Ask a Data Ethicist: Is It Wrong to Digitally “Resurrect” Someone?

There are so many things we can do with data, where should we draw the line? One of the thornier questions that has come up as AI technologies advance is the notion of digitally recreating a deceased person using their data. This month we ask…

Is it wrong to digitally “resurrect” someone?

Part of understanding how to make good ethical choices relates back to our reasons – in this case, why do you want to digitally recreate this deceased person? Let’s start there.

Sometimes It’s About Love

When Eugenia Kuyda lost her best friend in a tragic car accident, she decided to use the data from their many text conversations to build a memorial tribute in the form of an AI replica. It was a way to deal with her grief and to honour the memory of her friend. Kuyda ultimately turned things into a company, Replika, which allows users to create their own AI companion from friends to lovers. There are now a range of companies who will provide this service. And, since so many people now have vast digital footprints, the possibility of creating an AI version of  deceased person grows.

“Modern life all but ensures that we leave behind vast digital archives — text messages, photos, posts on social media — and we are only beginning to consider what role they should play in mourning.” ( The Verge) 

Often called deathbots or griefbots, these digital versions of departed friends or family members might serve a role in the grieving process. Yet, it’s not clear if the impacts are positive or harmful. 

“Proponents of the technology think that it comforts people in mourning. Sceptics suggest that it could complicate the grieving process. Despite a rapid uptake of this technology in the past few years, there is scant research so far to prove that either group is correct.” (Nature)

There was even a situation recently which saw the recreation of a murdered person deliver an AI impact statement in court – literally speaking from beyond the grave. This marked a legal first and raised a lot of controversy over whether this was a type of emotional manipulation or an reasonable opportunity to give the victim a voice. It’s clear though, that the door is not open for others to do this, raising more of these questions, particularly as the  tools to make this type of AI are now widely available.

Sometimes It’s About Money

Consider the George Carlin deepfake case from early 2024 and how it raises questions about the appropriate use of data. In this case, the publicly accessible but copyrighted work of the deceased comedian was used to train an AI system. The AI was able to mimic Carlin’s voice and comedic style while talking about topical issues for a work entitled, I’m Glad I’m Dead. There was no permission granted by Carlin’s estate to use the copyrighted data and the whole situation caused trauma for the Carlin family who launched a lawsuit against the AI creators. Carlin is a celebrity whose family has the means to pursue this matter in court. However, given the way technology has advanced, we may see regular people also being ‘resurrected’ in digital format. 

Do You Have the Right to Use This Data?

In the case of Carlin, the data was used without permission, neither Carlin nor his family gave consent, and any gain from the project seemed to accrue to an unrelated third party – namely the podcasters behind the AI. It should be noted that creators have since claimed they did not use AI – rather they implied it was used only to claim now that they wrote the work themselves and did an impersonation of Carlin. In any case, the potential for this to happen remains.

AI can also be used to digitally recreate a person’s voice or likeliness with proper authorization of data. For example, John Lennon’s voice was digitally recreated for a final Beatles song set by bandmate Paul McCartney using a demo given to him by Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono. When it comes to the appropriate use of data and AI, it’s not just a question of technical feasibility. Relationships and context matter and need to be considered in ethical decisions about data use. 

Let’s explore a case closer to home – what if the person in question is your family member? This can still raise some difficult questions about whether or not they would have consented to this use of their data. That’s a question that Erika Cervini ponders in this article for Eureka Street in considering whether or not to recreate her husband Paul.

“I thought about accessing one of the free trials [for a chatbot] to digitally resurrect my husband, who died in 2013 of cancer…I was tempted and stared for a few moments at the blue start button on my screen. But I couldn’t do it; I just didn’t want to. For a start, I felt that I would be crossing the line of consent. Paul couldn’t agree to this and I’m sure he wouldn’t have wanted to be digitally ‘resurrected’. This is also about protecting the dignity of the dead.” – Erika Cervini

The incentives in these cases are important to consider. For the family members of celebrities or public personalities, there maybe financial reasons that factor into the decision in addition to personal ones.

Post-Mortem Privacy 

Data privacy laws afforded a level of protection when it comes to our personal data. However, personal data is not personal data if you are no longer alive. That is to say, data protection laws don’t extend to the deceased. The laws exist to protection living individuals.

But, the data you leave behind may still require protection because there may be details you wish to keep private. This is a concept known as post-mortem privacy – the ability to continue to exert control over your information when you are no longer alive. This can result in a host of issues – including data being commercially exploited, publicly disclosed or used for other processes (perhaps training AI) – with no ability for the deceased’s estate to control matters. 

Remigius Nwabueze is legal scholar and expert in this area. He recounts the case of two police officers who took photographed and disseminated pictures of two deceased sisters – violating their dignity and causing emotional distress for their bereaved family members.* In this case, the courts noted that the privacy rights of the deceased had been violated, which confirms – at least in this case – that there is right of privacy that could extend beyond death, even though current data protection laws don’t apply. 

Is It Wrong to Digitally “Resurrect” Someone? 

It’s a complex question with no “one size fits all” response. The answer might depend on several factors including:

• Their wishes as outlined in their will
• The wishes of their family and estate
• How they will be represented in this new digital form
• Who controls the digital entity
• Who might be compensated or stand to gain from the digital entity

Increasingly, all of us might want to plan for our digital afterlife, including whether or not we want a digital afterlife. Having conversations with loved ones now about their wishes for their data and other digital assets, including what should or should not be done with these when they are gone, can provide clear guidance for making an ethical choice with respect to the question of digital resurrection. 

*It would be remiss to not point out the power dynamics of this situation involving police officers who had access to the victims because of their role. There was also a racial and gendered aspect of this case (two white, male officers, two black, female victims). 

Send Me Your Questions!

I would love to hear about your data dilemmas or AI ethics questions and quandaries. You can send me a note at [email protected] or connect with me on LinkedIn. I will keep all inquiries confidential and remove any potentially sensitive information – so please feel free to keep things high level and anonymous as well. 

This column is not legal advice. The information provided is strictly for educational purposes. AI and data regulation is an evolving area and anyone with specific questions should seek advice from a legal professional.