Due to recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI), it’s now possible to digitally “revive” dead people and interact with them.
These “resurrections” are sometimes voluntary and planned, but other times, they happen without the consent of families or loved ones. Humans have always fantasized about living forever. But what are we to make of this new way of “artificially” prolonging our existence? Is it desirable? What are the main ethical issues raised by the emergence of “griefbots” or “deadbots?”
As an associate professor at the School of Public Health (ESPUM) at the Université de Montréal, I am an ethicist and researcher who specializes in governance, ethics, law, AI and responsible research conduct.
I lead a research project called Artificial Immortality: Ethical, legal and artistic perspectives. As part of this project, I’ve published an article with two students on the ethical considerations of artificial immortality.
Fragile boundaries
Posthumous digital avatars are created from the digital traces left behind by dead people during their lifetime. Social media posts, photos, audio and video recordings are all traces that can be used to feed these avatars. Built through a combination of AI, machine learning and advanced data analysis, these avatars can recreate the physical and psychological likeness, personality and even memories of the deceased.
The result is that users may be left in doubt about whether or not this is the “real” person. This technology is taking root in a world where virtual life has become well established. So interactions with a digital avatar, whether posthumous or not, are becoming almost commonplace. But the advent of posthumous avatars raises significant ethical issues.
Read more:
Près de 80 % des travailleurs canadiens utilisent l’IA sans cadre institutionnel
Autonomy, data protection and privacy
Amid these concerns, particular attention must be paid to respect for autonomy and data privacy, the reshaping of interpersonal and social relationships, and the disruption of human limits. These give rise to a new awareness of vulnerability and ways to transcend it. The creation of posthumous digital avatars has an impact on the autonomy of three categories of people:
-
Those who leave digital traces in the public domain, particularly on social media. These are people who are anticipating their death or who have died, and whose digital traces are voluntarily or involuntarily made available to third parties like relatives, employers, etc.
-
Those who receive the digital traces of others upon their death. These are family members, loved ones or businesses. One of the questions concerning their autonomy regards control over the avatar of a loved one. For example, can people who receive the digital traces of others then refuse to create a posthumous digital avatar or a virtual memorial site?
-
Those who interact with “avatarization” services. These are the people who use or consume the services and products promoted within the virtual afterlife industry. They interact with posthumous digital avatars for a variety of reasons, ranging from curiosity to coping with particularly painful grief. There are concerns these people might develop unhealthy dependencies on these services and products, even as the industry remains unstable and poses the risk of abruptly altering or discontinuing service offerings.
All these people are at risk of losing control over the perpetuated identity of the deceased person, given the multitude of virtual representations.
Public and pathological grief
Furthermore, when an avatar is accessible to a large number of people, grief becomes public. In other words, it can be experienced both intimately and collectively. This new phenomenon alters our relationship with death and grief and redefines the place of the deceased in our lives.
The story of the young Jang Nayeon, who died in 2016 and became the subject of the documentary Meeting You, expresses the unease public mourning can cause. Devastated by her daughter’s untimely death, her mother agreed to the creation of a posthumous digital avatar so that she could see her again and interact with her in virtual reality.
The reunion, streamed live on several web platforms, provoked discomfort among the audience. This is a particularly striking example of the hypervisibility of grief.
On the positive side, posthumous digital avatars can be used under the supervision of a therapist as part of clinical support. It should be noted, however, that only a minority of current uses take place under the supervision of specialists.
Consequently, many people use this technology on their own and are more vulnerable to addiction or seek to escape the reality of grief. They are at risk of falling into so-called pathological grief. This is complicated or prolonged grief, characterized by its duration and intensity (an inability, after more than a year, to cope with emotional distress, to resume daily activities or to find meaning in life).
Overexposure and silent voyeurism
Virtual spaces where traces of the deceased are preserved, such as Facebook, are sometimes accessed by passive individuals. These are observers who do not necessarily seek to interact, but who are participating in a phenomenon of silent voyeurism.
This passivity is not necessarily malicious, but it becomes part of a dynamic of continuous surveillance and observation that can lead to overexposure and voyeurism. The ethical issue concerns the fact that people’s privacy can become the object of consumption for others, whether out of curiosity, fascination or even planning for the subsequent misuse of data.
(Unsplash)
The exploitation of data can result in the perpetual visibility of data generated by the deceased on the web, particularly through posthumous digital avatars that interact with families and loved ones. These serve to maintain the illusion of a presence after death.
This illusion reshapes how we relate to death, allowing a loved one to seem artificially present in our lives. More profoundly, it calls into question the limits of human mortality. Namely, beyond biological life, there is now the promise of an artificially eternal life. But is this desirable?
Understanding the main risks and ethical issues raised by artificial immortality is a crucial step in considering how these avatars should be used. We need to keep reflecting on the merits of the rise of these avatars in order to preserve human dignity — whether posthumous or not — and to prevent abuses in a world undergoing profound transformation.
I would like to thank Josianne Barrette-Moran, a PhD candidate in bioethics at the School of Public Health at the University of Montréal, for her technical assistance in producing this article.
