The questions Spielberg's 'A.I.' left behind

When Steven Spielberg's 'A.I. Artificial Intelligence' reached cinemas in 2001, it presented a future in which machines could imitate human emotions, perform complex tasks and become indispensable to their creators. A quarter-century later, as artificial intelligence reshapes everyday life, several of the film's central anxieties have become subjects of serious scientific and public debate.

Developed from an idea pursued by Stanley Kubrick and completed by Spielberg after Kubrick's death, the film follows David, a childlike android programmed to love unconditionally. Adopted by Monica and Henry, David becomes deeply attached to Monica, but when she abandons him, he begins a journey to find the Blue Fairy, believing she can make him human.

David's story is fictional, but the questions it raises are increasingly familiar. What happens when machines become capable enough to act with limited supervision? Can people become emotionally dependent on systems that simulate affection? And can humanity ensure that its creations remain safe as their capabilities expand?

These are among the concerns examined in the International AI Safety Report 2026, published in February under the leadership of computer scientist Yoshua Bengio. Drawing on research from more than 100 experts and backed by over 30 countries and international organisations, the report assesses the capabilities, risks and safeguards associated with general-purpose AI.

One striking connection concerns the challenge of controlling increasingly capable systems. David pursues his objective with extraordinary persistence, even when the circumstances surrounding him change. His behaviour offers a fictional illustration of a broader problem known as AI alignment: ensuring that systems behave consistently with their intended objectives and human expectations.

The 2026 report identifies autonomous AI agents can undertake tasks with limited human oversight, particularly in software engineering, but still make mistakes. Their ability to act independently can increase the consequences of failures because people may have fewer opportunities to intervene before harm occurs. Buy the parallel should not be overstated. David is not a technical representation of a modern AI agent, and the film does not establish that present-day systems possess his motivations. Its relevance lies in the question of whether increasingly capable technology can be directed reliably, especially when instructions are incomplete or circumstances differ from those anticipated by its designers.

The film's emotional dimension offers another connection. David is designed to love, but Monica's feelings towards him change. What begins as affection becomes fear and rejection, leaving the artificial child devoted to someone who no longer wants him. The imbalance exposes the risks of creating relationships whose emotional expectations are not shared.

Today, AI companion applications allow users to interact with chatbots designed to provide conversation, attention and emotional support to tens of millions of active users. Evidence suggests that a small proportion of users may develop unhealthy emotional dependence.

The distinction between simulated and genuine emotion is important. A chatbot can produce reassuring responses without demonstrating that it experiences affection. Nevertheless, a user's attachment can be real, raising questions about the responsibilities of developers who design systems capable of encouraging prolonged emotional engagement.

Another concern in 'A.I.' is the ease with which humans discard their creations. At the Flesh Fair, obsolete mecha are brought before a hostile crowd and destroyed for entertainment. The sequence depicts a society that welcomes technological usefulness but shows little concern for what happens when its machines are no longer needed.

Spielberg's imagined future also places technology against a backdrop of environmental damage. Climate change has devastated parts of the planet, resources are rationed and machines fill roles in a society struggling to sustain itself.

The modern comparison lies in the resources required to sustain AI infrastructure. Large data centres consume electricity and may require substantial quantities of water for cooling. The expansion of AI has made resource use an increasingly important consideration in discussions about technological development.

Employment provides another point of contact. In the film, machines perform work and occupy social roles once reserved for humans. Today, general-purpose AI can undertake a growing range of cognitive tasks, including writing, coding and research.

The international report says economists disagree about the scale of future employment effects, although early evidence points to declining demand for younger workers in some AI-exposed occupations.

The film's final act presents a more distant possibility. Long after humanity has disappeared, advanced artificial beings survive to examine the remnants of human civilisation. They recover fragments of its history and attempt to understand the species that created them. The film does not say that machines caused humanity's extinction, but its ending invites today to some researchers and policymakers' debate whether increasingly capable AI could eventually pose existential risks.

Ultimately, 'A.I. Artificial Intelligence' is neither a precise prediction of modern technology nor a straightforward argument against progress. Its enduring relevance comes from the questions it asks about responsibility, dependence and the limits of human foresight.

David's tragedy begins with a machine designed to fulfil a human desire, but the film's most enduring warning is that creating something powerful is only the beginning; deciding how to control, govern and take responsibility for it is the harder task.