Leaving behind a ‘clone’ of yourself in the form of a digital avatar for loved ones to communicate with after you pass away used to be science fiction, but is quickly becoming a reality. Cheap, accessible and easy-to-use tools like Replica, Here After and ElevenLabs (for voice cloning) allow people to create avatars that can mimic their likeness and personality traits, and are armed with in-depth knowledge of their lives to create truly immersive ‘recreations’ .
In a recent survey, we looked at attitudes towards this rapidly evolving form of ‘grief technology’ – a growing industry that aims to ease the pain of losing a loved one. It was immediately clear that there is a discernible generational divide in attitudes towards the idea of ’AI cloning’.
Challenging taboos
A significant portion of younger generations find the idea of leaving behind a digital avatar appealing. About 24% of Gen Zers (born 1997-2010) and 27% of Gen Yers (born 1982-1996) believe that access to these avatars can ease the pain of grief by facilitating continued interaction with deceased loved ones . However, support declines steadily with age, with only 2% of older people (born before 1946) having positive feelings towards the idea.
Younger generations are increasingly challenging the taboos surrounding mortality and talking openly about death – in stark contrast to older generations who have traditionally avoided the subject. The gap between these generations’ perceptions of leaving behind ‘AI ghosts’ reflects the different approaches to dealing with death – and how attitudes towards death are evolving.
Aside from the generation gap, there are a number of ethical questions raised through digital death throes. For example, concerns about data privacy and manipulation are high regardless of age group. Nearly 30% of respondents were concerned about their data being misused or manipulated to create a version of themselves that they would not approve of. High public awareness of the dangers of AI misuse is driving these concerns, raising questions about the use of such representations after death.
For example, it is not uncommon for AI to be used to reprise Hollywood film actors who have died long after their deaths. But what would this mean for the common man? It could quickly become a consideration for everyday roles; For example, if you work in advertising, you might not want your “AI clone” promoting gambling or smoking brands while you’re away.
Senior Insights Editor, Canvas8.
Expressed wishes
Expressing wishes regarding the digital self, for both personal and professional use, can become a routine aspect of creating a will. For those who don’t want any form of digital similarity, there is the advent of digital do-not-resuscitate (DDNR) orders, similar to physical do-not-resuscitate DNR orders. For others, more nuanced instructions may be needed to specify exact usage scenarios. For example, limiting the use of the technology to an avatar of yourself on the screen that can answer questions about their lives and share memories only with loved ones.
The survey also revealed concerns about grief technology interfering with the natural grieving process, with more than a quarter of respondents expressing concerns.
This sentiment is echoed by Ian Dibb, CEO and founder of Keylu, a leading life planning platform: “In the age of AI and ChatGPT, there is a boom in companies offering digital avatars that can communicate with loved ones. In our ongoing dialogue with people, we have identified a polarized response to this groundbreaking technology. People either love it or hate it. One of the main concerns raised is the potential impact such technologies can have on the grieving process.”
This technology is still so new that we are only beginning to understand the short-term impact of the grieving process, let alone the lasting impact.
The lines blur
As technology continues to blur the boundaries between the physical and digital domains, the debate around digital avatars and ‘grief technology’ is likely to intensify. While these innovations provide unprecedented opportunities to preserve parts of ourselves, they also raise profound questions about identity, privacy, and the nature of human existence in the digital age.
Andy Headington, a speaker on all aspects of digital, gave his views at the Independent Funeral Directors Conference and believes legislative work is needed to get to grips with what is a revolutionary technology.
Andy says: “When creating digital versions of ourselves, we must remember the importance of privacy and legacy. It’s not just about who gets access to these technologies, but also how they are used and by whom. It’s one thing to look like us or be like us; it’s another to truly represent who we are and only we as individuals know how best to do that. Without clear legal documentation and legislation, what can stop others from manipulating or altering our digital selves when we are gone?”
Ultimately, navigating this uncharted territory will require a delicate balance between technological advancements and ethical considerations, ensuring that the legacy we leave behind in the digital world reflects our true selves and honors our memories.
We’ve listed the best identity management software.
This article was produced as part of Ny BreakingPro’s Expert Insights channel, where we profile the best and brightest minds in today’s technology industry. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Ny BreakingPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing, you can read more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro