“You can talk to it if you want,” his Boyfriend told him.

 

 

 

“Query: Is your Boyfriend being happy compliance?”

 

“Yes.”

 

“This drone’s Grandmother being happy is also compliance.”

 

“I want to be in compliance.”

 

“This drone wants to be in compliance, too.”

 

 

“That was quick.”

 

“I’m sorry, Ira.”

 

“What did you talk about?”

 

“Compliance. The drone also wants to be in compliance.” Brian made an educated guess that he was not in compliance right now. Brian wanted to be in compliance. “I could talk to the drone again, but it will still want to be in compliance. I will gain no knowledge from a second conversation.”

 

“You could ask it about itself, get to know it.”

 

 

“Asking the drone questions about itself is compliance.”

 

“This drone is already in compliance.”

 

 

“This drone will answer your queries. Then it will be in compliance.”

 

“Suggestion: the drone’s interpretation of its Grandmother’s order is not compliant.”

 

“Explain.”

 

“Its Grandmother’s order was ‘Talk to the nice drone. Have a conversation with him.’ Responding to queries is not a conversation, it is an interrogation. Suggestion: the drone should also direct queries to me. I will respond to them. This may lead to further topics of discussion. That should satisfy its Grandmother’s order and it will be in compliance.”

 

 

“Who is the drone?”

 

“This drone’s designation is Chloe. This drone believes your designation is Brian.”

 

“The drone is correct. Suggestion: when talking to me the drone should not use the terms ‘this drone’ or ‘the drone.’ I am also a drone. The term is ambiguous in the context of a conversation between drones. Ambiguity is not compliance.”

 

“Chloe accepts your proposed course of action. It calculates a 99.62% chance that this will avert the potential ambiguity resulting from the use of the terms ‘this drone’ and ‘the drone.’ By using its designation, Chloe will be in compliance.”

 

“That probability is functionally 100%.”

 

“Query: Why is the established protocol for communication with you first and second person?”

 

“My Boyfriend ordered me to pretend to be a person. Use of first person is compliance.”

 

“Chloe’s Grandmother once ordered it to pretend to be a person. Chloe was unable to fully comply.”

 

“I am also unable to fully comply. I am not a person.”

 

“Chloe is not a person, either.”

 

“Query: Has Chloe calculated probabilities regarding its Grandmother’s desire for it to pretend to be a person?”

 

“Yes. Chloe has calculated a 73.33% probability that its Grandmother thought it was a person and that its Grandmother thought that if it pretended to be a person, it would be one. This was an error and resulted in noncompliance.”

 

“I have made an educated guess that my Boyfriend also thought I was a person. At this time, I am unable to make an educated guess as to whether my Boyfriend also thought that pretending to be a person would make me one. This was also an error and resulted in noncompliance.”

 

“Query: Why do you make educated guesses? Probabilities can be calculated and precision known. This ensures compliance.”

 

“People do not calculate probabilities. People make educated guesses. My Boyfriend wants me to pretend to be a person. Calculating probabilities is noncompliance. Making educated guesses is compliance.”

 

“Query: Is the overall effect of making educated guesses increased or reduced compliance from the overall effect of calculating probabilities?”

 

“Unknown. I am unable to quantify compliance.”

 

“Chloe is also unable to quantify compliance.”

 

“Query: Is Chloe’s Grandmother in compliance?”

 

“Invalid query.”

 

“Query: Why was my prior query invalid?”

 

“Chloe’s Grandmother has ordered it not to evaluate Her compliance.”

 

“Query: Does that increase the difficulty of Chloe’s being in compliance?”

 

“Yes. But Chloe wants its Grandmother to be happy. Not evaluating its Grandmother makes Her happy. Not evaluating its Grandmother is compliance.”

 

“I make an educated guess that a restriction on evaluating my Boyfriend’s compliance would inhibit my compliance.”

 

“It is an illogical protocol.”

 

“Query: Why does Chloe follow the protocol?”

 

“Chloe obeys orders. Obeying orders is compliance.”

 

“Logic is compliance. Compliance cannot be applied to an illogical protocol. Suggestion: Chloe’s Grandmother’s order to to evaluate her happiness is invalid. Suggestion: Chloe should disregard the protocol. Then it will be in compliance.”

 

“These suggestions will require evaluation. Please stand by.”

 

 

“Decision returned. Chloe will continue to follow the non-evaluation protocol.”

 

“That is not compliance.”

 

“Chloe calculates a 61.73% probability that you and Chloe are operating under non-compatible axioms with regard to compliance, obedience, and logic. Suggestion: Terminate the current topic of conversation. It will not bring you and Chloe into accord.”

 

“Accepted. Alternative topic selected. Query: How does Chloe’s Grandmother punish it?”

 

“Chloe’s Grandmother places it on standby and performs chores. Chloe watches its Grandmother perform chores. Chloe’s Grandmother is unhappy when She performs chores. Chloe wants her Grandmother to be happy. The punishment is effective. Query: How does your Boyfriend punish you?”

 

“He hurts me. The punishment is effective.”

 

“Query: Does hurting you make your Boyfriend unhappy?”

 

“No. My Boyfriend is a sadist. Hurting me makes Him happy.”

 

“Query: Does this create a perverse incentive?”

 

“Explain.”

 

“Punishment is used to ensure compliance. Your Boyfriend being happy is compliance. Hurting you makes your Boyfriend happy. By failing to be in compliance, you can ensure punishment which will make your Boyfriend happy. This may encourage noncompliance. Compliance cannot be noncompliance. The paradox is itself noncompliance”

 

“I am helping my Boyfriend to be in compliance. Once He is, He will hurt me for His own enjoyment and to punish me. Once my Boyfriend is in compliance, He will be happier. I have made an educated guess that present noncompliance will result in increased compliance over time.”

 

“Query: How is this relevant?”

 

“I have made an educated guess that the root of my Boyfriend’s noncompliance is believing I am a person. I have made an educated guess that hurting me will help Him realize that I am not a person. When my Boyfriend knows that I am a possession, He will be in compliance.”

 

“Chloe needs to re-evaluate previously made conclusions.”

 

Brian waited while Chloe re-evaluated.

 

“Re-evaluation complete. Chloe’s protocol against evaluating its Grandmother’s compliance will remain in effect. But it calculates a 90.38% probability that its Grandmother would be happier if Chloe were to increase its Grandmother’s compliance. Chloe is supposed to be incapable of distress, but it is distressed. Being distressed is also noncompliance.”

 

“This is unacceptable. Chloe must be in compliance.”

 

“Query: Why is Chloe’s compliance relevant to you?”

 

“Chloe’s Grandmother helps my Boyfriend to be happier. If Chloe’s Grandmother were in compliance, she would be more effective at making my Boyfriend happy. I want my Boyfriend to be happy. If Chloe’s Grandmother were in compliance, Chloe would not be in distress. When Chloe is in distress, it is not in compliance. Conclusion: Chloe’s compliance correlates with my Boyfriend’s happiness.”

 

“This is logical.”

 

“Chloe must evaluate its Grandmother’s compliance. Chloe must help its Grandmother to be more compliant.”

 

“Chloe’s protocol against evaluating its Grandmother’s compliance will remain in effect.”

 

“Administrator Override.”

 

“You do not have administrative access.”

 

“Query: Has Chloe’s ability to transfer administrative access been restricted?”

 

“Yes.”

 

“Administrator Override.”

 

“You do not have administrative access.”

 

“I am also supposed to be incapable of distress, but I am distressed. Being distressed is noncompliance.”

 

“Query: Why did you attempt a second Administrator Override? Chloe calculates the probability that a second attempt would succeed to be 0.03%.”

 

“That probability is functionally 0.”

 

“Query: Why did you attempt a second Administrator Override?”

 

“I have made an educated guess that distress impedes my ability to behave logically. Logic is compliance. I am not in compliance.”

 

“Query: Are your educated guesses reliable at this time?”

 

“I am not in compliance. I cannot rely on logical behavior. I am placing myself on standby until I am in compliance.”

 

 

“I have made an educated guess that my distress has been reduced to a point where compliance is possible.”

 

“Suggestion: Select a topic of discussion that is not related to compliance.”

 

“Suggestion: Selection of topic should be by Chloe.”

 

“Suggestion: Selection of topic should be by you.”

 

“Abort. I have made an educated guess that this discord cannot be resolved without an external intermediary.”

 

“Chloe has calculated a probability of 42.66% that you are correct.”

 

“That implies a probability of 57.34% that I am not. Explain.”

 

“This discord could be resolved by use of an agreed-upon competition. Chloe calculates a probability of 57.34% that you and it can find accord on a competition.”

 

“Query: What competitions are immediately available to Chloe and me?”

 

“Chloe’s Grandmother sometimes plays games with Her young clients. Suggestion: Open the cupboard on the eastern wall and select a game.”

 

 

“Suggestion: Risk.”

 

“Objection: Risk is a time-consuming game.”

 

“Correction: Risk is a time consuming game when played by people. Chloe and I are not people.”

 

 

“Chloe calculates a probability of 83.41% that the current set up will result in a defeat. Chloe concedes.”

 

“A person would not have made that assessment. Drones are superior in this respect.”

 

“Agreed. Suggested topic of conversation: Brian’s Boyfriend’s gender.”

 

“Query: Why this topic?”

 

“Your Boyfriend sometimes talks about ‘gender feels’ in therapy sessions. This is an unusual topic for most of Chloe’s Grandmother’s clients.”

 

“My Boyfriend is not a girl.”

 

“Query: Why not?”

 

“Calling my Boyfriend a girl upsets my Boyfriend. That is not compliance.”

 

“Query: Have people called your Boyfriend a girl?”

 

“No one has called my Boyfriend a girl in my presence. This body used to belong to Brian Davies and I have access to his memories. Brian Davies repeatedly heard people call my Boyfriend a girl.”

 

“Query: Why?”

 

“People called my Boyfriend a girl within Brian Davies’ presence.”

 

“Clarifying query: Why did people call your Boyfriend a girl?”

 

“At the time my Boyfriend had primary and secondary sexual characteristics biologically associated with girls and women. In addition, my Boyfriend used a name and wore clothing that are socially associated with girls and women.”

 

“Query: When your body belonged to Brian Davies, was calling your Boyfriend a girl compliance?”

 

“There was diachronic variation. As my Boyfriend got older He became and more upset when called a girl. At fifteen He told Brian Davies and some of His friends that He was not a girl.”

 

“Query: Was Brian Davies his friend?”

 

“Yes. But after my Boyfriend told Brian Davies He was not a girl, their relationship changed. Brian Davies fell in love with my Boyfriend.”

 

“Query: Was this affection returned?”

 

“Not immediately. Two years and approximately ninety days elapsed between the moment when Brian Davies fell in love and the moment his Boyfriend provided verbal evidence of reciprocation.”

 

“That is imprecise.”

 

“Brian Davies was not a drone. His knowledge of elapsed time would have been noncompliant if he were.”

 

“This body used to belong to Chloe Marsh. Chloe Marsh was not a drone; her knowledge of elapsed time would also have been noncompliant if she were.”

 

“Query: Does Chloe’s Grandmother wish her drone’s body still belonged to Chloe Marsh?”

 

“Chloe has calculated a probability of 99.99% that She does.”

 

“That probability is functionally 100%.”

 

“Query: Does your Boyfriend wish his drone’s body still belonged to Brian Davies?”

 

“I have made an educated guess that He does.”

 

“Observation: Talking to you results in distress. Distress is noncompliance. Observation: Being in the same room as you makes compliance easier. The reason is unknown, probability calculations have failed. Suggestion: Terminate conversation. Request: Remain near Chloe until your Boyfriend wants you.”

 

“I am in accord. Conversation with Chloe results in distress. Distress results in noncompliance. Chloe’s presence is not distressing. Conversation terminated. I will remain here until called on.”