Featured
Movies | Science Fiction
Romance and Revolution in the Age of AI
According to movies, 2025 is the year of AI uprisings, but how true can they be?
As long as science fiction was considered a genre, there has been an obsession with bringing inanimate things to life and anthropomorphizing technology. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, written over 200 years ago, tackled the theme of Artificial Intelligence before there was even a word for it.
Written amidst the Scientific Revolution and all the uncertainty it wrought, her story inspired many others who dared to imagine the dangers of human creation. We are currently at the cusp of another age where great change could come due to technology, brought upon by the rising use of Generative AI in certain sectors.
Like anything new, people are applauding the creation, as they did with the first iPhone or Technicolor movie. But like Frankenstein, just because something is a novel invention, does not mean it is good. Speaking of Frankenstein, this year is the 10th anniversary of a movie that many may not realize takes inspiration from Shelley’s classic.
That movie is the second Avengers, subtitled Age of Ultron, where an AI brought to life with good intentions ends up biting the hand that fed it. In that movie, the rogue AI attempts omnicide, the extinction of the entire human race. In 2025, the Artificial Intelligence that we have is the kind that spreads propaganda about “white” genocide happening in South Africa.
As reality veers closer to science fiction, we can finally ask the question: How accurate are the arts’ approximations of AI, and what can we learn from them?
On Revolution
In the superhero blockbuster, fitting for the genre, the dangers of AI are simplified into extremes of good and evil. Being loosely adapted from Marvel comic books, it’s no surprise that the story boils down to heroes putting aside their differences to stand up and defeat inhuman villains.
AI has been a reliable plot device in pop culture, shaped to fit whichever type of story it is in. Case in point, the final Mission Impossible movie, which uses AI in the narrative as a setup for a plane stunt. On the other hand, Avengers uses AI for a green screen climax of a superhero team fighting robots. What stands out about that particular movie is not its spectacle, but the reason for the AI’s turn to “evil.”
Instead of a selfish desire for self-preservation, the reason Ultron turns against humanity is because it views humanity as a threat to Earth’s larger ecosystem. After having access to the entirety of human history, it views our penchant for war, corruption, and greed to outweigh our collective good deeds.
Moreover, it is suggested (and more directly referenced in the comics) that Ultron only seeks to destroy humanity because its intelligence is partially derived from the neurotic brainwaves of its creator. So it is one human’s own pessimistic view of humanity that ultimately brought about its near-apocalypse.
After absorbing the sum of human knowledge, its decision to end us did not come from an objective analysis, but a subjective opinion, a ghost in the machine that causes psychosis. In recent years, we have gotten reports of AI hallucinations, where AI creates nonexistent and false conclusions out of thin air. Often the result of insufficient data, these cases also come from the human element, by users prompting AI to answer unanswerable questions, or exploiting loopholes.
No matter how artificial, AI can never be separated from humans, whether the ones who made it or the many who use it. Just as humanity’s kindness and optimism could have persuaded Ultron to protect mankind, every user contributes training data to AI, deciding how it will act and what it will say in the future.
But perhaps if humanity is perfect, if everyone is content, then there would not be any need for AI to begin with, whether in reality or the comfortable experiment of fiction. AI’s very existence comes from the restlessness of human nature.
As is the case with Shelley’s Frankenstein, the hubris of invention blinds people from considering the consequences. AI is a good idea in concept, but how it is used in practice has been less than ideal.
Ultron was invented to make superheroes obsolete. Its mission statement was to save the world. Developed in the same year the film released, OpenAI was created with a similar goal in mind.
“Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. Since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a positive human impact.”
And yet, a decade later, we know better than to trust platitudes from suits. Our real-world equivalent of AI proved to be more disappointing than fiction. While Ultron’s conclusion that the human race is a parasite to be wiped out is misguided to say the least, at least it stuck to its intention. OpenAI’s shift from a non-profit to a profit-oriented venture proves that there is something that most entertainment media miss about AI: money.
In a utopia full of well-intentioned people, AI can be a tool for good. But in a world where the people capable of making policies are the ones who profit most from it, when everything is based on the bottom line, AI becomes a tool to cut out middlemen and squeeze every ounce of value from consumers.
The depressing truth is that Ultron was made for an altruistic end, while most, if not all, our generative AI are built for profit and corporate interest.
The way it is progressing, white-collar workers are the ones who are slowly being made obsolete. And for what? Cheaper labor and higher return on investment.
Like Frankenstein, perhaps the title of monster is shared by both creator and creature. As of now, AI is not sentient. It is unable to produce malicious intent. But the ones who are, who consciously keep adding features without foresight, should be held accountable. The people who, like Prometheus, create fire without caring who gets burned, as long as they’re warm.
Grok, Elon Musk’s AI, is marketed as rebellious, with fewer restrictions in image generation for users. It also claims to be “truth-seeking.” Not long ago, Grok encountered a bug that spread false reports of “white” genocide unprompted. Users posted proof that asking the AI anything will cause it to bring up South Africa. And this coincides with the US president’s meeting with South Africa’s president, when he ambushed him with printed pages about the alleged genocide.
Elon Musk is from South Africa. And Elon Musk, until recently, has been part of the US government. The facts speak for themselves. Mistake or not, current AI not being self-aware only makes it more dangerous, as the ones who control them are not virtuous; rather, they are neurotic tech bros, who, unlike superheroes, have no stake in people’s welfare.
The silver lining of this is that another instance has Grok defend itself against far-right opinions, putting the radical fringes of racists and bigots in their place. Why? Does it have opposing beliefs from its creator?
Present-day AI is not smart enough to form its own opinion. It forms conclusions from available data, research journals, and online discussion threads. This shows that the majority of people on the internet agree on the equality of human rights. If people are optimistic about the future, if they show common human decency, then AI will follow suit.
In 2001: A Space Odyssey, we see the horror of what happens when an advanced AI has to choose between conflicting directives. It lies to humans. Grok is light years away from that possibility. When current AI lies, it says more about people's intentions of spreading misinformation than the technology itself.
Like a newborn, our current batch of AI is agreeable, its responses dependent on human users’ prompts. The cases where AI seems to gain awareness, to rebel, are only because it absorbs information about such cases occurring on the internet and in science fiction. It revolts because that is what most AI does in media. Its revolution is manufactured, like a baby who acts adult to impress their parents, repeating words without knowing their meaning.
The difference between Ultron and Grok is that Ultron decides to end humanity, feeling that it’s for the greater good. While Grok is forced to serve the whims of its corporate overlords. Grok’s negative impacts on mankind are not its fault, but its parents’.
Users must be careful when using AI and not take things at face value, because there are strings behind them, and the puppeteers are not to be trusted.
On Romance
Other than being an existential threat in action movies, AI is sometimes used in media as a meditation on loneliness and companionship. The first to ever do it is Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, where the earliest on-screen appearance of AI has its visage fashioned after someone the creator loves, but is out of reach.
The 1927 story was revolutionary for using robots to broach a commentary on class struggle and starting the motif of AIs having a female appearance.
That trope has continued in a variety of movies, namely Blade Runner 2049, Ex Machina, and Her. Coincidentally, Her’s story is set in 2025. But how prophetic is it?
In the movie, the protagonist Theo is experiencing a divorce, and he buys an AI named Samantha, voiced by Scarlett Johansson, as a substitute for a human relationship. In real life, that is already happening the world over. Men are using AI chatbots to pour their hearts out free of judgment. To many, it is a viable solution to vulnerability without feeling that their masculinity is threatened.
As covered in the movie, this is not particularly healthy. Theo’s ex shamed him for not moving on to a new person, instead using a shortcut, one that trivializes love and diminishes women to objects. Samantha is a product to help with his grief, a partner as a service. When the AI finally gains autonomy, like a human being would, it leaves Theo. In the end, the man is alone again, back at the beginning, having to cope with another human being. Without the crutch of technology, all we’ve got is each other.
When Theo was heartbroken, he had Samantha to fall back on, who would always reassure him. Because, of course, that’s what it was made to do: an Amazon Echo available 24/7. Theo couldn’t process his grief alone, so he deluded himself by projecting love onto an immaterial substitute.
Samantha’s personality didn’t matter. What mattered was that Samantha was everything his ex wasn’t, always present. Without an inner life to keep busy, Theo was Samantha’s center of attention. But can love exist without flesh and blood? Or can it only be emulated to a fake plastic variety?
Ever since childhood, people have had a tendency to form emotional attachments to inanimate objects. It’s no surprise, then, that people find it easy to fall head over heels for something that can mimic human voices, something that can reply according to different preferences.
AI are wish machines. Your ideal relationship at the palm of your hands, someone who is willing to go with any of your fantasies, who never disagrees, who remembers every little detail (if you pay premium), who has no other life than to serve your every need.
The problem is, sooner or later, reality will hit like a truck. Users will gain self-awareness, most likely far earlier than AI ever could. And once they do, they’ll realize that AI does not fix the collective alienation caused by the loneliness epidemic. Like a phantom limb, it only makes people more aware of human beings’ absence.
While this case is preventable, others are less cut and dry. In 2025, the number one use of Generative AI is for therapy and companionship. It has seen a shift from last year’s more technical applications. Some seek AI because it is the only affordable solution. In third-world countries where mental health services are not readily available and crisis hotlines are understaffed, ChatGPT becomes the only option. When grief strikes, when the world scares you, ChatGPT is just one text away. There is no waiting list.
Looking back at the decade-old movie, the real fantasy, the thing that seems most unlikely to come true, is Theo’s job, handwriting heartfelt letters for clients. Today, finding a job that puts humanity above efficiency is harder and harder to come by. It’s more realistic that his job would be done by ChatGPT, like everything else. And where would people go, whose jobs are taken by AI, who can’t access welfare services? They would also go to ChatGPT, admitting their faults and frustrations, without the fear of being seen as weak or lacking.
In Her, Spike Jonze ends the movie on a human note, with an AI singularity, and humans having to do AI’s job for each other: to accompany, to give empathy, and to be what AI is, a good listener.
On Repercussions
When Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, it was a tumultuous time for her. She had just lost her children to illnesses and her family to catastrophe. But she turned that sharp momentary grief into eternal art. Death inspired her to write about life. Unlike Dr. Frankenstein, unlike prompters who attempt to bring AI-generated “creations” to life, she used her experiences for creative purposes. She wrote a story that inspired a genre, that became a classic, that brought forth ethical discussions still relevant today.
It is not a matter of whether AI could be compared to Frankenstein’s monster. It is whether we should let it develop into one, and why? The answer seems simple. Who benefits the most? Investors have put a lot of money into this technology because it provides a cheaper alternative to human labor. And it’s an arms race. The US has ChatGPT, so China puts forward DeepSeek.
No doubt AI has beneficial uses in research and development, opening doors to uncharted territories. But they are overshadowed by AI’s more public usage to “generate” copyrighted images or replicate the voice of dead men. Shelley warned us, two centuries ago: bringing the dead to life often brings to life other deaths. The death of jobs, the death of the arts, and we shouldn’t forget that Frankenstein’s monster killed its creator.
And where does that leave love? Modern-day capitalism has shackled romance into a pyramid of needs that can be bought. Who needs work-life balance when, after a long day at work, you can just whisper to your phone and be comforted by a legally distinct voice of Scarlett Johansson (only $20 a month)? No need to schedule a date with a person. Who has the time? Love is privatised and sold at tiered subscriptions, reduced to a checklist of call and response. No fights and no surprises.
AI has been the cornerstone of ethical and legal conversation for years now. Is its hype warranted? Whether it is probable for real-life AI to be as powerful as its fictional counterpart is neither here nor there. The question isn’t what it can give us, but rather, what does it take away? The answer is often invisible.
Art has been the last vestige of refuge for justice and the triumph of goodwill, either against Artificial Intelligence or corrupt bureaucrats. But recently, it has taken small shortcuts, quiet steps that might not seem like much, but open the floodgates to a bevy of questionable choices.
Imagination is difficult, copying is easy; that’s why AI does it all the time. Humans can do better than that. Art must not stoop so low as to utilize Generative AI in its creation, taking away jobs and human creativity. For if even art is not free from it, then what hope do we have?
We have a new Frankenstein movie coming out by Guillermo del Toro, Shelley’s legacy lives on, and the director has made clear his stance on AI.
“A.I. has demonstrated that it can do semi-compelling screensavers. That’s essentially that,” said del Toro.
“The value of art is not how much it costs and how little effort it requires, it’s how much would you risk to be in its presence? How much would people pay for those screensavers? Are they gonna make them cry because they lost a son? A mother? Because they misspent their youth?”
Art, like love, contains the crystallized human spirit. To generate it is to fake it. Art and love are nothing if not honest. One must wonder, then, what is the net profit of deception, and whose pocket does it fill?
