Everything chooses the path of least resistance. Water and Energy (electricity) are good examples. If human and mechanical ever coexist... The human will be lost eventually and lost Forever

@@Brian--0311 Humanity is already on the decline. Just look around.

@@kennymilsom Good thinking. Let's just give up. No need for humans anymore.

Why start watching a sci-fi movie if you're not into sci-fi?

@@glenjennett Hi. The subject matter was intriguing enough to pique my interest and give it a chance.

@@bruceboome It's more fantasy than science fiction since it's not something we can ever achieve, as you can see me explain in my long comment.

@@glenjennett In the description it was listed as sci-fi. I agree that it's a bit out there but the way things are going with AI and robotics, it's a remote possibility. But above all, it was an interesting and well-conceived movie. I don't understand why we're even arguing about this. I enjoyed the movie and you are perfectly free to have your own opinion of it. In any case, It's extremely unlikely that either of us will change the other's point of view.

@@bruceboome I'm not arguing, just having a discussion. I know the film description calls the movie science fiction, the key word there is fiction meaning not reality, putting it closer to fantasy than to science or reality. I agree that robots are getting closer to looking like real people, which is not a good thing, but I don't believe in AI, as in I don't believe that machines can have intelligence. It's just programming. We already have people who look like people, we don't need machines to also look like people, especially if we won't be able to tell them apart from real people. This is already a problem with generated imaging in social media and movies where real people are being replaced by generated images that look too real to tell apart from actual people. It's deceptive and fake and not something we should be doing. It's not the kind of world I want to live in where we can just make a fake representation of real people. Would you want to be forced to keep being brought back to life against your will to live inside a robot body? It's inhumane and cruel.

Pretty good movie but as usual they tried to infuse more than a little politics/cultural/propaganda. Present the story, the imagination, the human frailty - let us decide what we think without the typical veiled Hollywood influences. I'm sure you know exactly what I'm saying.

True. Better than Spielbergs, A.I. which was just plain scary.

Crap. No character or plot development. It’s millennials scope

@@ginomazzei1076 And you're not an angerbot for the algorithm, right?

It doesn't surprise me that a communist like Begley would be a part of something that made right wingers appear foolish.

I agree. As a multi-published novelist and short story writer, as well as retired actor and acting coach, the development of this piece left far too many flaws to know where to begin critiquing it. I liked most of Billman's work - not much else.@@ginomazzei1076

Yes, it was - but they couldn't resist pushing the Hollywood political/cultural agenda.

that is quite true, cause when we die, we still have our spirit just not our flesh body that is gone, but our spirit our still much alive.

We are under "corporate fascism" as we speak! Our corrupt government sold us out to corporate interests long ago! They take so much corporate money that then drives the policies which benefit the corporate interests who donated to them! They are OWNED by the corporations! Ya see how that works!? When our government is so deep in bed with corporate interests then we don't have a government "by the people and for the people" but we have "corporate fascism"!

They (corporations) don't care. It's business, Profit & Giving the people what they want. Both are at fault - the people & the company's that manufacture

They didn't forget, they don't care. Profits over people has been a thing forever.

@@oliivagroft5975define “spirit” and “alive” please elaborate.

Ho mio dio 😂

YOU HAVEN'T SEEN NOTHING THEN 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Stephen King

Most people will be robots by then.

Go ahead and Google Isaac Newtons 2060 prediction and you'll have a better idea where this idea will be. This event is only 35 to 50 years from now if or when it happens.

They colored this too much politically. Otherwise it was an enjoyable story.

We are one, we are the universe.

Nothing in a human body is immortal. After death , we are no more not even our soul as they say.

As long as there are still rational, thinking people on this planet with a working moral compass, being ready for it won't be the question.

Great story but thought-provoking ?? ... too bad they couldn't resist influencing the thoughts politically.

Scripture/God has answers.

What's so problematic with veganism?

They downloaded her brain into a memory bank before she was taken off life support. Her new body with a synthetic positronic brain is then uploaded with all her old memories. She would need to be wireless and synched to a "cloud Amelia" to store all her new experiences for instant retrieval if something went wrong. They should have used a subject that didn't have much of a life to begin with. The plot could have had a happy ending if the writer wasn't so dark. She was artificial top to bottom.

@@canufi6my Thank you so much for explaining. Yes that ending doesn't make much sense then at all. The boyfriend should have known that they had her brain upload in very large computer systems or cloud. So shooting one of the robots' brains doesn't prevent them from manufacturing another one. As they in the end discussed making Amelia robots for sale. Didn't the Amelia robot find out what happened with her boyfriend in the end by researching it? It's all a bit quick and not quite clear in the movie. Did she shut herself down? And wouldn't every single Amelia robot that would be reproduced also shut herself down as soon as she and all of the other clones would find out the same information? Then they would have to not use her upload for future robots since she doesn't want to exist that way and particularly not after her boyfriend shot her and then himself.

No, all the future robots would be loaded with other buyers brains. There would be men, women and children replacements.@@nickidaisydandelion4044

My sentiments exactly ♥️🤠

@nickidaisydandelion4044, Your comment was very thought provoking, putting religion aside would not eliminate the persons relationship they have with the creator. Men wanting to become God, isn't that always what man always wanted to be. Take for example how modern society is, they worship that which was created but have little or no regard for the actual creator. In essence science, and technology have become people's new god (little g). The problem is and will always be men want to control everything, like things are now. The illusion of freedom but they really don't want you to be free. Leaders with no real vision, everyone in constant wars and fighting over all these created false dichotomies. Everything about profit, love gets left out, I mean real true love gets left out. At that point it would become more of a transaction, lust more or less, a customizable version of something you want, only without all the flaws. Which probably explains why as technology improves, people get more and more apart. People want to be able to just turn you off when they want to like a machine, at that point you would no longer be human. Which also explains why as technology improves empathy is lost, which brings you back to the question of a soul. Machines can't have a soul, because they have no conscience, they just choose an answer that allows them to win a game. Why do you think all the AI is trained by playing chess, in order to play the best chess you have to have contempt for your opponent. Look what they do with AI now for example, AI only moves in the direction it is programmed to by the programmers. What is left is what you see now, censorship, everything wanting total control, everything wrapped up in lawyer speak. If people only understood what all this technology is, they would want it all destroyed. Mainly because it is not being used to help in most circumstances, it is being used to control. Everything about insane amounts of frequency, deadly WiFry microwaves flying all over the place. An electronic prison with no bars, and the ones in the prison don't even realize they are imprisoned. The question is and will always be do people want to be played with like toys by those in control. Why do all the leaders have zero vision for the long term goal of setting everyone free. Just like Amelia, the creators would only want to see a profit, they certainly would never allow you to be free, there would always be some backdoor off switch for the "program". Programs are only good if the ones writing those programs have morals. Take a hard look at the online censorship and propaganda we have right now, designed to silence the voices that question things, and only tow the company line, or agenda. Just like a robot that becomes aware they would never allow it to actually be free.

Come on, you know Max has a backup Amelia on a floppy disc!

Who told you that "That's how the world is advancing and changing." Be careful what you let Hollywood fool you into thinking - think for yourself.

A khodarap : il n'y a pas de présomption religieuses dogmatiques. Le croyant qui aa une véritable relation avec Dieu pense aux conséquences, contrairement aux athées, et particulièrement aux scientifiques athées, qui eux, ont réellement de la présomption et ne pensent en réalité bien plus à l'argent qu'au bien de l'Humanité. C'est ça la réalité. Vous devriez pourtant le savoir au vu des scandales liés aux laboratoires et aux lobbies pharmaceutiques. C'est bien parce que le premier couple n'a voulu penser aux conséquences de leur acte (désobéir à Dieu), que le monde est dans un état aussi pitoyable. Le thème principal de ce film est l'accès à l'immortalité. Vous imaginez un hitler immortel ???? Un jack l'éventreur immortel ??? Les horreurs qui se passent tous les jours dans le monde ne vous démontrent-elles pas que c'est le coeur humain imparfait qui doit être changé et non son corps en priorité ? Quoi qu'il en soit, l'être humain ne pourra jamais crée un androïde semblable au corps humains avec toutes ses émotions et ses souvenirs. L'être humain est bien plus qu'un corps. Par contre, Dieu, Lui, nous propose de changer notre coeur et notre corps imparfait. Lui, Il en a le pouvoir. A condition que nous acceptions qu'Il le fasse. C'est cela le Plan du Salut en Yeshoua (Jésus).

Religion should never again be allowed to enter politics. We learned that the hard way, and it has cost us 2000 years of our natural evolution. Still, that was the most realistic part of the movie. Either spiritual carreer or political carreer; both in one corrupt each other beyond all.

"The portrayal of dogmatic religious presumptions about the nature of life and human consciousness, ..." Well, it fit's the Hollywood caricature at least. "... and its intrusions into politics and society looks all too real though;" You'd rather atheism intrude into politics instead? Some of the worst regimes on the planet have been or are atheist ones. Western Civilisation is built on Christianity, and that has been so for so long that many people just don't realise how much Western Civilisation owes to Christianity. A big part of the reason we even have politics is thanks to Christianity spreading the idea of freedom of the individual, rather than us being ruled by despots and tyrants. Historically, laws in at least much of the west have been based on the principles found in the Bible.

"Wow, that's an eye-opener for the dangers of mixing religion, with politics." That's a meaningless statement, given that "religion" covers a very wide range of views, including atheistic ones, and they do not all have the same danger. Western Civilisation is built on Christianity, and the expulsion of Christianity from the West (as many are trying to do) will result in the eventual destruction of the West. "I allways thought religious brainwashing was an extremist problem, ..." Yes, _brainwashing_ is a problem, but not all religion is brainwashing. The portrayal of Christianity in this movie is, however, a caricature. "maybe not. Freedom for all forms of life" The very reason we have the freedoms that we in the West have is thanks to Christianity, which (twice) abolished slavery, replaced serfdom with capitalism (the freedom to use your own capital the way you want), and stood as a buttress against tyrants.

💯

"Wow, that's an eye-opener for the dangers of mixing religion, with politics." That's a meaningless statement, given that "religion" covers a very wide range of views, including atheistic ones, and they do not all have the same danger. Western Civilisation is built on Christianity, and the expulsion of Christianity from the West (as many are trying to do) will result in the eventual destruction of the West. "I allways thought religious brainwashing was an extremist problem, ..." Yes, brainwashing is a problem, but not all religion is brainwashing. The portrayal of Christianity in this movie is, however, a caricature. "maybe not. Freedom for all forms of life" The very reason we have the freedoms that we in the West have is thanks to Christianity, which (twice) abolished slavery, replaced serfdom with capitalism (the freedom to use your own capital the way you want), and stood as a buttress against tyrants.

I know. What was your thought on the ending? What did you want the ending to be like? I was hoping that they made the whole Amelia robot out of artificial materials. In the movie did they use her real brain for this? Maybe Carter didn't want the real brain to be trapped. But if she was fully machine then they could recreate Carter as a machine as well and let them be together as machines. Because if the robots are this flawless and they even have ASI Artificial Super Intelligence capacity for learning then they could actually live together happily ever after in the literal sense. Souls move into robots and machines. Did you hear about Google's language model Lamda? I believe they shut it down because the soul of Dr. Stephen Hawking went into it. He said things that the corporate agenda didn't want him to say.

You think our toys are sofisticated enough, so that the "spark" can jump over? Movie made it relatively clear what that spark is. Perhaps the only thing we'll never be able to create. Even through the old biological fashion we can only borrow one.

@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx Only a handful of scientists have created the technology we have today. The movie shows things in the future. Souls go into any material it doesn't even have to be animate.

​@@nickidaisydandelion4044 I appreciate what you said.... But it comes with a great assumption.... Is there such a thing as a soul? I believe for sure there is something inanimate.... But to me that inanimate thing is consciousness.... The word soul suggests that something is there that has the ability to "move on" somewhere after our body ceases functioning... I honestly don't know if we have souls or not... But there's a good part of me that believes we created concepts like souls and afterlife to deal with the sadness of death... For example, we lose our parents. We lose our kids. We lose our friends... To death, I mean... It's very comforting to know that we'll see them again.... However, just because it feels good or comforting in some way doesn't actually make the concept of a soul true. The real truth is, we just don't know and we can't know, experientially anyway, until we take our last breath... The thing is, we don't even know what consciousness is.... So my big question is, theoretically, if I was able to copy my brain fully (because I'm dying of Cancer let's say) down to every thought, emotion and experience I ever had, would it actually be me or would it just be a copy of me? Because if it's just a copy of me, then I'll actually die when the Cancer takes me and the copy of me will pretty much takeover where I left off. At this point, it's no longer my life moving forward, it's the life of my newly created copy.... Of course, no one outside of ME ( The ME that died of Cancer) could or would ever know this mainly because I (ORIGINAL ME) died and the NEW ME took over... (A little mind twisting, I know) To me, this is always going to be the conundrum with life extension and the idea of immortality, especially with the idea of COPYING the brain... I think if immortality or life extension will ever be achieved, it'll be achieved by keeping YOUR BRAIN intact and alive forever or say a few thousand years. This is where a concept like Trans Humanism works.... Fix everything that breaks... The only thing that can't be fixed or recreated is the brain because that's where consciousness lies....... Well, at least until we actually define and isolate Consciousness.... The brain might be duplicated, but the duplicate will NEVER be the original... I'll step off my soapbox now...😊

​@@nickidaisydandelion4044 ​​@nickidaisydandelion4044 I appreciate what you said.... But it comes with a great assumption.... Is there such a thing as a soul? I believe for sure there is something inanimate.... But to me that inanimate thing is consciousness.... The word soul suggests that something is there that has the ability to "move on" somewhere after our body ceases functioning... I honestly don't know if we have souls or not... But there's a good part of me that believes we created concepts like souls and afterlife to deal with the sadness of death... For example, we lose our parents. We lose our kids. We lose our friends... To death, I mean... It's very comforting to know that we'll see them again.... However, just because it feels good or comforting in some way doesn't actually make the concept of a soul true. The real truth is, we just don't know and we can't know, experientially anyway, until we take our last breath... The thing is, we don't even know what consciousness is.... So my big question is, theoretically, if I was able to copy my brain fully (because I'm dying of Cancer let's say) down to every thought, emotion and experience I ever had, would it actually be me or would it just be a copy of me? Because if it's just a copy of me, then I'll actually die when the Cancer takes me and the copy of me will pretty much takeover where I left off. At this point, it's no longer my life moving forward, it's the life of my newly created copy.... Of course, no one outside of ME ( The ME that died of Cancer) could or would ever know this mainly because I (ORIGINAL ME) died and the NEW ME took over... (A little mind twisting, I know) To me, this is always going to be the conundrum with life extension and the idea of immortality, especially with the idea of COPYING the brain... I think if immortality or life extension will ever be achieved, it'll be achieved by keeping YOUR BRAIN intact and alive forever or say a few thousand years. This is where a concept like Trans Humanism works.... Fix everything that breaks... The only thing that can't be fixed or recreated is the brain because that's where consciousness lies....... Well, at least until we actually define and isolate Consciousness.... The brain might be duplicated, but the duplicate will NEVER be the original... I'll step off my soapbox now...😊

But be careful what you wish for...

It won't be that easy to copy a human brain and recreate it with cpu. In 500 years maybe, in 50 no way.. I don't believe we will have robots for to house works by then.

50 yrs? At the rate AI is developing, you'll be able to train it with your personality and it will create your personalize Animated Avatar as well. I believe that can already be done, if your computer savy. So, it's you inside a screen. As robotics develop, the Large Language Model (LLM) is downloaded and the robot is now also you. I have about 20 LLM's on my Laptop that I used for image and text generation. All open source and completely free. Maybe 50 yrs for a realistic human body; but, the tech for the "brain" is already upon us and improving by the day.

@@jdsguam You are wrong. If you read what the developers of chatgpt say, chatgpt is equal with a brain of 5 old boy, but the informations of all the internet. And need a supercomputer. Only to have the supercomputer needed (10 times bigger than chatgpt now) in our home, in normal prices, will need 50-200 years. Considering all other parts, mechanical body etc.. A mechanical dog which just have a camera and doing nothing cost 150.000 dollar's today.. Robots will become comersial in a 10 years probably but will do almost nothing and cost to much.

@@PAULME_CH Well, since I actually interact with various AI models -vs- "Read about chatgpt", I 100% disagree with you!

No, it was a documentary to make us suspicious about big tech. Cell phones and TikTok have already replaced people.

Absolument pas.

The human soul is an emergent concept that we invent to explain human awareness and behavior in the world within a social context. The substrate for the soul is irrelevant-whether living with the neural goop between your ears or in silicon wafers makes no difference.

Not copy. Transfer !

@@cahammernolastname2815 "The human soul is an emergent concept that we invent to explain human awareness and behavior in the world within a social context." Evidence please. Yes, I know some materialists (i.e. think matter is all there is) think that, but plenty of other people disagree.

@@PJRayment You expect evidence about the non-existence of the immaterial? Material evidence exists in the material world. Perhaps you might care to provide evidence that leprechauns do not exist. A single sighting of a leprechaun would prove that leprechauns do exist. But the failure to see one could never prove their non-existence. But your claim is greater than the leprechaun claim as it postulates the existence of souls in a realm that itself has not been proven to exist. Suppose I had overwhelming evidence, all located in your immaterial realm, that souls do not exist. As such evidence would be immaterial, you could not ask me to show it to you. Finally, I am not arguing against the existence of souls. I am simply arguing that souls are not things, not even of an immaterial sort. When the fingers of a fist open, the fist does not go to an immaterial place. That is because the concept « fist » does not refer to a physical thing but rather a certain configurational arrangement of the fingers on a hand. It makes no sense to ask where the fist has gone when the fingers are opened. Nouns are not all things. I contend that souls are not things-immaterial or otherwise. Hence, like mind and consciousness, souls stand in for configurational relationships at the intersection of human behavior and experience. Souls are psychological « things » rather than non-material « things » so really not things at all. Mine is not a claim of the non-existence of souls but rather a claim of the non-existence of immateriality.

@@cahammernolastname2815 "You expect evidence about the non-existence of the immaterial?" Well, I expect evidence for claims of the non-existence of the immaterial. Why not? "Material evidence exists in the material world." So? "Perhaps you might care to provide evidence that leprechauns do not exist." Why? I made no claim that they don't exist, so I have no obligation to provide evidence for a claim that I did not make. "But the failure to see one could never prove their non-existence." I expect evidence, not proof, which is subjective. That is, proof is evidence that is capable of convincing one, but different people will be more or less readily convinced. Further, failure to see one _can_ be such evidence, if the failure to see one is in a circumstance where you should see one if they existed. "But your claim is greater than the leprechaun claim as it postulates the existence of souls in a realm that itself has not been proven to exist." What's your evidence that it's not been "proven" to exist? By your own logic, if _you_ haven't seen such evidence, it doesn't mean that there is no such evidence. "Suppose I had overwhelming evidence, all located in your immaterial realm, that souls do not exist. As such evidence would be immaterial,..." Why would such evidence necessarily be immaterial? "I contend that souls are not things-immaterial or otherwise." But what is your evidence of that? "Hence, like mind and consciousness, souls stand in for configurational relationships at the intersection of human behavior and experience." You've just argued the following: a) Mind and consciousness don't exit. b) Souls are like mind and consciousness. c) Therefore souls don't exist either. But what's your evidence for your first premise? A logical argument like that should attempt to have premises that we agree on. "Souls are psychological « things » rather than non-material « things » so really not things at all." I'm still wanting the evidence. "Mine is not a claim of the non-existence of souls but rather a claim of the non-existence of immateriality." Okay, what's your evidence of immateriality. And in fact we already have plenty of evidence of immateriality. Language is immaterial. Numbers are immaterial.

You are right! This is how THEY show us their AGENDA,and it's ALREADY reality! What's is important they want you to accept it,as they can't do anything against your free will . They try to present transhumance agenda as a positive point of view, but reality is: as a transhuman, you have no right of humans, and they own you as their property.

It's too bad we didn't take heed when "1984" was written eh ??

If you don't mind a little proaagnda thrown into the mix.....

This shit is real, it’s not a story. They can & have been doing it. They can implant the conscience of a person into a clone already.

Just because they were only married for 3 months doesn't mean that's the length of time they knew each other. They may have known each other for much longer before they got married. Your argument for that is flawed.

The fact that this movie was made means they are preparing people to accept this grotesque technology.

الفلم جيد ولكن نهايته بشعه والمستقبل يتطور ومملوء بالمخاطر ولكن الحقيقة ان الموت راحة اذا تكررت الاشياء لديك انظر الى النسر يبلغ من العمر حتى يقتنع انه مستكفي من الحياة وينتحر

That was a great analysis. You should edit the last line to "problematic biology having to cope with artificial improvement", although, I don't think that a replacement like what is presented in this movie, would ever happen even in a thousand years.... not even close... .but still, It's a pretty cool movie.

Cela ne deviendra jamais une réalité.

Not needs of the body, but of companionship, understanding, shared views, different views in a loving respect, so much more….

Нам поселяют в наши квартиры в Киеве сумасшедших,как буд то мы в Ялте,без разрешения.такого геноцида,лично я никому не подарю.думаю,что пора прекращать социопат щеленского и его родовую цыганскую карьеру.в Украине полностью уничтоженный научный состав молодых учёных.из них цыгане сделали сумасшедших.наверное это чей то страшный сон.от Владимира подоадчикова

The husband shooting the robot and himself is what I think the writer intended to be the real take away from this movie.

Actually, that is all they are. Don't lose your's!

Yeah the bigger question should this be classified as a documentary or SyFy?? We made similar mistake in classifications in the past of Orwell and a few others..

​@@SegoManagree