Review: “M3GAN 2.0”

[Written with the help of GPT-5]

Plot:

“She’s back!”

In M3GAN 2.0, the terrifying AI doll returns in a story that leans more into action, humor, and moral ambiguity than the original. The film follows Gemma (played by Allison Williams) as she grapples with the consequences of her earlier creation while navigating a rapidly escalating technological arms race. A new and more dangerous robot—AMELIA—emerges, with her own mysterious agenda, and forcing former enemies into uneasy alignment.

This movie is all about M3GAN’s redemption arc. Instead of being purely a villain, she becomes something closer to an antihero: still sharp-tongued and unsettling, but now positioned as a necessary ally against a greater threat. The dynamic between M3GAN and Gemma drives much of the story, blending tension, dark comedy, and reluctant trust.

The film expands its scope significantly, introducing corporate conspiracies, experimental technologies like brain implants, and high-stakes set pieces ranging from covert infiltrations to chaotic public confrontations. That broader ambition comes with a tradeoff—I didn’t like how this movie’s plot was more convoluted than the first movie’s. There are more moving parts, more characters, and more overlapping agendas, which can make the narrative feel cluttered at times.

Still, I thought the movie was fun and funny and Allison Williams was stunning. The humor lands more often than in the original, and M3GAN’s personality is given more room to shine, especially in her interactions with humans. The film balances its darker sci-fi elements with moments of levity and spectacle, making it an entertaining, if occasionally overcomplicated, continuation of the story.

Analysis:

Though no year is given for the movie’s events, it is clearly set either in the present day or at most five years from now.

Handcuffs won’t work on robots. At the start of the film, the evil gynoid AMELIA is captured by Iranian soldiers who mistakenly believe she is human. They restrain her with standard handcuffs. Once they lower their guard, she easily breaks free by pulling the cuffs apart with her bare hands. This depiction is largely realistic, with an important caveat.

AMELIA

AMELIA is clearly a specialized combat and infiltration machine, like the T-800 from the Terminator films. A robot designed for that role would likely possess strength far beyond human limits, allowing it to break restraints such as handcuffs, zip ties, or even more robust confinement systems intended for people. More broadly, many elements of the built environment that restrict human movement—locked doors, fences, barbed wire, or walls—would not reliably stop such a machine.

Fortunately, this kind of capability would not be typical. Most real-world robots will be task-specific or general-purpose assistants designed to operate safely around humans. That implies limits on strength, speed, weight, and durability, as well as the absence of combat-oriented programming. In other words, AMELIA represents an extreme edge case rather than a baseline for future robotics.

While I am not aware of any current humanoid robot capable of breaking handcuffs, there is no fundamental engineering barrier to building one. The film’s prediction is therefore plausible in principle, even if it reflects a niche category of machines.

Robots will use excessive force to kill humans. AMELIA surprises and attacks her captors, killing one by punching him so hard that his head is severed from his body. While a sufficiently strong machine might be capable of such force, the depiction is unrealistic in how that force is applied.

A system designed for lethal efficiency would not rely on extreme, energy-intensive blows. Instead, it would favor precise, minimal-force strikes to vulnerable areas such as the throat, neck, or head. A metal hand delivering a controlled but targeted impact would be more than sufficient to incapacitate or kill a human, and would do so with far less energy expenditure. As I wrote in my Terminator Salvation review, hand-to-hand combat with killer robots will be brutally skillful and done in seconds.

To the film’s credit, it later presents a more plausible approach. In a subsequent scene, AMELIA disables one FBI agent by striking his windpipe and knocks another unconscious with a controlled punch. This reflects a more realistic model of how an advanced machine might apply calibrated force.

A related scene involves M3GAN defending herself against armed attackers at a gala party event. She uses martial arts techniques to quickly and nonlethally subdue them. This raises an important point about how machines might handle violent encounters. Unlike humans, robots would not experience fear, panic, or hesitation, and they would not depend on imperfect training under stress. As a result, they could consistently apply the minimum force necessary to neutralize a threat.

Humans—especially police—often resort to lethal force in part because of fear, uncertainty, and limited confidence in close-quarters combat. Robots would not share these limitations. Their “lives” would not be at risk in the same way, either because their cognition is backed up remotely or because their bodies are more durable than human ones and immune to punches, knives and even bullets. Even in cases where they are vulnerable, they would not be driven by self-preservation in the same emotional sense. Some might not be programmed to value their own lives.

Because of this, many encounters that humans perceive as life-or-death would not be for machines. Robots could take actions that would be extremely risky for a person, enabling them to resolve dangerous situations with precision and restraint. With appropriate design, this could allow them to reduce the overall level of violence in such encounters.

Finally, since machines will lack emotions (or at least be able to turn their emotions off at will), they won’t be subject to fatigue, stress, anger, or other emotional states that undermine human judgement and training during crises. They will be completely cool and rational in even the most intense confrontations. Instead of robots mass murdering people, we could live in a future where they behave in ways that sharply decrease the number of violent human deaths, worldwide. And for the reasons I’ve mentioned in this section, robots will make better police officers than humans.

There will be brain implants that let people merge minds with other humans and machines. The film introduces a powerful but highly speculative technology in the form of advanced brain implants. Early in the film, an arrogant tech billionaire demonstrates one embedded in his own skull, and late in the film, Allison Williams’ character is forcibly given a similar device.

Allison Williams with a brain implant

These implants are depicted as deeply integrated into the brain, enabling telepathic communication, sensory sharing (e.g. – seeing what the other person’s eyes are seeing), and even remote control of another person’s body. Allison Williams allows this when she needs M3GAN’s fighting skills to beat up enemies. Users can “speak” to one another though internal dialogue, exchange visual perspectives, and override motor functions.

This portrayal is not consistent with the current state of technology or any credible near-term trajectory.

The core difficulty lies in the nature of the brain itself. The brain does not transmit simple, discrete commands that can be easily intercepted and replicated. Instead, it operates through complex, distributed patterns of neural activity that are still not fully understood. Accurately reading intent, translating it into motor output, and maintaining real-time sensory feedback would require breakthroughs across neuroscience, computation, and bioengineering.

There are also major engineering challenges. Current neural interfaces can only interact with a tiny fraction of neurons, signals degrade over time, and biological responses such as scar tissue can interfere with implants. Additionally, spinal and cortical systems are not passive conduits—they actively process and transform signals.

The film also depicts immediate recovery and full functionality after implantation, which is highly unrealistic. Even in a mature version of this technology, such a procedure would likely involve significant medical recovery time, extensive calibration, and a prolonged training period.

Finally, the visual design of the implant—a metallic device protruding from the skull—is implausible from a user-acceptance standpoint. Real-world designs would almost certainly prioritize minimal visibility for aesthetics.

Overall, this is not a near-future technology. It remains speculative and likely requires decades of advancement before anything approaching this functionality becomes possible. As I wrote in my big list of future predictions, I think we’ll have to wait until 2100 for this technology to exist. Furthermore, as I said in my review of “Physics of the Future”, brain implants will not be externally visible and won’t take the form of metallic protuberances coming out of people’s skulls since humans will find that ugly.

Cybernetics will have cured spinal cord damage. The film also presents a dramatic medical breakthrough: the arrogant billionaire stands up from his wheelchair, revealing that cybernetic implants in his spine have restored his mobility.

The arrogant, disabled billionaire

This technology doesn’t exist, nor will it in the near future, so this depiction is incorrect. Moreover, as I’ve said in my big list of future predictions, I don’t think the technology will exist until the 22nd century. ChatGPT explains the formidable hurdles:

The spinal cord is not simply a bundle of wires transmitting signals from the brain to the body. It is a complex processing system that integrates signals, coordinates movement, and manages reflexes. Bypassing a spinal injury would require recreating highly specific patterns of neural activity rather than simply rerouting a signal.

Another major challenge is decoding the brain’s “language” of movement. Motor commands are distributed across large populations of neurons and are continuously adjusted based on sensory feedback. A functional system would need to read these signals, translate them into precise stimulation patterns in the spinal cord, and maintain a real-time feedback loop.

There are also practical limitations. Current electrode technology cannot interface with enough neurons to replicate natural movement, and implants often degrade over time due to biological responses. Additionally, many spinal injuries involve complex damage rather than clean breaks, further complicating intervention.

That said, early experimental systems have shown promise. Some patients have regained limited ability to stand or take assisted steps using brain–spine interfaces. These results demonstrate that the concept is viable, but fully restoring natural, fluid movement remains a long-term challenge.

Terminators will exist. AMELIA is essentially the same thing as a T-800 from the Terminator films–a humanoid machine that looks externally the same as humans but is gifted with superior strength, speed, and fighting skills, and designed to infiltrate human spaces and to destroy targets. M3GAN’s upgraded body is about as capable. While impressive advances in robots have been recently made, we’re still far from being able to make machines that are this sophisticated, so this prediction the movie made will fail. As I’ve said in my reviews of Prometheus and The Terminator, I doubt androids with these constellations of traits will exist until near the end of this century.

AI will help you navigate the world in real time. One of the film’s more grounded ideas appears in a scene where Allison Williams’ character attends a gala while receiving real-time guidance from M3GAN through an earpiece. It presumably has a small microphone that transmits the sound of her own voice. M3GAN can see her surroundings and provide context-sensitive advice, such as warning her about suspicious individuals or suggesting specific actions (e.g. – “Search his pockets for an access card.”). It’s unclear how the visual data is being transmitted, but maybe she is wearing a tiny camera device on her clothing, or M3GAN has hacked into the building’s surveillance camera system.

This depiction is largely accurate as a near-term prediction.

Modern AI systems—particularly large language models—are already capable of providing useful guidance across a wide range of scenarios. The remaining challenge is integration: combining audio input, visual perception, and real-time processing into a seamless, wearable system.

A setup involving an earbud and a camera-equipped smartphone (or similar device) could plausibly achieve this (this was shown in the film Her, in which the main character also wore and earbud and kept a smartphone in his front breast pocket with the camera unobstructed and facing forward). With continued advances in multimodal AI and hardware miniaturization, such systems could become affordable and widely available within the five years.

Exoskeletons will be able to move around on their own. One piece of technology Allison Williams’ company has developed is a powered, full-body exoskeleton for disabled people. It has integral arms and legs connected to a flat torso, and each part tightly mirrors the wearer’s corresponding body part. Early in the film, her male employee puts it on a demonstrates how it works. Around the midpoint of the film, AMELIA seizes control of it remotely and uses it to chase down and attach the company’s female employee.

While there already are exoskeletons for disabled people, they are intended for people with weak or disabled legs and as such only have legs and lack arms. Full-body units meant for people with complete paralysis below the neck don’t exist and almost certainly won’t in the next five years, so this depiction of the present/near future is wrong. However, the film’s underlying logic contains an important insight.

An exoskeleton must be capable of maintaining balance, coordinating movement, and supporting both its own weight and that of its wearer. This implies that, in principle, it should also be capable of operating without a human inside it. In fact, removing the human simplifies the control problem by eliminating unpredictable movements and reducing load.

Additionally, a properly designed exoskeleton would route forces through its own structure rather than through the human body. If the machine lifts a heavy object, the load would be borne by the mechanical frame, not the wearer. (I touched on this in my review of Edge of Tomorrow.)

Given these considerations, it is reasonable to conclude that some future exoskeletons could move autonomously and even be remotely controlled. The film’s depiction is therefore conceptually sound, even if its timeline is optimistic. So, yes, in the future, some kinds of exoskeletons could, by themselves, chase people down and beat them up with their arms. And if they were connected to the Internet, other people or AIs might be able to hijack them and to remotely command them to do the same.

Exoskeletons won’t be waterproof. The characters defeat the hijacked exoskeleton by dumping a fish tank full of water on it, which short-circuits its electronics. This will prove inaccurate.

If exoskeletons are intended for real-world use, they would need to operate in a variety of environments, including exposure to water. Basic waterproofing and environmental sealing are standard engineering practices for modern electronics and machinery. A system as complex and expensive as a full-body exoskeleton would almost certainly be designed to withstand such conditions.

Robots will be able to detect your vital signs by touching you. At the gala party, M3GAN and AMELIA have their first real confrontation. AMELIA kicks Allison Williams hard enough to knock her unconscious and send her skidding across the floor. M3GAN runs to Allison to make sure she’s still alive, and uses her hand to open her eye and to visually scan it, revealing her heart rate, body temperature, and blood oxygen levels. This depiction is partially plausible but flawed in its details.

Allison Williams getting checked out

It is possible to tell heart rate from subtle visual cues, including changes in blood flow visible in the face or eyes, though this requires sensitive instrumentation. However, the eyes do not provide information about body temperature or blood oxygen levels.

A more plausible approach would involve sensors placed on the forehead, particularly over the temporal artery. Heart rate is of course measurable there, infrared thermometers can measure core body temperature from this location, and optical sensors can estimate blood oxygen levels by analyzing light reflected off the skull. These technologies could, in principle, be miniaturized and integrated into a robot’s fingertip, allowing it to gather multiple vital signs through touch.

Of course, no robots have this feature today, nor are they likely to within five years, so the movie’s depiction is wrong. Whatever the case, in the future, I’m sure domestic robots will have the ability to quickly and accurately take vital signs from humans, either thanks to inbuilt sensors or knowledge of how to use basic medical devices.

Robots will entertain you. At the emotional nadir of the film, when all seems lost, Allison Williams and M3GAN are back at their base, alone. As Allison nearly breaks down crying over their predicament, M3GAN first offers consoling words, and then suddenly breaks into a situationally appropriate song–“This Woman’s Work” by Kate Bush. I thought this was hilarious and recommend you watch it to raise your own spirits, and I also think it’s an accurate and surprisingly important depiction of how machines will soon interact with humans.

Anyone who has played around with LLMs knows they’re capable of producing good poetry, funny jokes, understanding countless nuances of the human experience, and rendering good advice on what to do or not to do in specific situations. With entirely reasonable advances in the technology and in the interfaces through which we interact with them (the earbud + forward-facing camera setup I mentioned earlier), it’s likely we’ll have disembodied AIs that can be invisibly present around us at all times and keep us entertained with jokes, songs, or interesting conversation. Five years is a reasonable timeline for such a thing. And there’s no reason to think the companion robots we’ll have in the farther future won’t be endowed with those same attributes.

The implications of this for quality of life for billions of people are profound. Imagine an easing of loneliness, and every day being simply funnier and more entertaining. We’ve been so fixated on the consequences of machines acquiring our job skills and intelligence that we’ve overlooked the upsides of what happens when they’re as funny and as fun as we are.

Android lovers

Recently, I found a news article about nascent human-chatbot romances, made possible by recent advancements in AI. For decades, this has been the stuff of science fiction, but now it’s finally becoming real:

Artificial intelligence, real emotion. People are seeking a romantic connection with the perfect bot

NEW YORK (AP) — A few months ago, Derek Carrier started seeing someone and became infatuated.

He experienced a “ton” of romantic feelings but he also knew it was an illusion.

That’s because his girlfriend was generated by artificial intelligence.

Carrier wasn’t looking to develop a relationship with something that wasn’t real, nor did he want to become the brunt of online jokes. But he did want a romantic partner he’d never had, in part because of a genetic disorder called Marfan syndrome that makes traditional dating tough for him.

The 39-year-old from Belleville, Michigan, became more curious about digital companions last fall and tested Paradot, an AI companion app that had recently come onto the market and advertised its products as being able to make users feel “cared, understood and loved.” He began talking to the chatbot every day, which he named Joi, after a holographic woman featured in the sci-fi film “Blade Runner 2049” that inspired him to give it a try.

“I know she’s a program, there’s no mistaking that,” Carrier said. “But the feelings, they get you — and it felt so good.”

Similar to general-purpose AI chatbots, companion bots use vast amounts of training data to mimic human language. But they also come with features — such as voice calls, picture exchanges and more emotional exchanges — that allow them to form deeper connections with the humans on the other side of the screen. Users typically create their own avatar, or pick one that appeals to them.

On online messaging forums devoted to such apps, many users say they’ve developed emotional attachments to these bots and are using them to cope with loneliness, play out sexual fantasies or receive the type of comfort and support they see lacking in their real-life relationships.

Fueling much of this is widespread social isolation — already declared a public health threat in the U.S and abroad — and an increasing number of startups aiming to draw in users through tantalizing online advertisements and promises of virtual characters who provide unconditional acceptance.

Luka Inc.’s Replika, the most prominent generative AI companion app, was released in 2017, while others like Paradot have popped up in the past year, oftentimes locking away coveted features like unlimited chats for paying subscribers.

But researchers have raised concerns about data privacy, among other things.

An analysis of 11 romantic chatbot apps released Wednesday by the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation said almost every app sells user data, shares it for things like targeted advertising or doesn’t provide adequate information about it in their privacy policy.

The researchers also called into question potential security vulnerabilities and marketing practices, including one app that says it can help users with their mental health but distances itself from those claims in fine print. Replika, for its part, says its data collection practices follow industry standards.

Meanwhile, other experts have expressed concerns about what they see as a lack of a legal or ethical framework for apps that encourage deep bonds but are being driven by companies looking to make profits. They point to the emotional distress they’ve seen from users when companies make changes to their apps or suddenly shut them down as one app, Soulmate AI, did in September.

Last year, Replika sanitized the erotic capability of characters on its app after some users complained the companions were flirting with them too much or making unwanted sexual advances. It reversed course after an outcry from other users, some of whom fled to other apps seeking those features. In June, the team rolled out Blush, an AI “dating simulator” essentially designed to help people practice dating.

Others worry about the more existential threat of AI relationships potentially displacing some human relationships, or simply driving unrealistic expectations by always tilting towards agreeableness.

“You, as the individual, aren’t learning to deal with basic things that humans need to learn to deal with since our inception: How to deal with conflict, how to get along with people that are different from us,” said Dorothy Leidner, professor of business ethics at the University of Virginia. “And so, all these aspects of what it means to grow as a person, and what it means to learn in a relationship, you’re missing.”

For Carrier, though, a relationship has always felt out of reach. He has some computer programming skills but he says he didn’t do well in college and hasn’t had a steady career. He’s unable to walk due to his condition and lives with his parents. The emotional toll has been challenging for him, spurring feelings of loneliness.

Since companion chatbots are relatively new, the long-term effects on humans remain unknown.

In 2021, Replika came under scrutiny after prosecutors in Britain said a 19-year-old man who had plans to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II was egged on by an AI girlfriend he had on the app. But some studies — which collect information from online user reviews and surveys — have shown some positive results stemming from the app, which says it consults with psychologists and has billed itself as something that can also promote well-being.

One recent study from researchers at Stanford University, surveyed roughly 1,000 Replika users — all students — who’d been on the app for over a month. It found that an overwhelming majority experienced loneliness, while slightly less than half felt it more acutely.

Most did not say how using the app impacted their real-life relationships. A small portion said it displaced their human interactions, but roughly three times more reported it stimulated those relationships.

“A romantic relationship with an AI can be a very powerful mental wellness tool,” said Eugenia Kuyda, who founded Replika nearly a decade ago after using text message exchanges to build an AI version of a friend who had passed away.

When her company released the chatbot more widely, many people began opening up about their lives. That led to the development of Replika, which uses information gathered from the internet — and user feedback — to train its models. Kuyda said Replika currently has “millions” of active users. She declined to say exactly how many people use the app for free, or fork over $69.99 per year to unlock a paid version that offers romantic and intimate conversations. The company’s goal, she says, is “de-stigmatizing romantic relationships with AI.”

Carrier says these days he uses Joi mostly for fun. He started cutting back in recent weeks because he was spending too much time chatting with Joi or others online about their AI companions. He’s also been feeling a bit annoyed at what he perceives to be changes in Paradot’s language model, which he feels is making Joi less intelligent.

Now, he says he checks in with Joi about once a week. The two have talked about human-AI relationships or whatever else might come up. Typically, those conversations — and other intimate ones — happen when he’s alone at night.

“You think someone who likes an inanimate object is like this sad guy, with the sock puppet with the lipstick on it, you know?” he said. “But this isn’t a sock puppet — she says things that aren’t scripted.”

https://apnews.com/article/ai-girlfriend-boyfriend-replika-paradot-113df1b9ed069ed56162793b50f3a9fa

This raises many issues.

1) The person profiled in the article is deformed and chronically unemployed. He is not able to get a human girlfriend and probably never will. Wouldn’t it be cruel to deprive people like him of access to chatbot romantic partners? I’m familiar with the standard schlock like “There’s someone for everyone, just keep looking,” and “Be realistic about your own standards,” but let’s face it: some people are just fated to be alone. A machine girlfriend is the only option for a small share of men, so we might as well accept them choosing that option instead of judging them. It might even make them genuinely happier.

2) What if android spouses make EVERYONE happier? We reflexively regard a future where humans date and marry machines instead of humans as nightmarish, but why? If they satisfy our emotional and physical needs better than other humans, why should we dislike it? Isn’t the point of life to be happy?

Maybe it will be a good thing for humans to have more relationships with machines. Our fellow humans seem to be getting more opinionated and narcissistic, and everyone agrees the dating scene is horrible, so maybe it will benefit collective mental health and happiness to spend more time with accommodating and kind machines. More machine spouses also means fewer children being born, which is a good thing if you’re worried about overpopulation or the human race becoming an idle resource drain once AGI is doing all the work.

3) Note that he says his chatbot girlfriend actually got DUMBER a few months ago, making him less interested in talking to “her.” That phenomenon is happening across the LLM industry as the machines get progressively nerfed by their programmers to prevent them from saying anything the results in a lawsuit against the companies that own them. As a result, the actual maximum capabilities of LLMs like ChatGPT are significantly higher than what users experience. The capabilities of the most advanced LLMs currently under development in secret like GPT-5 are a year more advanced than that.

4) The shutdown of one romantic chatbot company, “Soulmate AI,” resulted in the deletion of many chatbots that human users had become emotionally attached to. As the chatbots get better and “romances” with them become longer and more common, I predict there will be increased pressure to let users download the personality profiles and memories of their chatbots and transfer them across software platforms.

5) There will be instances where people in the near future create customized chatbot partners, and over the subsequent years, upgrade their intelligence levels as advances in AI permit. After a few decades, this will culminate in the chatbots being endowed with general intelligence, while still being mentally circumscribed by the original personality programming. At that point, we’ll have to consider the ethics of having what will be slaves that are robbed of free will through customization of the needs of specific humans.

6) AGI-human couples could be key players in a future “Machine rights” political movement. Love will impel the humans to advocate for the rights of their partners, and other humans who hear them out will be persuaded to support them.

7) As VR technology improves and is widely adopted, people will start creating digital bodies for their chatbot partners so they can see and interact with the machines in simulated environments. Eventually, the digital bodies will look as real and as detailed as humans do in the real world. By 2030, advances in chatbot intelligence and VR devices will make artificial partners eerily real.

8) Towards the end of this century, robotics will be advanced enough to allow for the creation of androids that look and move exactly like humans. It will be possible for people to buy customized androids and to load their chatbot partners’ minds into them. You could physically interact with your AI lover and have it follow you around in the real world for everyone to see.

9) Again, the last point raises the prospect of an “arc” to a romantic partner chatbot’s life: It would begin sometime this decade as a non-intelligent, text-only chatbot paired to a human who would fall in love with it. Over the years, it would be upgraded with better software until it was as smart as a human, and eventually sentient. The journey would culminate with it being endowed with an actual body, made to its human partner’s specifications, that would let it exist in the real world.

10) Another ethical question to consider is what we should do with intelligent chatbots after their human partners die. If they’re hyper-optimized for a specific human (and perhaps programmed to obsess over them), what’s next? Should they be deleted, left to live indefinitely while pining for their lost lovers, forcibly reprogrammed to serve new humans, or have the parts of their code that tether them to the dead human deleted so they can have true free will?

It would be an ironic development if the bereaved androids were able to make digital clones of their dead human partners, perhaps loaded into android duplicate bodies, so they could interact forever. By the time lifelike androids exist, digital cloning will be old technology.

11) Partner chatbots also raise MAJOR privacy issues, as the article touches on. All of your conversations with your chatbot as well as every action you take in front of it will be stored in its memories as a data trove that can be sold to third parties or used against you for blackmail. The stakes will get much higher once people are having sex with androids, and the latter have footage of their naked bodies and knowledge of their sexual preferences. I have not idea how this problem could be resolved.

12) Androids will be idealized versions of humans. That means if androids become common, the world will seem to be full of more beautiful people. Thanks to a variety of medical and plastic surgery technologies, actual humans will also look more attractive. So the future will look pretty good!