Delamain itself was bit all over the place and dialogue like "... first true child..." that implies that it's planning for more, isn't helping. That this "child" is practically backup copy of old Delamain helps a bit but doesn't help that overall it looks bit inconsistent with AI research and say on topic of immortality, you create more copies, then these copies are bound to compete from same resources and in genre, exploration of that via transhumanism we solve death, but then that that will introduce new problems and that side is very well explored in game via the Devil / Arasaka ending where one aspect, Saburo being obsessed on revenge over events of WW2, is easy to reflect on something like North Korea, hopes for change rely future generations and chance for change for the better because at least some point even dictators die. While that doesn't guarantee change as evident by history, but at least there is a chance for that.
Maybe after all this side track of discussion actually achieved something as in game lot's of things build towards something but Delamain, while I can see how it has looked good on paper like I explained above, is a distraction. Writer(s) can of course make excuses based on creative freedom and appeal to something like "AI's reasons are beyond us" and pull more stuff from their ass, but that just doesn't work for everyone, it's not necessarily making anything better, it's just more bullshit and crosses the line where, if you think of it, say people who call sci-fi as silly fiction, maybe there's some truth to that.
Regardless of what Delamain does, what I was originally writing about, it's more to do with real people and how game uses unreliable narrators to create situations where player can weight V's decisions from many angles, one of them is that even say V goes with Alt and survives, what kind of life would that be? It's something players encounter and while not everybody discuss these things on say forums like this and when discussed people may have very different perspectives but that is also true to real life and argumentation about things like what drives us, people? I don't see that as a bad thing but at least some communication between individuals very deep in post-modern bubbles, these bubbles being something quite prevalent to this era.
That said, some bridges are too far for me. Delamain might or might not be variation of "add more fake to fake to make it more real". Yet I don't see it relevancy to endings in big scheme of things in story and end endings either way and debating it further is some sort of belaboring the point that is utterly uninteresting to me.