I don 't like it at all. Not because it’s my likeness, but because I feel it’s bad for them. Psychologically unhealthy. I’d feel the same if they were doing it to Grandma or a dead child instead of me.
Sure, but again, since the model could or would say things I’d never say, that would not be a “resurrection” of me in any meaningful way. It’d be the equivalent of putting my face on a Trump AI and calling it a day. So it completely loses the personal connection that seems to upset people more than usual.
I think how I’d feel about it would be annoyed; because they ought to know that isn’t me.
You want to try to talk to me after I’m dead? Go talk to a cat, or to a tree, or to a field. They’re not me either; but they’re a lot closer than a computer is. And a lot less likely to say something I wouldn’t say.
I’m not in the least convinced that any AI would do that; or would do/say anything else that I actually would.
Also this.
I’ll be dead. I, as an individual, will have gone back into the rest of the universe. My molecules and my works and my love are part of that universe. And lots of those parts need attention.
Go pat the living cat.
What if your relatives go to a medium to commune with you?
I don’t really see the point of the question.
It’s someone saying what you supposedly would be saying with (to anyone who believes in spirits and mediums) even more authority than an AI generated video
They don’t have more authority though. If someone chooses to believe the medium, that’s on them but it’s not because the medium has any actual basis. As mentioned earlier, you might as well talk to a cat. If a person wants to believe I’m speaking through the cat, that’s also on them and equally plausible as the medium channeling me.
I’m not going to worry about every increasingly extended edge case (“What if Mad Dr Necromind uses his Brain-o-Meter over your grave??”) nor is that a reason for me to be any more accommodating about an AI trained on me as a stand-in for my thoughts.
Before we descend into various what abouts, please would you be kind enough to say whether or not you are satisfied with my earlier explanations as to why I find the prospect of an AI grief-bot to be a different thing to the potential personal musings of a bereaved relative? You asked quite aggressively about this, then didn’t acknowledge my response.
That is: do you recognise there is at least a continuum of different things being discussed here, potentially running from undesirable through neutral to desirable? And that, although people might struggle to draw a bright line on that continuum, they’re perhaps more likely to have a feeling for which things are further toward the ‘undesirable’ end than others?
If everything is the same as everything else, so should all be treated the same as everything else, we have no common ground for discussion.
I find it difficult to imagine the MfM griefbot being healthy for my family. But it it was, I’d be ok with it. Life is for the living.
To anyone who believes in spirits and mediums, there’s no “someone saying what you supposedly would be saying” about it. It’s someone saying what you are saying, as if they’ve got you on the other end of a telephone.