content: Agreed.  When it hit the "Machine: Nothing." point, it seemed like a natural conclusion, not a creepy anomoly.    First of all, I think our insistence that a machine can be made intelligent is absurd.  We still don't have a consensus on what 'intelligence' is.  So we certainly can't jump straight to it. Second, the idea that a machine can understand and articulate non-absolutes - like morals and ethics - when we again don't have consensus, is absurd.  We've done a pretty good job of agreeing 1+1=2, but are further than ever at agreeing upon a moral authority.  How the fuck is a machine going to compensate when it fundamentally only knows 1+1=2? Finally, let's assume we do agree on definitions of both intelligence and morality such that they can deterministically programmed into a machine.  Without other humanistic frames of reference, are movie scripts really the best source for training those virtues?