about this misuse of tech over the last few years, with DUers posting replies agreeing this is a bad use of AI.
But since you posted that story about it, but without an excerpt, I guess I'll add what I was going to post with the CBS link.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ai-ghost-chatbots-deceased-loved-ones/
Enter artificial intelligence. Manning, a doctoral candidate in information science at the University of Colorado Boulder, is now studying the use of large language models (LLM) to create what some are calling "generative ghosts" — AI chatbots trained on a dead person's social media posts, emails, audio and video recordings, photos and other data to create a digital simulation that family and friends can interact with after the individual's death.
-snip-
The researchers found that study participants generally preferred communicating with an AI "ghost" of their loved one in the first person, with the chatbot serving as a direct reincarnation, rather than an avatar speaking in the third person. One turnoff: if a bot used a term of endearment, like "champ" or "pal," that their loved one typically didn't say, a user wanted to end the interaction.
Generative ghosts share some commonalities with so-called deepfakes, which can be designed to mislead the public by fabricating a public figure's speech and actions. But Brubaker said there is a distinct difference.
"The fundamental premise of a deep fake is the intent to deceive," Brubaker said. "The intent of generative ghosts is not to deceive another person."
People who have deepfakes of their loved ones created are deceiving themselves. This is not psychologically healthy.
The Westword article you linked to shows an example:
Some participants reported that the illusion was shattered when the AI used the wrong nicknames or phrases. However, others earnestly spoke of the chatbot as if it were their loved one communicating from the grave.
“Thank you for following through on your promise to visit me. It was so, so powerful,” a 50-year-old woman who lost her grandmother reportedly said, referring to a childhood conversation in which her grandmother promised to come back after her death. “I’d like for you to come to me again.”
That woman sounds delusional. And that delusion can be destroyed by the AI saying the wrong thing. Or the deepfake becoming inaccessible, for whatever reason, in which case it's likely to seem to the deluded victim of the deepfake that they lost their loved one a second time.
Also from the Westwood article:
When asked if they would use the technology again, all of the 16 participants said yes, according to CU. Though some expressed concern over how repeated use would impact them, and nearly all feared how it would impact other people struggling through the grieving process.
“I don’t know if I would like the person I would become if I kept using this always,” a 23-year-old man who lost his stepfather told researchers.
At least "nearly all" of those people apparently realized it could be harmful.
No AI company should do this sort of thing. But few AI companies seem to have any concern about ethics.
= new reply since forum marked as read
