Thinkin' About A.I.

There are a lot of movies with artificially intelligent machines. Most of them have a human based anatomy. Whether it's in their head or chest they all have brains in their bodies. I was thinking, a robot, even an android does not necessarily need its' main computing unit (brain) in its' body. It must be the human look that makes us default to that the brain should be in the body.
I don't know of any theory like the following but, I think it would be better if the brain was separate from the body. I don't mean like super computer that is the leader of lesser computers. More like a hive mined.
My theory is that the robots would be programed to do basic functions that do not require intelligence. So, they would have instincts. The robots would also need superior networking capabilities. The idea is to have multiple robots constantly communicating with a artificially intelligent super computer (their brain). Having one brain for multiple machines would be cheaper, have easy maintenance, and have more information. The fall back would be the massive amounts of choices it would have to make at any given time. Coupled with the brain having to remember mass amounts of info. Over all I think it's better because, it seems this would be a cheaper choice. Building one mega-super computer would be cheaper then building thousands of super computers.
It's the same idea as random access memory(RAM) in your computer now. The CPU has caches of memory that is high quality. If all RAM was as fast as the CPUs' RAM it would be unfordable. So, cheaper but still efficient ram is made to do the bulk of the work, still keeping enough of the costly ram for fast processing.
If any one knows of a theory like this one, scientific or sci-fi, please let me know in the comments. I Robot, Terminator, and The Matrix are close to this idea. I don't think they count because, they still are missing the one brain aspect of this idea. I haven't seen Ghost In The Shell but from what I've heard it might be close.

Why you Missed the Point

Why you Missed the Point if you Dismissed Speed Racer as Childish.


Note: This is an observation not a review of the movie. There are some parts that some may consider spoilers.


Admittedly I was sceptical about watching Speed Racer. Would it be like so many cliche kids' films? Irrelevant to my interests, gapping plot holes, uninspiring dialogue and corny action. The Wachowski brothers seem to have taken these cliches that are set in our heads and they play with them.
It's too easy to just say the Wachowski's are poor filmmakers, that they didn't realize that they were making a corny film. Maybe you might say they were lax because of Speed Racer, being a kids film. I have another idea.
I think that they wanted to tell a story about how past effects the present. More specifically how you shouldn't dismiss childhood beliefs and fantasies as irrelevant, because they matter and they make who you are today. After all, they're making a remake of an old intellectual property.
The first race, Speed (Emile Hirsch) is racing to beat the track record his deceased brother Rex (Scott Porter) set. Speed chooses to not beat Rex's best time, when he clearly could of. Speed is effected by the past, his childhood. As he battles to not become corrupt from a racing world controlled by greed, the movie unfolds and we realize all Speeds' choices are related to his childhood. For example, when young Speed is in class near the beginning of the movie. Speed imagines he is racing a cartoon car. This image is very childish and most see it as a kid with a big imagination. Later near the films climax we realize that what looked like a kid in dreamland has become a realization of a life goal, he is doing the same thing, on a bigger scale. Throughout the film Speed is asking himself, why does he race. His family helps guide him to the realization that he races because, thats what he has always loved as a kid. Its kind of like a fate thing.
It's actually very meta how I came to notice the films moral. One of my friends stopped paying attention near the beginning of the movie because it was ,in less words, childish. I think the film turned out to be good. So, ironically he failed to see the moral, Don't dismiss something because it looks or seems childish, because your childhood is very important to who you are or at least, who you could be.