why would an AI "love"? These are human emotions, and the idea of projecting them onto something that cannot physically experience the effects of neurochemicals is silly.

I think that's kind of a central theme of both movies, and sort of the reason the relationships didn't work in any representative manner. You'd probably find both directors and writers agreeing with you.

As to your last paragraph, it's supposed to be about whatever the director wants it to be about. You could disagree with how they went about it or their thesis or themactic elements, but to say that " this isn't how this should go " isn't really a criticism, and not a good way to approach art.

The parts relating to feminism weren't inappropriate at all. I think they were a reflection of the idea that technology can only change us so much, and that our inner beliefs and biases ring out, even if we try to create a more "ideal" (or whatever) life form. The relationship the inventor had to his AI was encapsulated in his choice to make it feminine (with accompanying simulated sex organs, apparently). Its not about "woman empowerment" persay, but both of these films do touch on ways in which we alter a life form we can't begin to empathize with in the same fashion we do our fellow humans into a form more recognizable, and how it breaks from the conceptions we have about these identities. Its more so a lens to look through, instead it attempting to be the most "factually correct".

Even assuming you could show AI in a film as being more "correct" is kinda farcicle in and of itself. Inner dialogue has always been a quarrelsome concept in artistic expression, but to then assume the underlying motives of a separate life form that doesn't even exist is a rigorous excerise in anthropomorphization itself. I think both of these films kind of come to that conclusion and deal with perception and identity, but Her does it waaaaaay better.