AI ‘reanimations': Making facsimiles of the dead raises ethical quandaries
By Nir Eisikovits and Daniel J Feldman
Christopher Pelkey was shot and killed in a road range incident in 2021. On May 8, at the sentencing hearing for his killer, an AI video reconstruction of Pelkey delivered a victim impact statement. The trial judge reported being deeply moved by this performance and issued the maximum sentence for manslaughter.
As part of the ceremonies to mark Israel's 77th year of independence on April 30, 2025, officials had planned to host a concert featuring four iconic Israeli singers. All four had died years earlier. The plan was to conjure them using AI-generated sound and video. The dead performers were supposed to sing alongside Yardena Arazi, a famous and still very much alive artist. In the end Arazi pulled out, citing the political atmosphere, and the event didn't happen.
In April, the BBC created a deep-fake version of the famous mystery writer Agatha Christie to teach a 'maestro course on writing.' Fake Agatha would instruct aspiring murder mystery authors and 'inspire' their 'writing journey.'
The use of artificial intelligence to 'reanimate' the dead for a variety of purposes is quickly gaining traction. Over the past few years, we've been studying the moral implications of AI at the Center for Applied Ethics at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and we find these AI reanimations to be morally problematic.
Before we address the moral challenges the technology raises, it's important to distinguish AI reanimations, or deepfakes, from so-called griefbots. Griefbots are chatbots trained on large swaths of data the dead leave behind – social media posts, texts, emails, videos. These chatbots mimic how the departed used to communicate and are meant to make life easier for surviving relations. The deepfakes we are discussing here have other aims; they are meant to promote legal, political and educational causes.
Moral quandaries
The first moral quandary the technology raises has to do with consent: Would the deceased have agreed to do what their likeness is doing? Would the dead Israeli singers have wanted to sing at an Independence ceremony organized by the nation's current government? Would Pelkey, the road-rage victim, be comfortable with the script his family wrote for his avatar to recite? What would Christie think about her AI double teaching that class?
The answers to these questions can only be deduced circumstantially – from examining the kinds of things the dead did and the views they expressed when alive. And one could ask if the answers even matter. If those in charge of the estates agree to the reanimations, isn't the question settled? After all, such trustees are the legal representatives of the departed.
But putting aside the question of consent, a more fundamental question remains.
What do these reanimations do to the legacy and reputation of the dead? Doesn't their reputation depend, to some extent, on the scarcity of appearance, on the fact that the dead can't show up anymore? Dying can have a salutary effect on the reputation of prominent people; it was good for John F. Kennedy, and it was good for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
The fifth-century BC Athenian leader Pericles understood this well. In his famous Funeral Oration, delivered at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War, he asserts that a noble death can elevate one's reputation and wash away their petty misdeeds. That is because the dead are beyond reach and their mystique grows postmortem. 'Even extreme virtue will scarcely win you a reputation equal to' that of the dead, he insists.
Do AI reanimations devalue the currency of the dead by forcing them to keep popping up? Do they cheapen and destabilize their reputation by having them comment on events that happened long after their demise?
In addition, these AI representations can be a powerful tool to influence audiences for political or legal purposes. Bringing back a popular dead singer to legitimize a political event and reanimating a dead victim to offer testimony are acts intended to sway an audience's judgment.
It's one thing to channel a Churchill or a Roosevelt during a political speech by quoting them or even trying to sound like them. It's another thing to have 'them' speak alongside you. The potential of harnessing nostalgia is supercharged by this technology. Imagine, for example, what the Soviets, who literally worshipped Lenin's dead body, would have done with a deep fake of their old icon.
Good intentions
You could argue that because these reanimations are uniquely engaging, they can be used for virtuous purposes. Consider a reanimated Martin Luther King Jr., speaking to our currently polarized and divided nation, urging moderation and unity. Wouldn't that be grand? Or what about a reanimated Mordechai Anielewicz, the commander of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, speaking at the trial of a Holocaust denier like David Irving?
But do we know what MLK would have thought about our current political divisions? Do we know what Anielewicz would have thought about restrictions on pernicious speech? Does bravely campaigning for civil rights mean we should call upon the digital ghost of King to comment on the impact of populism? Does fearlessly fighting the Nazis mean we should dredge up the AI shadow of an old hero to comment on free speech in the digital age?
Even if the political projects these AI avatars served were consistent with the deceased's views, the problem of manipulation – of using the psychological power of deepfakes to appeal to emotions – remains.
But what about enlisting AI Agatha Christie to teach a writing class? Deep fakes may indeed have salutary uses in educational settings. The likeness of Christie could make students more enthusiastic about writing. Fake Aristotle could improve the chances that students engage with his austere Nicomachean Ethics. AI Einstein could help those who want to study physics get their heads around general relativity.
But producing these fakes comes with a great deal of responsibility. After all, given how engaging they can be, it's possible that the interactions with these representations will be all that students pay attention to, rather than serving as a gateway to exploring the subject further.
Living on in the living
In a poem written in memory of W.B. Yeats, W.H. Auden tells us that, after the poet's death, Yeats 'became his admirers.' His memory was now 'scattered among a hundred cities,' and his work subject to endless interpretation: 'the words of a dead man are modified in the guts of the living.'
The dead live on in the many ways we reinterpret their words and works. Auden did that to Yeats, and we're doing it to Auden right here. That's how people stay in touch with those who are gone. In the end, we believe that using technological prowess to concretely bring them back disrespects them and, perhaps more importantly, is an act of disrespect to ourselves – to our capacity to abstract, think and imagine.
Nir Eisikovits is Professor of Philosophy and Director, Applied Ethics Center, UMass Boston. Daniel J Feldman is Senior Research Fellow, Applied Ethics Center, UMass Boston.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
External Link
https://theconversation.com/ai-reanimations-making-facsimiles-of-the-dead-raises-ethical-quandaries-256771
© The Conversation
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Mainichi
a day ago
- The Mainichi
Lone Japanese activist attracts attention from foreigners through videos posted online
TOKYO -- In late May, a 49-year-old man was seen speaking to passersby in front of JR Shinjuku Station in the Japanese capital, with a handmade sign that read "Stop Gaza Genocide." "We have remained silent without raising our voices against war crimes while living in a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed," said Yusuke Furusawa, a Tokyo resident. "Perhaps you think it's simply because you're not interested or because it doesn't concern you," he continued. His husky voice faded into the evening crowd. He began his solo street activities in October 2023. After contracting COVID-19 and returning to work, he experienced three months of poor health. When browsing social media on his smartphone, he was constantly bombarded with videos depicting the devastation in the Palestinian territory of Gaza that has been attacked by the Israeli military. He couldn't sit idly by. Since then, come rain or wind, he has been demonstrating daily in front of stations like Shinjuku and Shibuya. Furusawa works as a day laborer creating sets for television programs. He dedicates about an hour to his activities after work on weekdays and whenever possible on weekends. "My voice has become hoarse. But since I work in set construction, it doesn't affect my job," he said. The turning point in his solitary struggle was video. He started recording videos on his smartphone for "security" after facing violence from foreigners believed to be Israeli and being harassed by drunk people during his activities. When he posted snippets on social media, he received reactions from around the world. Over the past year and a half, his Instagram followers have increased by 170,000. Being interviewed by a television station in the Middle East also accelerated the spread of his activities. In reality, most people who approach Furusawa on the street are foreigners. It's not uncommon for them to say, "I learned about you on social media and came to meet you." Almost every day, he receives direct messages from foreigners staying in Japan saying things like, "Where are you today?" He communicates with these foreigners using simple English and body language. His keffiyeh, a traditional Arab scarf he wears around his neck during his activities, and the bag adorned with the Palestinian flag are gifts from people he connected with on social media. Furusawa discovered his passion for theater while attending a private university in Kanagawa Prefecture. He graduated during the early "employment ice age," and chose to continue pursuing his love of theater while working part-time. His acting activities continue to this day. Observing him standing in front of the station for a while, a pair of young women engrossed in their smartphones cast harsh glances at Furusawa, who didn't stop speaking. A man in a suit on the phone hurriedly covered one ear and rushed past, clicking his tongue. A foreigner with tears in her eyes approached him, and they exchanged words for about a minute. The woman, who told Furusawa that she also thought the current situation was wrong, was Israeli. He conveyed his thoughts to her, saying, "I am complaining to the government. This is not a criticism of you." Through his activities, he has experienced both solidarity and conflict. "I believe human connections are also a part of politics," he commented. When he uploads videos to social media, complaints fly in. "This is pointless," "Go there yourself," "It's annoying,"... He's even been told directly, "You're noisy." "I'm aware it's noisy. If possible, I want to forcefully intrude into your silence and field of vision. I don't think it will have an effect, nor do I believe I can change anything alone, nor do I intend to change the awareness of passersby," Furusawa said. So why does he stand on the street every day? He commented, "I live with fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If there are people whose rights are being violated, I believe I must raise my voice, even if it's in another country. Whether it has meaning or not is irrelevant; it's just the right thing to do, isn't it?"
Japan Today
2 days ago
- Japan Today
AI ‘reanimations': Making facsimiles of the dead raises ethical quandaries
By Nir Eisikovits and Daniel J Feldman Christopher Pelkey was shot and killed in a road range incident in 2021. On May 8, at the sentencing hearing for his killer, an AI video reconstruction of Pelkey delivered a victim impact statement. The trial judge reported being deeply moved by this performance and issued the maximum sentence for manslaughter. As part of the ceremonies to mark Israel's 77th year of independence on April 30, 2025, officials had planned to host a concert featuring four iconic Israeli singers. All four had died years earlier. The plan was to conjure them using AI-generated sound and video. The dead performers were supposed to sing alongside Yardena Arazi, a famous and still very much alive artist. In the end Arazi pulled out, citing the political atmosphere, and the event didn't happen. In April, the BBC created a deep-fake version of the famous mystery writer Agatha Christie to teach a 'maestro course on writing.' Fake Agatha would instruct aspiring murder mystery authors and 'inspire' their 'writing journey.' The use of artificial intelligence to 'reanimate' the dead for a variety of purposes is quickly gaining traction. Over the past few years, we've been studying the moral implications of AI at the Center for Applied Ethics at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and we find these AI reanimations to be morally problematic. Before we address the moral challenges the technology raises, it's important to distinguish AI reanimations, or deepfakes, from so-called griefbots. Griefbots are chatbots trained on large swaths of data the dead leave behind – social media posts, texts, emails, videos. These chatbots mimic how the departed used to communicate and are meant to make life easier for surviving relations. The deepfakes we are discussing here have other aims; they are meant to promote legal, political and educational causes. Moral quandaries The first moral quandary the technology raises has to do with consent: Would the deceased have agreed to do what their likeness is doing? Would the dead Israeli singers have wanted to sing at an Independence ceremony organized by the nation's current government? Would Pelkey, the road-rage victim, be comfortable with the script his family wrote for his avatar to recite? What would Christie think about her AI double teaching that class? The answers to these questions can only be deduced circumstantially – from examining the kinds of things the dead did and the views they expressed when alive. And one could ask if the answers even matter. If those in charge of the estates agree to the reanimations, isn't the question settled? After all, such trustees are the legal representatives of the departed. But putting aside the question of consent, a more fundamental question remains. What do these reanimations do to the legacy and reputation of the dead? Doesn't their reputation depend, to some extent, on the scarcity of appearance, on the fact that the dead can't show up anymore? Dying can have a salutary effect on the reputation of prominent people; it was good for John F. Kennedy, and it was good for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The fifth-century BC Athenian leader Pericles understood this well. In his famous Funeral Oration, delivered at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War, he asserts that a noble death can elevate one's reputation and wash away their petty misdeeds. That is because the dead are beyond reach and their mystique grows postmortem. 'Even extreme virtue will scarcely win you a reputation equal to' that of the dead, he insists. Do AI reanimations devalue the currency of the dead by forcing them to keep popping up? Do they cheapen and destabilize their reputation by having them comment on events that happened long after their demise? In addition, these AI representations can be a powerful tool to influence audiences for political or legal purposes. Bringing back a popular dead singer to legitimize a political event and reanimating a dead victim to offer testimony are acts intended to sway an audience's judgment. It's one thing to channel a Churchill or a Roosevelt during a political speech by quoting them or even trying to sound like them. It's another thing to have 'them' speak alongside you. The potential of harnessing nostalgia is supercharged by this technology. Imagine, for example, what the Soviets, who literally worshipped Lenin's dead body, would have done with a deep fake of their old icon. Good intentions You could argue that because these reanimations are uniquely engaging, they can be used for virtuous purposes. Consider a reanimated Martin Luther King Jr., speaking to our currently polarized and divided nation, urging moderation and unity. Wouldn't that be grand? Or what about a reanimated Mordechai Anielewicz, the commander of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, speaking at the trial of a Holocaust denier like David Irving? But do we know what MLK would have thought about our current political divisions? Do we know what Anielewicz would have thought about restrictions on pernicious speech? Does bravely campaigning for civil rights mean we should call upon the digital ghost of King to comment on the impact of populism? Does fearlessly fighting the Nazis mean we should dredge up the AI shadow of an old hero to comment on free speech in the digital age? Even if the political projects these AI avatars served were consistent with the deceased's views, the problem of manipulation – of using the psychological power of deepfakes to appeal to emotions – remains. But what about enlisting AI Agatha Christie to teach a writing class? Deep fakes may indeed have salutary uses in educational settings. The likeness of Christie could make students more enthusiastic about writing. Fake Aristotle could improve the chances that students engage with his austere Nicomachean Ethics. AI Einstein could help those who want to study physics get their heads around general relativity. But producing these fakes comes with a great deal of responsibility. After all, given how engaging they can be, it's possible that the interactions with these representations will be all that students pay attention to, rather than serving as a gateway to exploring the subject further. Living on in the living In a poem written in memory of W.B. Yeats, W.H. Auden tells us that, after the poet's death, Yeats 'became his admirers.' His memory was now 'scattered among a hundred cities,' and his work subject to endless interpretation: 'the words of a dead man are modified in the guts of the living.' The dead live on in the many ways we reinterpret their words and works. Auden did that to Yeats, and we're doing it to Auden right here. That's how people stay in touch with those who are gone. In the end, we believe that using technological prowess to concretely bring them back disrespects them and, perhaps more importantly, is an act of disrespect to ourselves – to our capacity to abstract, think and imagine. Nir Eisikovits is Professor of Philosophy and Director, Applied Ethics Center, UMass Boston. Daniel J Feldman is Senior Research Fellow, Applied Ethics Center, UMass Boston. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
Yomiuri Shimbun
15-06-2025
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Israeli Strikes on Gaza Kill At Least 20 As War Rages on After The Opening of A New Front with Iran
AP Two Palestinians ride a small boat at the seafront next to a tent camp in the Gaza City port, Friday. DEIR AL-BALAH, Gaza Strip (AP) — At least 20 Palestinians were killed in Israeli strikes on the Gaza Strip overnight and into Saturday, according to local health officials. The 20-month war with Hamas has raged on even as Israel has opened a new front with heavy strikes on Iran that sparked retaliatory drone and missile attacks. Another 11 Palestinians were killed overnight near food distribution points run by an Israeli- and U.S.-supported humanitarian group in the latest of almost daily shootings near the sites since they opened last month. Palestinian witnesses say Israeli forces have fired on the crowds, while the military says it has only fired warning shots near people it describes as suspects who approached its forces. The sites are located in military zones that are off limits to independent media. Israel's military said it fired warning shots overnight to distance a group of people near troops operating in the Netzarim corridor, and an aircraft struck a person who kept advancing. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private contractor that operates the sites, said they were closed Saturday. But witnesses said thousands had gathered near the sites anyway, desperate for food as Israel's blockade and military campaign have driven the territory to the brink of famine. Al-Awda Hospital said it received eight bodies and at least 125 wounded people from a shooting near a GHF site in central Gaza. Mohamed Abu Hussein, a resident of the built-up Bureij refugee camp nearby, said Israeli forces opened fire toward the crowd about a kilometer (half-mile) from the food distribution point. He said he saw several people fall to the ground as thousands ran away. In the southern city of Khan Younis, Nasser Hospital said it received 16 dead, including five women, from multiple Israeli strikes late Friday and early Saturday. It said another three men were killed near two GHF aid sites in the southernmost city of Rafah, now a mostly uninhabited military zone. Israel's military said it was unaware of any gunfire there during that time overnight. An Israeli strike in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza, killed four people, Al-Aqsa Hospital said. Meanwhile, Israel's military said two projectiles came from Gaza and fell in open areas, with no injuries. U.S., Israel push their own distribution to sideline U.N. Israel and the United States say the new aid system is intended to replace a U.N.-run network that has distributed aid across Gaza through 20 months of war. They accuse Hamas of siphoning off the aid and reselling it to fund its militant activities. U.N. officials deny Hamas has diverted significant amounts of aid and say the new system is unable to meet mounting needs. They say the new system has militarized aid by allowing Israel to decide who has access and by forcing Palestinians to travel long distances or relocate again after waves of displacement. They say the U.N. has struggled to deliver aid even after Israel eased its blockade last month because of military restrictions and rising lawlessness. Hamas, which is allied with Iran, sparked the war when its fighters led a rampage into southrn Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducting 251. They still hold 53 hostages, less than half of them believed to be alive, after most of the rest were released in ceasefire agreements or other deals. Israel's retaliatory campaign has killed over 55,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which has said women and children make up more than half of the dead but does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in count. The offensive has destroyed vast areas of Gaza and displaced 90% of the population of some 2 million Palestinians, leaving them almost entirely reliant on international aid. The war has drawn in Iran and its other allies across the region, igniting a chain of events that led to Israel's major strikes on Iran's nuclear and military facilities on Friday.
