The oddly metallic voice speaking to the ex-CNN journalist Jim Acosta in an interview on Substack this week was actually that of a digital ghost: an AI, trained on the teenager’s old social media posts at the request of his parents, who are using it to bolster their campaign for tougher gun controls.
No parent in their right mind would ever judge a bereaved one.
Rubbish! If that were the case, the tabloids wouldn't exist!
If it’s a comfort to keep the lost child’s bedroom as a shrine, talk to their gravestone, sleep with a T-shirt that still faintly smells like them, then that’s no business of anyone else’s. People hold on to what they can.
But they've not kept it to themselves, have they? They've chosen to use it to push a political viewpoint.
But it’s precisely because it’s so hard to let go that grief is vulnerable to exploitation. And there may soon be big business in digitally bringing back the dead.
So the government can tax them?
But while the legal rights of the living not to have their identities stolen for use in AI deepfakes are becoming more established, the rights of the dead are muddled.
The dead have no rights.
What happens if half of a family wants Mum digitally resurrected, and the other half doesn’t want to live with ghosts?
What always happens, of course. Some lawyers get rich!
No comments:
Post a Comment