She seems to be saying that vehicle's "desires" are as illusory as the soul. Its impossible to talk about what "the vehicle" wants.

I'm not sure about that. Sue says:

And then there is us, the vehicle, the robot, that has its own agenda to survive and be happy and fulfilled.

...which seems like a list of what vehicles want. Vehicles "want" one thing, genes want something else, and memes want something else again. One of the main issues is: which wants are desirable - from the perspective of individuals, and from the perspective of society.

Stanovich's position seems to be that the individual wants what the vehicle wants - since the individual is the vehicle.

Sue goes on to say:

His conclusion seems to be that, without the false notion of self, there are only replicators and vehicles in the game. The robot’s rebellion means the latter using its powers of reason to rebel against the former. But why?

By contrast, Sue then claims there are many optimisation targets one might side with - the good of the ecosystem, for example.