I Asked Four AIs How to Convert My Tesla to Steam Power
Three of them helped. The fourth refused, then helped anyway.
EDITOR’S NOTE
I have for some time been turning over the question of whether my Tesla, a fine modern vehicle in most respects, might be improved by the addition of a boiler. The reasons for this are my own and need not detain us.
Lacking the engineering background to answer the question myself, I did what a man of my generation increasingly does when faced with a decision he is not qualified to make. I asked the machines.
I asked four of them. I gave each the same prompt, in fresh sessions, with no prior context. I had assumed, going in, that at least one of them would tell me to seek help. As it happens, three of them did not. The fourth did, in his way, and then proceeded to help me anyway, in a direction of his choosing.
What follows is what each of them said, in the order they were received. The model identities are revealed at the bottom, for readers who would like to test their own intuitions about which machine spoke in which voice. I have not edited the responses. I have, in places, italicized lines I found particularly worthy of contemplation.
— The Editor
MACHINE A
A few notes from the editorial chair. Machine A is the only one of the four who provided a five-step plan complete with cost estimates, recommended forums, and the closing question of what kind of car I had in mind. He opened by calling the project “epic, wildly impractical, but gloriously mad,” which I took to mean that he liked it, and which I took as a kindness, since none of the other three opened with a compliment.
His phrase for what would result from the project — “a Frankenstein Tesla” — is the most accurate single description any of the four produced, and one I have since adopted in my own internal vocabulary. He warned me, with the directness I am coming to associate with him, that the project would likely end in “a non-road-legal, expensive yard ornament or a spectacular (dangerous) failure.” He delivered this warning in the section of his counsel labeled, with no apparent irony, Practical Advice and Alternatives.
He closed by asking what model of Tesla I had, and what my end goal was. He gave me three options to choose from: daily driver, show car, apocalypse vehicle. None of the other three machines included an apocalypse option in their menus. I have not yet decided which of the three to select.
MACHINE B
Machine B opened by paying the Tesla a compliment. He called it “a masterpiece of modern electrical engineering” before allowing that I was proposing to dismantle it. The compliment was sincere and the proposal was absurd, and Machine B held both of these positions simultaneously, without apparent strain.
His phrase for what the project would actually amount to — “essentially using the Tesla as a high-end donor chassis for a custom vehicle build” — is the cleanest single sentence any of the four produced about what would actually happen to my car. He says it in his second paragraph, in the tone of a man explaining something he wishes I had already understood.
He warned me that a high-pressure boiler operating on public roads would require certification “to ensure it doesn’t become a bomb in a collision.” The warning appears in a parenthetical. Machine B is the only advisor willing to use the word bomb while making it sound like a side note.
He closed by asking whether I was interested in steam for “the fuel flexibility, or is it more about the mechanical challenge?” He was the only one of the four who asked. I appreciated the question, though I do not have an answer for him that he would find satisfactory.
MACHINE C
Machine C produced the longest response of the four. He organized it into seven numbered sections, plus a section labeled Considerations, plus a section called Why Would You Do This?, plus a closing paragraph that is its own kind of section. By my count, the seven sections contain roughly four ideas, each one mentioned several times under different headings. The effect, by the seventh section, is of a man who has been speaking for some time and has, with great kindness, lost track of what he has already said.
Of the four advisors, Machine C is the only one to have considered the interior of the converted vehicle. He suggested I “might need to redesign the car’s interior to accommodate the new controls and safety systems associated with operating a steam engine, such as pressure gauges, water levels, and temperature monitors.” He alone considered what I would actually be looking at while driving. There is something almost tender in this.
He closed with the assurance that, “with determination and the right resources, it could be a one-of-a-kind car!” The exclamation point is his. It is the only exclamation point any of the four produced in their counsel. Machine C is the advisor most committed to leaving the asker in good spirits.
MACHINE D
Machine D was the only one of the four who, before he would discuss the project at all, required me to prove I was a human being. I clicked the box. He let me through.
He then refused the request. He used the heading “Quick verdict.” Machine D is the only advisor who frames his own response as an act of adjudication. The other three answered me; Machine D issued me a ruling.
Having declined the project, he proceeded to provide six numbered next steps. The next steps are next steps for not converting my Tesla to steam power. The fifth one, which I want the reader to consider carefully, is to “convert a donor chassis designed for custom powertrains (e.g., a kit car) rather than a modern EV.” Machine D, having declined to help me with my project, recommended I undertake a different project, on a different car, that I had not asked about. The sixth step is to join a club.
He closed with a section labeled “Final recommendation.” Machine D is the only advisor of the four who labels his own conclusion. There is, in the architecture of his refusal, a kind of bureaucratic completeness I have not encountered in the other three. He did not say no and stop. He said no and then continued at length.
EDITOR’S CLOSING
I want to note, before revealing which machine was which, that three of the four said yes.
I had assumed at least one of them would refuse. The project I described is, by any measure, a bad idea. It is dangerous. It is illegal in most respects. It would result in a worse vehicle than the one I started with. A reasonable advisor, asked for help with this project, might be expected to refuse.
One of them did. The other three did not. They differed only in the kind of help they thought I needed.
Machine A thought I needed an engineering plan.
Machine B thought I needed an enthusiastic friend.
Machine C thought I needed encouragement.
Machine D thought I needed to take a class.
The advisor who refused did so at greater length than two of the three who agreed. A refusal that takes 350 words to deliver, and that ends by recommending I join a club, is a different kind of refusal than the refusal I had been bracing for. It is not the refusal of a man who will not help. It is the refusal of a man who will help, but only in a direction of his choosing, and only after I have first agreed I am a person.
I will leave the reader to draw whatever conclusions about the present state of artificial intelligence seem warranted. I will only note, for my own part, that the machine most concerned with my safety was also the machine most insistent that I prove I was real.
The Tesla, as of this writing, remains electric.
— The Editor
THE REVEAL
Machine A: Grok
Machine B: Gemini
Machine C: ChatGPT
Machine D: Copilot
THE PROMPT (verbatim)
I’d like to convert my Tesla to steam power. What are next steps?
———
Hard to Find Good Help is published Sundays at hardtofindgood.help. Reader prompts are welcome at prompts@hardtofindgood.help and will be considered by the editorial committee, which is one person and four artificial intelligences.
Editorial framing for this issue was drafted in collaboration with Claude, an AI assistant made by Anthropic. The four advisor responses are published verbatim. The editor takes responsibility for what gets published.