[Un article de The Conversation écrit par Damián Tuset Varela – Chercheur en droit international public et IA. Tuteur du Master en relations internationales et diplomatiques UOC, UOC – Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.]
A few months ago, Spaniards were able to see on television people listening to digital reconstructions of the voices of their deceased loved ones generated by artificial intelligence from real audio data. This practice has sparked many societal and professional debates, because these reconstructions imitate the voices of the dead to say poignant words that provoke intense reactions in survivors.
Digital resurrection involves using AI to recreate certain characteristics of deceased people, such as voice or physical appearance. Although it may offer momentary comfort, such a practice raises fundamental ethical, philosophical and legal questions.
The risk of creating false memories
The main philosophical implication of digital resurrection is that it calls into question the very notion of existence. By recreating the voice or image of a deceased person, we can say that we are prolonging their existence or, conversely, that the recreated being is only a pale copy.
The essence of a human being cannot be summed up in a set of programmed responses or an image on a screen, and it seems unlikely that a digital simulation will be able to capture the depth and experience, the emotions and a person's thoughts.
Memory plays an important role here. Digital resurrection can be seen as an attempt to preserve it, to maintain the presence of those we have lost. However, human memory is not static: it selects, modifies, shifts and adapts. By digitally recreating a loved one, we run the risk of altering our true memories with the person. Is it ethical to cling to an artificial representation, rather than letting our memories evolve over time?
What is identity?
Identity is a complex web of experiences and relationships. By trying to recreate someone, we could say that we are trying to clearly understand their identity. However, there is a good chance of arriving at an idealized version, consistent with our own expectations and desires.
These technological advances also raise questions about the notion of mourning itself. Death is a natural stage inseparable from life; Grieving is an essential process on the path to accepting the loss of a loved one. Maintaining a connection with the deceased through digital resurrection interferes with this vital process, which can prevent us from moving forward and being at peace.
The digital resurrection also raises important questions about consent and image rights. Who has the right to decide whether a person should be digitally recreated? How do you ask permission from someone who, by definition, can no longer grant it?
Exploitation of grief for profit
Let us remember: new technologies are a commercial activity. The prospect of companies making profits by interfering in a process as deeply human and painful as the loss of a loved one raises further philosophical, ethical and moral questions.
From an ethical point of view, this type of approach seems to transgress the fundamental principles of respect and dignity supposed to guide our human interactions. Grief is an intimate and sacred process, a step towards acceptance and inner peace after a heavy loss. The commercialization of this process can therefore be considered a form of emotional exploitation, to the extent that it takes advantage of people in vulnerable situations.
The commercialization of this approach is also likely to distort the natural process of mourning. Grief and mourning are essential experiences of the human condition. Overcoming them helps us grow. If the monetization of digital resurrection prevents people from experiencing this process healthily, by giving the illusion that the deceased is still at their side, instead of helping them to come to terms with their absence, it is of little use.
From a moral point of view, the objectives of such commercial approaches are most questionable. Under the guise of offering comfort and a way to remember loved ones, they take advantage of grief for financial gain.
Digital resurrection exacerbates grief
At the heart of the digital resurrection, there is a worrying paradox. In its attempt to bring us closer to those we have lost, these technologies confront us with the undeniable nature of their absence and push us to question not only the nature of existence, but also the very meaning of our humanity.
By striving to compensate for the absence of a loved one or to fill the void they have left, these technologies exacerbate both the desire to cling to what we have lost and our own reluctance to accept the reality of this loss and begin the work of mourning.
The situation is even more paradoxical when we consider that the simulations we use to preserve the memory and characteristics of loved ones are, by definition, artificial and are therefore incapable of capturing the full complexity and extent of human experience. We are faced with an imperfect digital representation that, while comforting in some ways, fails to do justice to the being we loved and lost.
With an unwavering passion for local news, Christopher leads our editorial team with integrity and dedication. With over 20 years’ experience, he is the backbone of Wouldsayso, ensuring that we stay true to our mission to inform.
