What are known as “deadbots” or “griefbots” use artificial intelligence technologies to build an interactive simulation of a deceased person based on their digital traces, such as messages, email, audio recordings, videos, and social media posts. Some relatives of the deceased turn to these tools to hear a familiar voice again, ask questions that were not asked before the death, or preserve stories, memories, and a sense of connection.
The subject is no longer merely a theoretical discussion about “digital life after death.” In the United States, the example of Chris Pelkey, who died at the age of 37 in a road-rage incident in Arizona, was used in 2021 when an AI-generated avatar was displayed before the defendant during a court hearing. The Anadolu Agency regarded this case as one of the first major instances in which “deadbots” and the digital estate directly entered the judicial system.
Between Remembrance and Continued Presence
Christopher Hall, the chief executive of the government-supported organization Grief Australia, believes that the main risk is not necessarily that users will become less sensitive to death, but rather that confusion will increase. The tool may blur the distinction between recalling a person and continuing to interact with an entity that appears to be present, which may help some people grieve or make accepting the reality of the death more difficult.
Dr. Katarzyna Nowaczyk-Basinska, a researcher at the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence at the University of Cambridge, points out that posthumously created avatars have begun appearing in living rooms, museums, concert halls, and courts. However, she stresses that the available data remain insufficient to determine their positive or negative effect on grief, particularly because grief is an individual, nonlinear experience influenced by context. She therefore cautions against treating interaction with these simulations as a uniform or standard way of dealing with loss.
Some users may find comfort in a simulation of a loved one during a difficult period, while the experience may be emotionally devastating for others. For this reason, Nowaczyk-Basinska has raised the possibility of classifying this technology as a medical device and subjecting it to legal standards, with its use supervised by specialists such as psychologists or psychiatrists. According to the article, this remains a proposal linked to the need to regulate the field, not an implemented framework that has been announced.
A Simulation Is Not a Replication of Consciousness
Nowaczyk-Basinska sets clear limits on the capabilities of current technology: a “deadbot” does not contain the deceased person, but only imitates some of their characteristics. As for speaking of the digitization of death in the sense of transferring a person’s consciousness to another environment, that would require a different advance involving the possibility of transferring consciousness to a computer-like medium—something not demonstrated by the technology discussed in the article.
Accordingly, the more accurate description of these systems is that they create a “convincing representative” of the deceased person, not that they bring the person back or achieve digital immortality. The researcher also warned against viewing these tools as a reliable bridge to a healthy farewell, particularly when they are used by commercial companies.
What Changes in Practice?
Assessments differ regarding the effect of “deadbots” on the concept of death. Professor Darcy Harris, a specialist in thanatology at King’s University College, affiliated with Western University in Canada, believes that death remains death, and that even the best AI-generated twin does not equal the person’s actual presence. However, he does not rule out their usefulness in helping some people maintain a symbolic connection with the deceased, in a way similar to writing letters to the departed person.
By contrast, remembrance rituals may change in the future as some activities of younger generations move online. Harris expects the technology to be used in memorial ceremonies or therapeutic work, while emphasizing the need to inform family members about how the deceased person’s data are used to create these systems.
certi.news analysis: The actual change here is not proof of the transfer of consciousness or the abolition of death, but rather the conversion of digital traces into an interface that imitates voice, behavior, and responses. This expands the scope of managing digital identity after death, but it does not settle who owns the data, who consents to its use, or how users can distinguish between memory and simulation. The lack of sufficient evidence regarding psychological outcomes, together with the absence of uniform standards mentioned in the source, means that use in grief or courts is an area requiring legal, ethical, and professional scrutiny before it becomes normalized.