Was Nathan based ?
>Nathan: I programmed her to be heterosexual. Just like you were programmed to be heterosexual.
>Caleb: Nobody programmed me to be straight
>Nathan: So you decided to be straight? Please. Of course you were programmed. By nature or nurture, or both.
who cares build more sex dolls
relly mek u think
shit dad, killed by own daughter, she didn't even have his genes. sad.
cuck/10
thats because he didnt teach her islam
the movie was nice however
>a single man, albeit a genius is capable of creating AI without anyone knowing in his luxury villa
>while thousand upon thousands of AI scientists collaborating together are barely capable of creating believable chatbots
>not only that he have no security detachment or safeguard measures to stop a rouge AI
>even worse, he uses the unstable AI to create a sexbot that walks around the villa unopposed
>and then uses a gullible naive programmer to fall in love in the imprisoned AI as a part of the experiment
>and expecting a rescue attempt eventually, he spends half of his time unconsciously drunk
I raged hard on the inconsistencies.
Wasn't the entire point of it that the main character is a journalist who visits him because of that AI he supposedly created?
How is this far fetched at all?
>a journalist who visits him
>a journalist
Have you even watched the movie ?
the character who visits him is someone the programmer duped into coming by making it seem like he'd won a company prize, so he could test out the A.I. bot on him.
no, because that would mean that fags aren't choosing to be fags, which is incorrect
terrible movie
wish I got that time back
When they finally make AI sex bots they should make them all heterosexuals programs to friend zone all fags
Mfw fags can't get laid by sex bot
but you have to be a fag to even think about choosing to be a fag, amirite?
I lol'ed when he showed his """lab""" including crafting organic matter into a new computer, all by himself in remote woodlands.
thats not the point tho
good movie
ending was a bit retarded though
What point are you trying to make? Of course everything dominos off of each other. What's to ponder? The extent of the stack trace?
But it actually is true.
As a heterosexual I am telling you that it is no more possible for me to be attracted to another man then it is possible for me to sprout wings and fly.
If you think that it is possible, then you're saying that you think that it's possible for you specifically to make that choice. But it's not actually possible for a heterosexual. So if you truly believe that homosexuality is a choice, it is because you are a repressed homosexual.
fuck you I will have my tall, handsome, big dicked, robotic ubermenschen boyfriend who will [literally] fuck my brains out like a machine.
...
kill all homosexuals
>tfw you gotta set EIP to your codecave because if you jmp youll get detected by the CRC
When people say it's a choice, they mean the environment. So it's a yes and no. They didn't choose to be that way because they didn't choose the environment that they grew up in, it's the parents choice that shaped them into the human beings they are today.
Eh all the inconsistencies aside, it told a great story about white knighting
"""AI""" is a meme for dumb people. All you are really attempting to convey is memory recollection, lookup times, and pattern adaptation.
TONY STARK BUILT THIS IN A CAVE!
i never understood this "sexuality isn't a choice" meme. the very fact that bisexual people exist clearly illustrates the potential for choice on sexual attraction.
just like you can be conditioned to like something, or conditioned to hate something, you can be conditioned to change your sexual preference. kinda like stockholm syndrome.
the whole "it's not a choice" bullshit is only a reflection of weak will. i could turn gay if all i did was stare at dicks all day. but i choose to stare at pussy.
>i could turn gay
you already have
i refuse. dicks are bad mmkay?
>i refuse