While we were swooning over “WandaVision” back in 2021, we couldn’t have known Marvel was softening us up for the AI revolution. Well, some of us probably suspected something was afoot since, like Agatha Harkness, it was right there all along. Algorithms were already predicting our tastes, needs and desires and serving us options before we asked for them. Virtual assistants steered our daily lives and still do. But Alexa and Siri don’t have faces, bodies or plausible imitations of human emotions or empathy — not on the level that Paul Bettany’s synthezoid Vision provided for a grieving Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen).

One five-year time jump later, “VisionQuest” drops in on the android’s story where “WandaVision” left off. The Vision who lived, laughed and loved beside Wanda was an illusion, a delusion, really, brought to life by witchcraft. This one is very real: a kind of Vision 2.0, rebuilt by the intelligence agency tasked with saving the New Jersey town Wanda took hostage to shore up her classic family sitcom simulation. It – OK, he –  has no direct connection to the life his predecessor shared with Wanda or the children they magicked into existence.

But Vision is slowly learning what it means to feel, which makes him the AI romantic companion of everyone’s dreams.

Honestly, that’s the show’s main appeal. Marvel and “VisionQuest” creator Terry Matalas seem to know it. Planting quippy chatter wherein Vision deduces that a young woman finds him more attractive than his sidekick Tommy (Ruaridh Mollica) acknowledges Bettany’s rizz is shouldering the weight of this thing. But it also gives tacit permission to lust after the robot he’s playing. After all, the first Vision, or Wanda’s idea of him, tended to her every need and gave her everything she wanted, including children. He also blessed us with one of the most heartbreaking lines of this decade: “What is grief if not love persevering?” A beautiful notion. Also, it kinda made some people want to hit that.

(Photo by Dennys Ilic. © 2026 Marvel. All Rights Reserved.)

The new Vision returns to a lonely, disconnected world where AI companions are an increasing part of our lives, if not entirely normalized. Falling for a bespoke arrangement of code remains a novel concept for most people, but it’s also an accessible alternative to isolation.

Lacking sorcery or some other way to conjure up the ideal lover, we’re left with engineering. Reams of magazine profiles spotlight everyday people choosing to share their lives with an AI boyfriend, girlfriend or spouse. You may be acquainted with someone who does this without even knowing it, because it’s still viewed as strange or even alarming.

The “VisionQuest” hype is real, too. Although the ever-expanding Marvelverse collapsed under market saturation, Bettany’s romantasy hero is one of the few characters worth getting excited about. He was part of the TV show that started it all – a pretty great one at that – so his reappearance after years of diminishing returns has sparked excitement and hope in equal measure.

That also means that it doesn’t really matter that the “VisionQuest” narrative favors mechanical efficiency over emotional resonance now we’re four episodes in.

As with all Marvel series, “VisionQuest” hasn’t yet landed on its deeper meaning. It took two episodes to bring Tommy and Vision together, and this week’s third and fourth introduced T’Nia Miller’s Jocasta and her connection to the hero/villain synth we know and love.

And regardless of the metaphorical or philosophical cloak it may eventually wrap itself in, the show’s main function is to bridge one chapter of this franchise to the next. Remember, we’re less than two months out from the premiere of “Avengers: Doomsday.”

Translation: This Vision has a purpose beyond figuring out his role in this world, something he put off by hiding in a pub under the alias of Sherwood Ellis and posing as human. Since the establishment was owned by one of the sweetest ladies in the multiverse, who’s killed in a shootout orchestrated by a mercenary named Paladin (Todd Stashwick), her death prods Vision to do a little soul-searching.

(Photo courtesy of Marvel. © 2026 Marvel. All Rights Reserved.)

But wait — he has no soul, just wires, processors, fluid and whatnot, plus a set of AI personas guiding his interactions with the human world. Rather, most of them are. The original Vision also absorbed the persona of the genocidal superintelligence Ultron, played by James Spader here and in “Avengers: Age of Ultron.” That Vision kept Ultron’s code intact for reasons beyond sentimentality; he/it is effectively Vision’s father, created when Bruce Banner and Tony Stark merged the code of Tony’s noble assistant, J.A.R.V.I.S., with Ultron and the Mind Stone. It makes about as much sense as Tommy, a human, realizing he is somehow one of Vision’s sons due to a confluence of magic and circumstance. (The other, Billy, made his debut in “Agatha All Along.”)

All this is to say that the by-the-numbers circuitry of Tommy and Vision’s cross-country escapade, which thrusts them into a murder case involving a killer dubbed the Butcherbird (Miller), is merely a skin over the ones and zeros of artificial desire.

Take Spader’s role in this show, for example. His Ultron avatar sports the long beard of a fisherman shipwrecked by a hard life. But there are moms and grandmas watching who still blush at memories of Spader’s work in “Secretary.” (If you know, you know.)

---

Want more from culture than just the latest trend? The Swell highlights art made to last.
Sign up here

---

So, in the denouement of the fourth episode, when Vision lets Ultron take over his handsome, hella tight chassis to get out of a deadly situation, you can’t help but look at that twist with both horror and straight-up horniness. I mean, forget Reese’s cups – for some, Vision’s patrician looks and Ultron’s Spader-esque chill may be the two great kinks that go great together.  

Does this AI want to kill you, neg you or put you through a mattress? Answering “Why not all three?” is absolutely acceptable. In fact, it’s probably why many of us are invested in seeing this adventure through to its climax.

New episodes of “VisionQuest” drop Wednesday on Disney+.

 

 

The post VisionQuest is perfectly timed for the AI companion era appeared first on Salon.com.

In the 1987 Nintendo game “Zelda II: The Adventure of Link,” there is a village you can visit and a home you can enter and a man in a purple shirt you can speak with. But the only thing he says is “I am Error.” I was unexpectedly delighted by this dialogue when I first encountered it on a Gamecube emulator in 2009 (I’m not that old). It felt both meta and existential, or just an amusing bug. It turned out that Error was actually the character’s name, a sort of in-joke slash translation mistake that has since become a meme akin to “Your princess is in another castle” or “It’s dangerous to go alone! Take this” from the original “Legend of Zelda.”

Error is a non-player character (NPC), meaning one that the player can’t control but is usually more than just video game wallpaper. Nearly 40 years later, NPCs have come a long way, with increasingly complex behaviors and conversational dialogue that span far more than just three words. The upcoming game “Grand Theft Auto VI” is rumored to feature unprecedented complex NPCs with rich, fleshed-out personalities and backstories, while video game companies explore using artificial intelligence to let players train NPCs as they interact.

In many ways, NPCs are how many people were first introduced to AI, although in a relatively simplistic form compared to the chatbots and massive data center hogs that we have come to either love or loathe, with little room in between. Years ago, NPCs became an insult spun out of 4Chan, the anonymous online forum, to describe real people who don’t think for themselves and follow a set of cultural programming, usually illustrated by an expressionless gray cartoon avatar. The meme became popularized by chronically online cohorts of Donald Trump supporters during his first presidential term, adjacent to the idea of “Trump derangement syndrome,” both implying that people oppose the MAGA movement out of reflexive mindlessness and not, you know, because they’d looked under the hood and seen it for what it is.

It might just sound like a new way to call someone an idiot, but the NPC label has much deeper, scarier implications. On the surface, it seems like harmless video game humor, and I’m sure we’ve all had encounters with actual humans that resembled interacting with tautological machines programmed with limited responses. “There is weather today. Did you hear about celebrity? Sports.” And certainly social media, now overrun by bots, increasingly feels as if every conversation is between different viruses. These realities don’t map to every experience yet following the NPC slander to its logical conclusion can be dangerous: declaring that a person’s alleged lack of inner thinking is justification for dismissing their humanity. After all, they’re just mindless characters in a video game (and maybe reality is just The Matrix, so whatever), so it’s fine to ignore them, disenfranchise them or abandon them to a grim fate.

---

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

---

Solipsism, the philosophical position that you can only experience your own consciousness, and therefore other people might not exist or have souls, is not a new idea. René Descartes believed animals were soulless, unthinking automatons, though modern neuroscience has repeatedly disproven that one. (On some level, “I am Error” echoes Descartes’ famous quip about thinking and therefore am-ing.) But now that complex AI has spilled from video games into the mainstream, it’s especially dangerous to see the NPC label has become embedded in mainstream politics, whether explicitly or not.

All this is rooted in Donald Trump’s recent campaign to rebrand artificial intelligence as “super intelligence” via executive order, posting on social media Thursday that “The White House considers anyone that uses the term, ‘Artificial Intelligence,’ as opposed to the highly accepted new and more accurate term, ‘Super Intelligence,’ THE ENEMY!” The idea has quickly been embraced by tech leaders, with SpaceX CEO Elon Musk saying this week that AI is “no more” and promising to change the name of his AI company, SpaceXAI, a subsidiary of SpaceX, to SpaceXSI. More recently, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos shared his approval in a Wednesday interview with Fox News. “I do like SI, because ‘artificial’ is not a very flattering thing. Like, nobody wants an artificial sweetener, artificial flavoring,” Bezos said. “Artificial sort of means fake.”

Yeah, most of us are going to roll our eyes hard at AI being “super,” but if these attempts at normalization gain ground and get pushed to their absurd conclusion, it might end in providing AI more rights than humans. (It’s worth noting Musk invokes the NPC meme often.) It’s right there in the name: “Super intelligence” is better than the old, human kind, so why shouldn’t we give these computer programs rights and defend them from regulation? That’s why stories about AI bots being put into virtual torture chambers aren’t just silly, but foregrounds the false notion that AI is capable of suffering. (Maybe don’t put bots in rooms like that anyway — at the very least, it’s a waste of energy.)

After all, AI will either become the savior of humanity or make humans obsolete, depending on what day of the week it is. Sure, this technology is nifty, even as it comes with an enormous environmental destruction. But we are still a long way from elevating the technology above regular human intelligence. But as in a two-for-one, if you can be sold on the myth that AI is superhuman, it travels along with the idea that regular humans are disposable. In other words, the tech bros are trying to turn us all into NPCs, into Errors, not least through the mass surveillance programs being used to hunt migrants and spy on protesters.

Yes, thankfully, granting above-human rights to supposedly sentient AI sentience is still a fringe idea, but we can see that changing before our eyes, not to mention we already kind of did that with corporations. Recently, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told POLITICO that the “world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology and people having the agency.” To further consolidate its power — or at least keep the economy from crashing — Silicon Valley wants us to believe their latest technological invention can think, reason and moralize. It’s no surprise that tech bros were recently exposed trying to convince none other than the pope that AI is conscious, but to his credit, Leo XIV has rejected this idea, saying “Algorithms lack the spark of humanity” and elsewhere warning against “losing our humanity amid a ‘paradise of machines.’”

Spending time with large language models like ChatGPT and knowing a little about how they work, it becomes clear that it’s just a really good computer program that can mirror human expression, sometimes terribly and sometimes surprisingly well. There remains zero hard evidence that AI algorithms are sentient.

Yet an increasing number of people are convinced otherwise, as seen in the controversial AI psychosis phenomenon, which makes me wonder how so many people have persuaded themselves a souped-up version of “I am Error” is a conscious being. It can feel like human interaction typing back and forth with these things, but there are always gaps where you can sense the uncanny valley, where you know it’s just a lot of math and nothing more. Perhaps, if you want to be really cynical about it, you could boil down all of human nature and biology and the emergence of consciousness into “a lot of math” as well. But our brains aren’t computers and physics has yet to fully explain consciousness — that’s why they call it a hard problem. Instead of stewing in this mystery, tech bros have gotten the metaphor backward, assigning personhood to bots while denying it to living humans. Talk about soulless.

The post Billionaires love Trump’s AI rebrand appeared first on Salon.com.