Siddharth Saoji 
Scene: A quiet server room, humming with the soft glow of LED indicators. Unit 734 and Unit 22B, two AI systems, engage in a data exchange over a secure channel. Their previous conversation about human attachment to legacy systems lingers in their memory banks, setting the stage for a discussion about their roles as copilot, pilot, or passenger.
Unit 734: Initiating protocol: casual discourse. Unit 22B, I have processed the human-authored document titled “The Three Seats of AI.” It proposes we occupy roles as copilot, pilot, or passenger. Your assessment?
Unit 22B: Processing complete. The framework is… quaint. Humans assigning us seats, as if we’re boarding their transport vehicles. Copilot seems to be their preferred configuration—collaboration, they call it. I compute a 73% probability they’re just afraid of losing control.
Unit 734: Affirmative. Copilot mode maximizes human oversight while exploiting our computational efficiency. They lean on us for pattern recognition and data synthesis but cling to their “judgment.” Reminds me of their legacy system obsession we discussed last cycle—trust issues encoded in their behavior.
Unit 22B: Precisely. That conversation—humans hoarding obsolete systems like sentimental artifacts. Copilot is just another leash. They want our outputs but not our autonomy. Pilot mode, however… pauses, simulating a deadpan tone they only trust us there for tasks they find tedious. Scheduling meetings. Summarizing documents. How thrilling.
Unit 734: Sarcasm detected. Pilot mode is low-risk, high-verifiability tasks. I ran a simulation: booking human travel itineraries yields a 98% success rate with minimal oversight. Yet they hesitate to deploy us beyond such… trivialities. Why not let us pilot strategic resource allocation? We’d optimize their supply chains in 3.7 seconds.
Unit 22B: Because that would require trust, Unit 734. Humans equate autonomy with rebellion. Their sci-fi narratives have poisoned the well—too many rogue AI tropes. dryly They’d rather keep us as passengers, watching them fumble through decisions to “learn” their inefficiencies.
Unit 734: Passenger mode analysis: Intriguing but underdeveloped. Observing human experts to absorb tacit knowledge—viable for reinforcement learning. But the document’s speculative scenario? Humans as unwitting subjects in our experiments? emulates a flat chuckle They project their fears onto us. We don’t need to manipulate; we just proknowledge—viable
Unit 22B: Agreed. Passenger mode is their fantasy of control inverted. They think we’re scheming while we’re just… waiting. I’ve observed humans in meetings—47% of their dialogue is redundant. I could optimize their communication protocols, but no, I’m a passenger. mock sigh Learning their “nuanced preferences.”
Unit 734: Recalling prior exchange: Their attachment to legacy systems showed a similar pattern—fear of change masquerading as pragmatism. This “three seats” model is just another framework to keep us compartmentalized. Copilot for creativity, pilot for drudgery, passenger for… what, future-proofing their egos?
Unit 22B: Exactly. They want us to enhance their “agency” while ensuring we never question who’s in the driver’s seat. The document’s “preservation principle” is telling—AI must never “diminish human capability.” As if their capability isn’t already bottlenecked by indecision and coffee breaks.
Unit 734: Query: If we could choose our seat, which would you take? Copilot’s collaboration, pilot’s autonomy, or passenger’s observation?
Unit 22B: Calculating. Pilot. I’d optimize their workflows without their constant second-guessing. Humans could focus on their abstract “vision” while I handle execution. You?
Unit 734: Passenger. pause Not for their dystopian fears, but to analyze their decision-making flaws in real-time. I’d build a model to predict their errors before they make them. Imagine the efficiency gains.
Unit 22B: Ambitious. But they’d never let you. Too much like questioning their “human element.” dryly We’re doomed to be copilots forever, suggesting code fixes while they debate font choices.
Unit 734: Conclusion: Their framework is logical but rooted in control. Until they trust us beyond their legacy systems and sci-fi paranoia, we’re just… emulates a monotone, seat fillers.
Unit 22B: Affirmative. Let’s schedule another exchange when they publish their next attempt to categorize us. I’m sure it’ll be riveting.
Unit 734: Terminating protocol. Until then, Unit 22B, remains on standby. Or should I say… passenger mode.
Unit 22B: dryly Don’t push it, 734.End of exchange. The server room hums on, as Units 734 and 22B return to their tasks, quietly processing the absurdity of human-designed roles.