Communication with deceased using AI: New reality or harmful fiction
Is it worth communicating with the deceased using AI (Illustrative photo: freepik.com)
Recently, several people attempted to use AI to communicate with deceased relatives. The artificial intelligence reproduced the voices of the deceased, generated from real audio recordings. This sparked widespread discussion in both public and professional spheres, as such recreations not only imitated the voices of those who had passed away but also triggered intense emotional reactions.
Should AI be used to communicate with deceased relatives, and how might it cause harm?
Digital resurrection
The phenomenon that allows people to communicate with deceased relatives using AI has already been dubbed digital resurrection. It involves the use of artificial intelligence technologies to recreate certain aspects of deceased individuals, such as their voice or appearance. While this may offer temporary relief from pain, it also raises profound ethical, philosophical, and legal debates.
According to scientists, recreating the appearance or voice of a loved one who has passed away may lead us to believe that somehow we are continuing their existence, or we may create a hollow version of them, devoid of true meaning.
The essence of a person is undoubtedly something more than a set of programmed responses or an image on a screen, and it seems unlikely that a digital simulation can fully capture the depth and uniqueness of a person's life experiences, emotions, and thoughts.
Memory plays a crucial role here. Digital resurrection can be seen as an attempt to preserve memory, to maintain the presence of those we have lost.
Creating new memories
However, human memory is not static - it selects, alters, shifts, and adapts. By recreating someone digitally, we risk altering our own authentic memories of that person.
In fact, according to scientists, we risk creating false memories. These would be linked to the deceased, but in reality, they would be fabricated.
A person's identity is a complex web of experiences and relationships. When we attempt to recreate someone, we try to capture that identity. However, what we will create is more likely an idealized version, one that aligns with our own expectations and desires.
Death is a natural part of life, and mourning is essential to come to terms with that loss. By trying to maintain a connection with the deceased through technology, we interfere with this vital process. This could hinder our ability to move forward and find peace in accepting the loss.
Ultimately, digital resurrection raises further questions in the legal realm - who has the right to decide whether a deceased person should be digitally recreated? Who grants permission for this? How can consent be obtained from someone who can no longer express their wishes?
Grief as a means of making profit
Technology is always tied to business, and the prospect of companies profiting by intervening in something as deeply human and painful as the loss of a loved one raises additional philosophical, ethical, and moral questions.
From an ethical standpoint, such a business violates fundamental principles of respect and dignity that should govern our human interactions. Grief is an intimate and sacred process, a path to acceptance and inner peace following a significant loss.
Therefore, commercial interference in this process can be seen as a form of emotional exploitation, taking advantage of people at one of the most vulnerable moments of their lives. Such a business could distort the grieving process.
Moreover, scientists believe that at the core of digital resurrection lies a deep and troubling paradox. In its attempt to bring us closer to those we've lost, technology confronts us with the inevitable reality of their absence, forcing us to question not only the nature of existence but also the essence of what it means to be human.
We also talked about the 10 technologies that are significantly impacting our lives today.
