Noin 2013, in the episode of Black Mirror Come back to methe meeting between a girl and her dead boyfriend’s bot (later robot). in a road accident it seemed quite futuristic. In short, science fiction. Today the creation of realistic replicas of our deceased is a reality, thanks to the sophistication of the generative language models we have at our disposal. And not only is it real but it is already a business, for example in China.
Talk (really) with the dead, so artificial intelligence will change mourning
See the entries “digital resurrection” (digital resurrection) or griefbot“mourning bot”. In the artificial intelligence center Super Brain from Taizhou hyper-realistic digital avatars of the dearly departed are born every day (you spend from 10 to 20,000 yuan, between 1,400 and 2,800 dollars). They range from audio and video clips to interactive chatbots, customized to detail.
Pioneering, in this sense, is the experience of Eugenia Kuydaa Russian startupper who, already in 2016, he virtually revived his dead friend thanks to an app, Reply AI. It is a bot capable of “absorbing” the personality of its interlocutor: she fed it all the conversations she had had with the boy, obtaining a virtual clone.
In 2020 it then went viral I met youthe video of a mother re-encountering her 7-year-old daughter, who had died three years earlier. With there motion capture were registered i movements of a child actor then used to animate the “virtual Nayeon”.
From artificial intelligence a comfort to face death and loss
Artificial intelligence seems to be able to give, once a certain amount of estrangement has been overcome, a good dose of comfort, at least momentary. But there are many perplexities it raises – on ethical, philosophical and legal fronts, as this explains article about Conversation.
Chief among the philosophical implications of digital resurrection is that it calls into question what “being” truly means. By recreating the voice or likeness of someone who has died, we might believe that we are somehow prolonging its existence. While, of course, the essence of a human being is more than a set of programmed responses or an image on a screen. And it seems unlikely at least at the moment that a digital simulation can capture the depth and uniqueness of a person’s experiences, emotions and thoughts.
The dead person’s avatar alters memories
Digital resurrection is an attempt to preserve memory, to maintain the presence of those we have lost. But human memory is not static: it selects, changes, moves and adapts. By digitally recreating a person, we run the risk of altering our authentic memories of her or him. Is it ethical to preserve an artificial representation of someone, rather than letting their memory evolve and transform over time?
A person’s identity is a complex web of experiences and relationships. When we try to recreate someone, we may think we are trying to capture their identity. However, we are more likely to create an idealized version of it that conforms to our expectations and desires.
The grieving process is essential to overcoming the loss
These technological advances also raise questions about the meaning of the grieving process, which is essential to dealing with loss. By trying to maintain a connection with the deceased through digital resurrection, we interfere with this life process, and this may prevent us from moving forward and finding peace in accepting death.
Ultimately, digital resurrection also opens a serious debate on the topic of consent and ownership. Who has the right to decide whether a person should be digitally recreated? And how can we manage the consent of those who, for obvious reasons, can no longer express their will?
Even death becomes business
We must remember that technology is a business, and the prospect of companies profiting by meddling with something as deeply human and intimate as the loss of a loved one raises further philosophical, ethical, and moral questions.
From an ethical point of view, this type of activity seems to transgress the fundamental principles of respect and dignity that should guide our human interactions. Grieving is an intimate and sacred process, a path to acceptance and inner peace after a significant loss. Commercial intrusion into this process could therefore be seen as a form of emotional exploitation, taking advantage of people at one of the times when they are most vulnerable.
Particularly fragile people could – but perhaps the risk applies to everyone – confuse what is real and what is not: the danger is alienation.
iO Donna © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED