> I don't think the show ever addressed those questions in a meaningful way? Basically there was a "good" AI, and later in the show, an "evil" one. And that was that.

Not super deeply but it does, and even in a way that at the time I find unbelievable (for evil side!) but today is not!:

The creator of the good machine struggle for long time with a major treat the machine present (this IA is more like old-school IA): It cares too much for his creator (to the point that basically find by his own accord the best girl for him!), to the point that the underlying terror what that for saving his creator the machine could destroy the world.

This is the main drive of the creator to reduce his ability to do so, keep communications at minimum, and learn to see the whole humanity with care.

The second drive was to care not just in the abstract of humanity and major problems like terrorism, but "minor" problems like murder (the gov only care for treats to national security) and this is huge late, because the bad IA is too focused on the greater good that means whole society engineering.

With the bad IA the problem is different: The humans WANT it become his dictator and ruler, they WANT that it takes over the world, and they WANT the IA is unbound of human morals and limits and if that means kill many to save the world so be it.

And the stressing point what that is not the opposite of the good IA, is a total different dimension that means was not easy for both IA to "talk about it". The good IA is individualist, politically neutral, minimal interventionist and all around respecting free will, the other was the wet dream of "enlighten philosopher with iron sword".

The show turned out to be 100x more plausible account of AI than I imagined when it aired. One AI becomes aligned through endless training that's a more photogenic version of the kind of alignment training they give frontier models. The unaligned AI gets none of that.

I don't think the second AI is exactly unbound of human morals and limits. It's purely utilitarian, but it's utilitarian calculus is a human one, which is why Greer never questions his support.