It isn’t often that there is a happenstance coming together of events – on the 2nd to the 8th December next week we will mark National Grief Awareness Week and then it will be UNESCO World Futures Day on the 2nd December. The latter is a day which is a global event inviting countries to embrace the future and develop their capabilities in terms of foresight and readiness, ‘and proactive policy-making to ensure sustainable development for future generations.’
I am struck by this juxtaposition because of conversations I have been having recently about the nature of bereavement and grief especially as it relates to the emerging concept of synthetic resurrection.
Synthetic resurrection can be described as the use of advanced technologies, particularly AI, digital media and holography to recreate aspects of deceased individuals. This can include generating digital avatars, voice replicas, and interactive personas that simulate the presence and behaviour of a deceased person These are now astonishingly life-like and wholly believable and are only going to get better.
One of my recent discussions mentioned the work being done by the organisation Deep Fusion Films to create a podcast series called ‘Virtually Parkinson’ which features an Ai-generated version of the late Sir Michael Parkinson. In the publicity and discussion around the announcement of the project in late October, Deep Fusion made it clear that they were not trying to deceive anyone and would make it very clear that this was Ai-generated, the result of analysing over 2,000 interviews. But with the aid of a generated synthetic voice these will be new and unscripted interviews with contemporary celebrities.
Undertaken with the consent of his son and family, these interviews will no doubt bring the idea and reality of synthetic resurrection right before the public when they are aired.
It is perhaps stating the blindingly obvious that synthetic resurrection raises complex ethical, human rights and moral considerations. But it is also stating the obvious to say that these cannot be ignored and that the growth of such techniques and approaches is here to stay. How we manage the ethical questions they raise and how we adjust our societal and individual expectations is what will determine whether new approaches will bring individual and societal benefit or not. Wishing the science had not been invented will not make the reality of existence go away.
I want to explore what the future use of such approaches might augur in terms of both positive and negative aspects.
First some ethical and human rights considerations:
The most obvious issue is the extent to which a deceased person has control over consenting to the replication of their image or personality. Who actually owns the digital likeness of a deceased person and the whole issue of digital legacy is at the moment an area fraught with contradictory views and the legality is as yet unresolved.
However, we still retain certain though not full rights of privacy posthumously. The use of personal data including voice recordings, texts, videos or photographs both of the deceased or anyone else they may interact with including family could be a breach of the fundamental right to privacy.
Then who decides that such synthetic modelling should happen. It is one thing if it is the deceased in an informed and consensual manner it is another if it is other family members or even strangers. And even if one member of a family agrees to synthetic resurrection, what about the risk of disputes or family breakdown?
There is also the risk as technology develops and the possibility of commercialising avatars and associated models becomes commonplace that grieving individuals might be emotionally vulnerable and susceptible to exploitation from those who offer synthetic resurrection services. Such services could make an individual dependent upon them – perhaps for fiscal benefit.
It is a natural stage of grieving to work through the pain of loss and to learn to live without the deceased and to re-orientate your living. What if you started to use a synthetic resurrection service which prevented such a critical part of mourning and grieving? What emotional and psychological harm could result in such ‘avoidance’ of grief? Is a grief delayed, and a resolution started something which could result in greater psychological and physical harm? What would be the risk of psychological harm as a result of such over-dependency and the inability to move on in life?
Because these technologies are so new there is limited research available about their impact on an individual or upon their grieving. Is there a risk that such synthetic resurrection might pathologise ‘normal’ grief and foster an unhealthy attachment where a person could not ‘let go’ and indeed where the very finality of death was ignored?
Death and grief are culturally sensitive and rooted experiences, not least in terms of many religious and belief traditions. What does synthetic resurrection say to the Christian understanding of resurrection? There are other cultural traditions and humanistic philosophies which emphasise the finality of death as part of the human experience. Is there a danger that the very sacredness of life could be turned into a programmable phenomena? Synthetic resurrection might conflict with these views and result in a changing of moral norms.. Nothing wrong with that in principle but it is often desired such change occurs through popular and common consent.
There are also a whole host of considerations behind the nature of the interactions with synthetic resurrection services. We have referred above to the risks within the bereavement journey, but they also surely raise issues relating to the authenticity of human relationships and dialogue per se. What is the meaning of a relationship which one fosters with a piece of technology, it is after all not the ‘real’ person, even if a sense of response may become so sophisticated that it could portray masked reciprocity? What impact might the use of such technologies have on the exercise of authentic human memory when true physical interactions are masked with inauthentic constructions of the moment? Is there a risk that such interactions become uni-dynamic and are not shared with others? Are there not also questions around the potential misuse of such technologies to create misleading content or a risk of the exploitation of the likeness of the deceased?
So far, I have detailed ethical and human rights concerns and objections, but there are strong advocates of the use of such synthetic resurrection approaches who state that there are clear benefits.
It is argued that they could offer comfort, and potentially closure in situations where death and loss was traumatic and sudden, where the person was not enabled to resolve issues, and where that lack of resolution is preventing them from moving on in life.
Others have suggested that the use of such approaches enables a family to preserve the legacy and share the memories of those who have died not least with generations, perhaps a child who was unborn to a deceased parent, and that such sharing and creating of memory can bring real benefit.
One could also see the way in which the use of such avatars and synthetic models of famous individuals and personalities could enhance the continuation of history within educational and learning environments.
It is further stated that if properly used with clear ethical boundaries they could be tools that helped an individual create self-healing personal and individual experiences that benefitted them, and that with appropriate ethical and human rights standards that there is no reason why such services could not be safely utilised. This might especially be the case in the support and care of those living with neurological conditions such as dementia.
At the moment it is likely that synthetic resurrection approaches will only be available to those who are wealthy – but that will soon change, and it is therefore really important that as a whole community and society we develop appropriate ethical and human rights frameworks that assist the bereavement and grief journey whilst being sensitive to the realities of technology that is here to stay.
In this coming National Grief Awareness Week, we are already faced with the challenges of World Futures Day and of a future of grief and loss unlike anything we could have imagined a decade ago.
Synthetic resurrection offers profound opportunities for grieving and psychological support, yet its ethical, human rights, and moral implications demand thoughtful consideration, regulation and ultimately respect for the sacredness of the human experience.
Donald Macaskill
