Damian Tuset Varela: Earlier this year, a Spanish television program showed several people listening to digital recreations of the voices of their deceased loved ones, generated by artificial intelligence from real audio recordings.
This sparked widespread debate in both the public and professional spheres, as these reenactments not only imitated the voices of loved ones, but also asked poignant, evocative questions, evoking intense emotional responses.
The phenomenon, dubbed “digital resurrection,” involves the operate of advanced artificial intelligence technology to recreate certain aspects of the deceased, such as their voices and physical appearance.
While this may provide momentary convenience, this practice opens up a number of profound debates on ethical, philosophical and legal fronts.
Risk of creating false memories
The most vital philosophical implication of digital resurrection is that it calls into question what “to be” really means. By recreating the voice or likeness of someone who has died, we may believe that we are somehow prolonging their existence, or perhaps we are simply creating their shadow without substance.
However, the essence of a human being is undoubtedly more than a set of programmed reactions or an image on a screen, and it seems unlikely that a digital simulation will be able to capture the depth and uniqueness of a person's experiences, emotions and thoughts.
Memory plays an vital role here. Digital resurrection can be seen as an attempt to preserve memory, to maintain the presence of those we have lost.
However, human memory is not immobile – it selects, changes, shifts and adapts, and when we digitally recreate a person, we risk changing our own legitimate memories of him.
Is it ethical to stick to an artificial representation of someone, rather than allowing the memory of that person to evolve and transform over time?
True identity
Human identity is a elaborate network of experiences and relationships. When we try to recreate someone, we may think we are trying to capture their identity.
More often, however, we create an idealized version of them, consistent with our own expectations and desires.
Technological advances also raise questions about mourning itself. Death is a natural part of life and mourning is necessary to come to terms with this loss.
By attempting to maintain a connection with the deceased through digital resurrection, we disrupt this vital process, which can prevent us from moving forward and finding peace in accepting the loss.
Ultimately, digital resurrection also opens up a solemn debate about consent and ownership. Who has the right to decide whether a person should be digitally recreated? And how do you deal with consent from someone who, for obvious reasons, can no longer express their wishes?
Exploiting sadness for profit
We must remember that technology is a business, and the prospect of companies making a profit by interfering with something as deeply human and painful as the loss of a loved one raises further philosophical, ethical and moral questions.
Ethically, this type of activity seems to violate the basic principles of respect and dignity that should guide our interpersonal interactions. Mourning is an intimate and sacred process, a path to acceptance and inner peace after a significant loss.
Commercial interference in this process can therefore be seen as a form of emotional exploitation, taking advantage of people at one of the most vulnerable moments of their lives.
This type of business can also disrupt the natural grieving process. Grief and loss are indispensable experiences of the human condition, and dealing with them helps us grow as humans.
If commercially promoted digital resurrection prevents people from going through the process in a hearty way – by offering the illusion of the person's presence rather than helping them accept the reality of their absence – then it offers little benefit.
From a moral point of view, the intentions and goals of such enterprises would be questionable. In fact, their purpose seems to be to provide comfort and a way to remember loved ones. But where do we draw the line between offering comfort and exploiting sadness for profit?
Digital resurrection deepens the sadness
At the heart of the “digital resurgence” lies a deep and disturbing paradox. In an attempt to bring us closer to those we have lost, technology confronts us with the inescapable reality of their absence, leading us to question not only the nature of existence, but also the essence of what it means to be human.
In an attempt to make up for the absence of a loved one or fill the void they have left, these technologies deepen both our desire to hold on to what we have lost and our personal struggles to cope with and work through grief in the face of arduous times. the inevitable reality of death.
The paradox deepens even further when we consider that in trying to preserve the memory and essence of loved ones, we resort to simulations that, due to their artificial nature, can never fully capture the complexity and depth of real human experience.
So we are dealing with an imperfect digital representation that, while comforting in some sense, tries to do justice to the true essence of someone we loved and lost.
Damian Tuset Varela, researcher of public international law and artificial intelligence. Master's studies in International Relations and Diplomacy UOC, UOC – Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
This article has been republished from Conversation under Creative Commons license. Read it original article.
Image Source: Pixabay.com
