Recently Added Narratives
-
- 50 min
- Science and Engineering Ethics
- 2022
- Science and Engineering Ethics
- 2022
-
- 50 min
- Science and Engineering Ethics
- 2022
The Ethics of ‘Deathbots’
Lindemann identifies grief bots as techno-social niches that change the affective emotional state of the user. With a focus on the dignity of the bereaved rather than the deceased, Lindemann argues that grief bots can both regulate and deregulate users’ emotions. Referring to them as pseudo-bonds, Lindemann does a very good job of trying to characterize a standard relationship with a grief bot. This article is mostly about the grief and well-being of users of griefbots.
- What does Lindemann mean by internet-enabled techno-social niches, and what things exemplify them?
- After reading this paper, would you ever use–or allow your digital remains to create a deathbot? Why or why not?
- Outline the key data-protection and safety requirements you would test in a pilot program before approving any clinical deployment of grief bots.
-
- 45 min
- The Interational Journal of Psychoanalysis
- 2024
- The Interational Journal of Psychoanalysis
- 2024
-
- 45 min
- The Interational Journal of Psychoanalysis
- 2024
Mourning, melancholia and machines: An applied psychoanalytic investigation of mourning in the age of griefbots
Because the technology simulates sentience, it removes the ethical imperative of considering the deceased as an irreducible other, fostering attachments that may displace living relationships and misrepresent the dead. While the author concedes that tightly regulated, consent-based applications (e.g., helping a child imagine a deceased parent) might offer therapeutic value, the prevailing danger is that griefbots short-circuit the lifelong, relational work of mourning. Psychoanalysis, the article concludes, must scrutinize these “post-human” tools to preserve an ethics of otherness in a culture increasingly tempted to outsource grief to machines.
- What is the danger of turning mourning into a private, self-regulated loop through the use of a grief bot?
- What are the benefits or harms of disconnecting from a deceased loved one during the grieving process, and why might that be lost through the use of grief bots?
-
- 10 min
- Daily Mail
- 2024
- Daily Mail
- 2024
-
- 10 min
- Daily Mail
- 2024
Think twice before using AI to digitally resurrect a dead loved one: So-called ‘griefbots’ could HAUNT you, Cambridge scientists warn
Cites a study from Cambridge University that discusses potential ways in which grief bots may be exploitative. It establishes that grief bots influence you because they establish a connection through the identity and reputation of a loved one and then impact a user’s decisions. Although the article accepts that a grief bot may be therapeutic in some cases, users may be coerced into buying something by the grief bot. The grief bot can become confused with its role, for example, if a terminally ill woman leaves a grief bot for her child, the bot might depict an impending in-person encounter with the child. The third scenario in the article is one of a dying parent secretly subscribing to a grief bot service before his death, and the maintenance of the grief bot becomes intense emotional labour for the children of the deceased.
- What are possible ways that rituals that could be used to retire grief bots?
- Should a grief bot be making any recommendations to the user? What are the potential problems or harms that could be caused by these recommendations?
The false promise of keeping a loved one “alive” with A.I. grief bots.
In this piece, Leong—a Catholic attorney and theology graduate student—explores the ethical, spiritual, and emotional implications of “grief tech,” particularly AI-powered “ghostbots” that simulate conversations with deceased loved ones. She critiques this technology through a Christian theological lens, drawing on thinkers like Karl Rahner and Tina Beattie to argue that such digital recreations undermine the embodied nature of human personhood and the Christian understanding of death.
- What does the article suggest about the meaning of personhood, and how might AI griefbots distort this concept?
- How might someone from a different religious or cultural tradition respond differently to the idea of digitally resurrecting the dead?
-
- 10 min
- Rest of World
- 2024
AI “deathbots” are helping people in China grieve
This article provides an overview of griefbot culture in China. Users there, according to this article, are very satisfied with the experiences they are having with the griefbots of their loved ones.
- Why might there be a difference in the way grief bots are received in China compared to the US?
- Could griefbot technology be more effective or ethical in cultural traditions that view ancestors in the longer context of family relationships? Why or Why not?
-
- 5 min
- Wired
- 2021
How to Reduce Motion Sickness in Virtual Reality
Virtual Reality (VR) can cause nausea among many physical ailments whilst immersed in the digital world. This article explores some tactics to combat this nausea and why it might happen.
Why is it important to try and mitigate the physical ailments caused by VR?
What might happen if we get too good at mitigating these physical ailments?
Wanted Dead or Alive
Critically examines emerging technologies that enable digital immortality—the preservation and simulated interaction with the dead through AI-generated chatbots, deepfakes, or virtual avatars using personal data. The paper argues that these technologies represent a form of techno-solutionism, providing artificial remedies for the complex human experience of grief. The authors warn that digital immortality platforms—marketed by startups like HereAfter AI, Eter9, and others—pose psychological, ethical, legal, and environmental risks, especially to vulnerable grieving individuals.
- What is digital immortality, and how does it differ from other concepts like transhumanism or consciousness uploading?
- Why do the authors argue that digital immortality platforms are a form of social media? Do you agree with this classification?
- How does the paper define and critique “techno-solutionism”?
-
- 90 min
- Minds and Machines
- 2017
- Minds and Machines
- 2017
-
- 90 min
- Minds and Machines
- 2017
The Political Economy of Death in the Age of Information: A Critical Approach to the Digital Afterlife Industry
Öhman and Floridi introduce the concept of the Digital Afterlife Industry (DAI), encompassing businesses and platforms that manage, monetize, or manipulate the digital remains of deceased individuals. This includes services like memorial pages, AI-generated avatars, and posthumous social media management.
The authors argue that the DAI operates within a framework of informational capitalism, where personal data, even after death, is commodified. They highlight ethical concerns about how these practices can infringe upon human dignity, especially when the deceased’s digital presence is altered or used without consent.
To address these issues, the paper suggests that ethical guidelines governing the treatment of physical human remains could serve as a model for regulating digital remains, ensuring respect and dignity for the deceased in the digital realm.
- Discussion about monetization after death. (Kafka)
- What responsibilities do tech companies have in preserving or deleting digital content after a user’s death?
-
- 10 min
- Computers in Human Behavior
- 2021
- Computers in Human Behavior
- 2021
-
- 10 min
- Computers in Human Behavior
- 2021
Cyberthanathology: Death and beyond in the digital age.
The authors propose cyberthanatology as a framework to understand how digital technologies mediate experiences of death and mourning. They argue that online platforms have transformed traditional practices by enabling new forms of memorialization, such as virtual cemeteries and online grief communities. The paper emphasizes that these digital practices are not merely extensions of physical rituals but constitute new cultural forms that influence how societies perceive and cope with death.
- What is cyberthanatology, and how does it differ from traditional thanatology?
- How can regulations address the challenges posed by digital inequality in memorialization practices?
-
- 125 min
- International Journal of Law and Information Technology
- 2021
- International Journal of Law and Information Technology
- 2021
Digital Remains: Property or Privacy?
Argues that the posthumous digital presence of individuals—such as AI-generated simulations, voice clones, and griefbots—deserves legal and ethical protections, even after a person has died. The author proposes the concept of “digital souls” to encapsulate the idea that a person’s data, personality emulations, and AI-generated likenesses should be treated with dignity and moral consideration, not just as property or public content.
- Discuss the posthumous data rights in different regions as covered in this paper.
- Brainstorm possible regulations to combat some of the issues raised in the article and create a policy to address one of them based on similar policies found in the physical world.
-
- 5 min
- Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference
- 2024
- Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference
- 2024
-
- 5 min
- Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference
- 2024
Content Moderation on Social Media in the EU
Provides an empirical analysis of content moderation practices across major social media platforms within the European Union (EU), utilizing data from the Digital Services Act (DSA) Transparency Database.
- What is the distinction between the moderation of content and censorship?
- How would you define effective content moderation? What has shaped your views on this over the last five years?
-
- 20 min
- AI & Society
- 2022
Using Deceased People’s Data
A high-level breakdown of popular ethical and legal considerations regarding postmortem data use. It aims to discern the extent to which users are comfortable with their data being used posthumously. Important findings include most users wanting their data automatically deleted after their death. A majority of users find that using their data in passive ways is acceptable, and there is a higher degree of tolerance among younger and heavy internet users when it comes to how their data is used.
Is it ethical to collect data about a new technology considering that most if not all participants don’t have a working understanding of the technology?
How might users ensure their privacy rights are preserved after they die? Should there be some kind of system of payment for personal data after death?