I started out liking "Picard" very much, but I have become increasingly underwhelmed with it's main stor arc. Mostly because - like most mainstream (action-focused) media about A.I. - it's doing the very beginner-mistake of not differentiating between it's different types of A.I. Somehow, it's always a humanoid A.I. going rogue, and always in the "destroy all humans"-kind of way, mostly as a type of pre-destination paradox, where the robots have to counter the humans destroying the robots "out of fear" in the first place. Star Trek had throughout it's history it's fair share of evil computers taking over - hell, that happened in like every 3rd TOS episode. But I think this series makes two major mistakes: It tries to be all high-stakes it treats all A.I. the same and doesn't go into the details I liked it in classic Trek, when the "A.I. gone mad" was clearly motivated by the type of A.I. in the first place - the M5 computer took it's battle situation too seriously, the exocomps were super intelligent tools, the Ent-D's computer put too much effort into Dr. Moriaty to be a worthwhile foe for Data, the civilisations in "A taste of Armageddon", "The Apple", "For the world is hollow and I have touched the sky" all had good reassons to implement a A.I. controlled society in the first place, before it all went wrong. The robocalypse in PIC feels very much like every other machine uprising in any other SF B-movie. But even within it's own logic, it's (at least to me) quite unclear about which type of A.I. it's actually talking about the whole time, because it muddies them all up: Why are "synths" - sentient beings - used for slave labour work on Mars? Why are holograms - clearly capable of A.I. as well (see: the Doctor) - not treated like synths as well? What's the differentiation between "synths" and super-computers like holodecks or ship's main computers?