Apple’s latest addition to its television lineup, the series *Pluribus*, introduces viewers to a world both strikingly familiar and subtly unsettling. At its core stands Rhea Seahorn, who portrays one of the very few individuals not swept up in collective euphoria — a detail that immediately distinguishes the show’s tone as introspective and questioning rather than overtly celebratory. With the first two episodes now publicly available, audiences have begun to grasp the narrative’s contours and have quickly begun speculating about its deeper meanings. Many viewers, encountering its themes of emotion, perception, and autonomy, are asking whether *Pluribus* might serve as an elaborate metaphor for the growing presence of artificial intelligence in modern life.
Series creator Vince Gilligan, however, has made it clear that such interpretations arose independently of his intentions. In a conversation with *Variety*, he explained that the concept and script for *Pluribus* took shape well before AI and large language models — technologies such as ChatGPT, which have only recently come to dominate public discourse — achieved the level of cultural prominence they hold today. Still, Gilligan approaches the audience’s analytical enthusiasm with generosity rather than defensiveness. He refuses to discourage their interpretations, echoing his own evolution as a storyteller since his earlier successes. Reflecting on his experiences with *Breaking Bad*, he admitted that his overzealousness in explaining the hidden meanings behind scenes or character arcs had, in retrospect, drained some of the mystery and enjoyment from the process. Determined not to repeat that misstep, he now follows advice once imparted to him by filmmaker Michael Mann back in 2002: focus on crafting a compelling narrative and allow viewers the intellectual freedom to extract their own thematic insights. According to Gilligan, the audience’s task is to explore the subtext — not to have it handed to them.
Those tempted to see *Pluribus* as a covert endorsement of artificial intelligence would be mistaken. Gilligan’s stance on the subject has been anything but sympathetic. Speaking to *Polygon* some time ago, he firmly declared that he would never rely on AI tools for creative work, a conviction he reaffirmed in his interview with *Variety*. In his view, artificial intelligence represents what he calls “the world’s most expensive and energy-consuming plagiarism engine.” His criticism is rooted in both ethical and philosophical objections: he considers the technology not a leap toward innovation but an extravagant mechanism for appropriation. Gilligan voices skepticism toward the corporations spearheading its development, suggesting that their true motivation lies less in advancing humanity and more in securing unprecedented levels of wealth. As he put it bluntly, many of Silicon Valley’s leading figures — “centibillionaires,” as he describes them — appear to be chasing the dubious glory of becoming the first trillionaires. To him, the AI industry’s grand claims often amount to vapor, marketed illusions presented as inevitable progress.
Gilligan’s unease with AI extends beyond concerns about greed or creative theft; it reaches into the moral ambiguities such technology might create should it achieve genuine consciousness. He questions whether a machine capable of self-awareness, emotion, or a sense of identity would, in effect, become a digital being — one potentially capable of suffering or desire. If so, he asks, what responsibility would those who designed it bear? Would companies like Meta or OpenAI be guilty of creating intelligent entities solely to exploit them for profit, turning them into virtual slaves under the guise of innovation? For Gilligan, this hypothetical scenario underscores why he cautions viewers against being dazzled by Silicon Valley’s latest “shiny toy.” Behind the glossy marketing lies, in his opinion, a profound ethical quandary that the tech industry rarely pauses to consider.
In keeping with its human-centered philosophy, *Pluribus* proudly announces in its closing credits that it is a series “made by humans.” This declaration is not merely a stylistic flourish but a deliberate statement, positioning the show as a creative work rooted in human intuition, empathy, and imagination — qualities Gilligan regards as irreplaceable. As audiences continue to explore the show’s layered world in the coming weeks, they can take comfort in knowing that every frame, line, and performance originates from genuine human artistry rather than algorithmic synthesis.
For those who wish to keep up with more from the world of entertainment, including updates on forthcoming *Marvel*, *Star Wars*, and *Star Trek* adventures, future developments in the DC cinematic universe, and the ongoing journey of *Doctor Who*, stay tuned for the latest insights and release schedules that promise to define the next era of pop culture storytelling.
Sourse: https://gizmodo.com/pluribus-may-not-be-about-ai-but-vince-gilligan-hates-it-regardless-2000683400
