Griefbots

Navigating the Wild West of Technological Mourning

When I first wrote about griefbots, I promised to continue exploring this fascinating topic. This emergent technology represents uncharted territory for thanatologists (grief geeks like myself), bereavement educators, and innovators seeking opportunities in the realm of loss.

Perhaps that sounds overly cynical. Not all entrepreneurs are solely motivated by profit.

However, when it comes to griefscape—the intricate landscape of death, loss, and grief—we must proceed with mindfulness, ethical consideration, and compassion.

As you may recall, I've been exploring interactions with Claude.ai, an advanced AI chatbot developed by Anthropic, designed to be "safe, accurate, and secure to help you do your best work."

In my previous conversation, I asked Claude to examine the pros and cons of deathbots—chatbots that replicate the conversational behavior of a deceased person by drawing on their text messages, voice recordings, emails, and social media posts. (For a fictional exploration, I recommend watching Black Mirror's "Be Right Back" episode.)

Me: What do you think of deepfakes used to support the bereaved?

Claude.ai: This is a complex and sensitive topic that touches on ethical considerations around grief, technology, and personal identity. There are valid arguments both for and against using deepfake technology to help bereaved individuals.

Potential Positive Aspects:

• The technology could provide emotional comfort to people struggling with profound loss, offering a way to temporarily reconnect with or say a final goodbye to a loved one

• It might help in the grieving process by allowing people to process their loss through a more interactive memory

• For families who lost someone suddenly or tragically, it could provide a sense of closure or final interaction

Ethical Concerns:

• There are significant consent issues, as the deceased person may never have agreed to have their likeness recreated

• The technology could potentially interfere with healthy grieving processes by creating an artificial and potentially misleading representation

• Repeated interactions with a digital replica might prevent people from moving through natural stages of grief

• There are psychological risks of becoming overly attached to a technological simulation

Practical Considerations:

• The accuracy and emotional nuance of such recreations would be crucial

• The technology raises complex questions about privacy, digital rights, and the boundaries of remembrance

While the intention behind such technology is compassionate (read lucrative), it presents profound ethical dilemmas. The most responsible approach would likely involve:

• Obtaining clear prior consent from individuals

• Providing psychological support alongside the technology

• Ensuring the technology is used as a transitional tool, not a permanent substitute for processing grief

Ultimately, while technology can offer innovative ways to remember loved ones, it cannot replace the genuine process of mourning and healing.

Perhaps the most ethical approach in these early days would see these technologies as a temporary therapeutic tool, not a permanent substitute for processing grief, always prioritizing genuine human connection and professional support.

That’s assuming you can afford professional support and can access genuine human connection.

Dr. Regina Fabry is a philosopher of mind and cognition at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia who co-authored a paper titled The Affective Scaffolding of Grief in the Digital Age: The Case of the Deathbots.

Philosophers have been researching accounts of human-deathbots interactions for several years and must guide the future policy guidelines to ensure ethical practice. “From an optimistic perspective, deathbots can be understood as technological resources that can shape and regulate emotional experiences of grief. Researchers suggest that interactions with a deathbot might allow the bereaved to continue ‘habits of intimacy’ such as conversing, emotional regulation and spending time together,” shared Dr. Fabry.

However, we know that each grief experience is unique, complex and layered.

How we grieve, for how long, and which healing rituals and practices can best support us as we work through our sorrow, depends on so many variables including cause of death, the quality of the relationship between the bereaved and the deceased, and the acceptable cultural norms that shape the grieving process.

Ultimately the benefits of accessing a deathbot will depend on the bereaved person’s attitude towards death and grief. “Is a bereaved person aware that they are chatting with a deathbot, one that will eventually commit errors? Or does the bereaved person, at least at times, feel as if they are, literally, conversing with the dead? Answering these questions needs more empirical research,” stated Dr. Fabry.

Consent emerges as a crucial consideration. Some individuals will reject the idea of being “resurrected” as a digital entity, while others may proactively plan for it. The paramount concern must always be respecting the wishes of the deceased.

Our death-denying, grief-averse culture makes deathbots incredibly appealing. But are we merely delaying inevitable emotional processing?

Are we essentially commodifying grief?

There are no definitive answers. We'll continue grappling with these ethical and emotional complexities for years to come.

For those seeking genuine grief support, I’ve curated additional resources for paid subscribers - a community committed to expanding our collective grief intelligence. It will take a village of compassionate individuals to reclaim our humanity, beginning with acknowledging grief as a natural human experience.