Technology is increasingly blurring the line between genuine presence and digital likeness, raising serious ethical questions about recreating those we’ve lost. Veteran tech journalist Lance Ulanoff urges us to pause and consider the moral and emotional weight behind these digital resurrections.
Take the case of Christopher Pelkey, an Arizona man whose AI-generated avatar delivered an emotional courtroom speech. While the recreated presence touched many, it soon emerged that the words were penned by his sister, prompting real concerns about authenticity and consent.
This isn’t just the preserve of big tech companies. With the tools to craft lifelike replicas widely accessible, anyone might soon attempt to digitally revive a loved one. Whether it’s a sentimental tribute or a practical move in legal matters, using such technology can sometimes morph remembrance into a distorted digital echo.
Similarly, the family of NBA broadcaster Jim Fagan recently approved the use of AI to replicate his voice for promotional work—a decision that highlights how the line between honouring a legacy and exploiting memory can often become increasingly vague.
Ulanoff stresses that as digital replicas become more commonplace, it’s essential for individuals to state how they wish to be remembered. With so much personal data available online, nearly anyone could be reimagined after death, making it all the more urgent for society to have an open, thoughtful conversation about consent and legacy.
As AI continues to evolve, we need to strike a careful balance between commemorating those we’ve lost and protecting their authentic selves. By clearly expressing our wishes now, we can help ensure that digital memorials remain respectful and true to the people behind them.
