Not science, just fiction

Rating: 2/10 (5 August 2014)

I hate movies that are categorized as science fiction when there is no science and only fiction. I am a graduate student in computer science studying robotics and I can assure you that this kind of artificial intelligence (AI) technology doesn't exist today, will not exist in twenty years or even in fifty years. Only just recently did an AI program--a chatbot called Eugene Goostman--pass a test that managed to convince 30% of a panel of human judges that it is a somewhat autistic, 13 year-old human boy. That is a far cry from Scarlet Johansson's Samantha, an AI program in a computer operating system that has the personality of a smart, seductive grown woman dripping with hypnotic allure. Alan Turing, the Einstein of the field of computer science, predicted that a Eugene Goostman would be possible only by the year 2000. He predicted this in 1950. , Do you know how hard it is to program emotional intelligence? If this film was about a man who got his hands on a piece of AI software that had been secretly developed by the government or was a secret project at Carnegie Melon University that had been refined over many decades, I might be more credulous, but as it stands this is pure fiction. While I realize the public would love to have a Samantha or Sam on their desktop, anyone with a smattering of knowledge in computer science will reject this utter fiction and demand greater scientific accuracy.
I think people who praised this film have little understanding of the field of artificial intelligence or just don't require scientific accuracy in their films!