Lindenwood University

Digital Commons@Lindenwood University
Faculty ScholarshipResearch and Scholarship

6-2023

Life, death, and AI: Exploring digital necromancy in popular
culture—Ethical considerations, technological limitations, and thepet cemetery conundrum
James Hutson
Lindenwood University, jhutson@lindenwood.edu

Jay Raticanjratican@lindenwood.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/faculty-research-papers
Part of the Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Commons

Recommended Citation
Hutson, James and Ratican, Jay, "Life, death, and AI: Exploring digital necromancy in popular
culture—Ethical considerations, technological limitations, and the pet cemetery conundrum" (2023).
Faculty Scholarship. 478.
https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/faculty-research-papers/478

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Research and Scholarship at Digital
Commons@Lindenwood University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorizedadministrator of Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. For more information, please contact
phuffman@lindenwood.edu.

Metaverse (2023) Volume 4 Issue 1, 12 pages.
doi: 10.54517/m.v4i1.2166.

Review Article

Life, death, and AI: Exploring digital necromancy in popular
culture—Ethical considerations, technological limitations, andthe pet cemetery conundrum
James Hutson*, Jeremiah Ratican
Lindenwood University, MO 63301, USA. E-mail: jhutson@lindenwood.edu

ABSTRACTThis article explores the rise of generative AI, particularly ChatGPT, and the combination of large language models(LLM) with robotics, exemplified by Ameca the Robot. It addresses the need to study the ethical considerations andpotential implications of digital necromancy, which involves using AI to reanimate deceased individuals for various
purposes. Reasons for desiring to engage with a disembodied or bodied replica of a person include the preservation ofmemories, emotional closure, cultural heritage and historical preservation, interacting with idols or influential figures,
educational and research purposes, and creative expression and artistic endeavors. As such, this article examines historical examples of the practice in hologram concerts, CGI characters, and others in order to analyze the ethical concerns
related to privacy, consent, and commercial gain. It delves into the challenges of accurately representing individual personalities, misrepresenting cultural context, and the limitations of available data. Furthermore, it explores the Pet Cemetery conundrum and its impact on the grieving process, mental health, and the moral implications of using AI to generate interactions with the deceased. By contemplating future use cases like interactive virtual assistants and realistic
historical reenactments, the article highlights the importance of addressing ethical implications as these technologies
continue to advance and contributes to the discourse on the responsible and ethical use of generative AI, LLM, and robotics in the context of digital resurrection, calling for ongoing discussions and considerations of AI rights, social dynamics, and the grieving process.
Keywords: digital necromancy; generative AI; large language models (LLM); ethical considerations; grieving processals[1]. The emerging field of “digital necromancy”
has captured the imagination of both researchers andthe general public, offering possibilities that wereonce relegated to the realm of science fiction[2]. The
researchers use the term here to refer to the practiceof using advanced technologies, such as artificial
intelligence (AI) and robotics, to recreate or simulate

1. Introduction
The boundaries between life and death are being challenged in unprecedented ways as advancements in technology enable the creation of digital
twins and AI clones of living or deceased individu-

ARTICLE INFO
Received: May 23, 2023 | Accepted: June 2, 2023 | Available online: June 8, 2023
CITATION
Hutson J, Ratican J. Life, death, and AI: Exploring digital necromancy in popular culture—Ethical considerations, technological limitations, andthe pet cemetery conundrum. Metaverse 2023; 4(1): 12 pages.
COPYRIGHT
Copyright © 2023 by author(s). Metaverse is published by Asia Pacific Academy of Science Pte. Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), permitting distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is cited.

1Life, death, and AI: Exploring digital necromancy in popular culture—Ethical considerations, technological limitations,and the pet cemetery conundrum

the presence of deceased individuals or to interact
with digital representations of their personalities[3]. It
involves harnessing data from various sources, including online profiles, voice recordings, images,
and other digital artifacts, to construct virtual versions of individuals, enabling their continued existence in digital form[4]. This convergence of technology and commemoration has profound
implications for how we interact with the departed,
raising ethical considerations, probing technologicallimitations, and introducing intriguing dilemmas.

es, blurring the boundaries between the living andthe departed. Such advancements demonstrate theincreasing convergence of AI, virtual reality, andhuman-machine interaction, providing a glimpse
into the possibilities and ethical considerations ofvirtual afterlives.
The advent of digital necromancy, with its
ability to recreate individuals based on their digital
footprints, raises significant ethical considerations.
One prominent concern is the potential for identity
theft and the unauthorized recreation of someone
without their explicit permission[11,12]. As technology
advances, it becomes increasingly feasible to generate replicas of individuals using their online
presence, voicemails, or even selfies, blurring theline between consent and exploitation[13]. The ability
poses a fundamental question regarding ownershipand control over one’s digital identity and the right todetermine how one is represented in the virtual
realm.

Recent advances have showcased the remarkable potential of technology to recreate and interact
with deceased individuals[5]. One notable example isthe development of Ameca, an AI-powered avatar
that embodies the persona of a specific individual[6].
Through the integration of large language models(LLM), such as GPT-3 and GPT-4, Ameca is capableof engaging in conversational interactions, expressing a wide range of emotions, and even reacting toreal-time events. Ameca’s ability to replicate facial
expressions and provide nuanced responses creates
an uncanny sense of presence, blurring the line between the living and the deceased. The novel development exemplifies how AI and robotics are enabling a new era of commemoration and interaction
with those who have passed away, raising intriguingquestions about the nature of identity, consciousness,and the ethics of resurrecting the dead[7].

Furthermore, the impact of these advancements
on interpersonal relationships can not be overlooked.
With the ability to create any desired version of aperson and have them act and react as desired, there
is a risk of manipulating or distorting the authenticity
of human interactions[14]. The boundaries between
real and artificial relationships may become blurred,leading to challenges in trust, emotional intimacy,
and genuine connection[15]. There is potential for thevery fabric of human relationships being alteredwhen anyone can fabricate a version of a person
according to their own desires and expectations.

The desire to commemorate and interact withthe deceased is deeply rooted in human history, dating back to at least the Neolithic era[8]. However,recent technological advancements have brought us
closer than ever to realizing this age-old aspiration.
Beyond the realm of fictional narratives, there
have been notable developments in the realm ofdigital twins and AI clones that enable conversations
with videos of celebrities and historical figures[9].
For instance, companies like StoryFile[10] have pioneered conversational video AI, allowing users toengage with recorded interviews of iconic personalities like William Shatner. These interactive experiences offer a glimpse into the past, where individuals
can ask questions and receive tailored respons-

The implications for the grieving process areequally profound. The confluence of these technological innovations offers the possibility of keeping a
loved one alive in perpetuity, ranging from preserving their voice to creating a fully interactive
replica[16]. While this may provide a sense of comfort
and solace for some individuals, it also raises complex questions about the nature of grieving and acceptance of loss[17]. Continuously interacting with adigital representation of the deceased may hinder thenatural progression of grief, inhibiting the necessary2

Hutson and Ratican

emotional healing and adjustment to life without thephysical presence of the loved one. Lindemann[18]noted as such in her study on these so-called“Deathbots”. The prolonged connection to the deceased through technological means may delay thenecessary process of letting go and moving forward.

Necromancy is a supernatural or occult practicethat involves communicating with and summoning
the spirits of the dead[20]. It is a form of divination ormagic that seeks to gain knowledge or influence
from the deceased. Historically, necromancy
has been associated with various ancient civilizations and cultures, including ancient Egypt, Greece,and Mesopotamia[21]. An example of necromancy
from history is the practice of necromancy in ancient
Greece. The ancient Greeks believed in the existenceof the spirit world and sought to communicate withthe dead through rituals and ceremonies. One notable example is the Necromanteion of Ephyra (4thcentury BCE), a sacred site in ancient Greece wherevisitors would consult the spirits of the dead forprophetic guidance and advice[22].

In examining the ethical considerations of digital resurrection, it is crucial to navigate the delicate balance between honoring the memories of thedeceased and respecting the boundaries of personalautonomy, consent, and the grieving process[9]. The
potential benefits and pitfalls of these technologicaladvancements must be carefully weighed against the
profound impact they may have on our relationships,
identities, and emotional well-being. As we delve
deeper into the realm of cybernetic reanimation,
it becomes imperative to establish robust ethicalframeworks that safeguard personal agency, privacy,
and the authentic human experience, while simultaneously harnessing the positive potential of thesetechnologies to enhance our understanding of thepast and the present[19].

During the renaissance era, the practice of
necromancy continued to intrigue and captivate theminds of individuals. One notable figure associatedwith necromantic beliefs and practices was the renowned Italian artist and sculptor, Benvenuto Cellini(1500–1571). Cellini, known for his artistic mastery,also dabbled in the occult and claimed to haveknowledge of necromancy. In his autobiography,
The Life of Benvenuto Cellini (written 1558–1562),
he recounts an experience where he attempted tosummon a spirit through necromancy. According toCellini, he performed a ritual in a cemetery, using
various incantations and invocations to call forth thespirit of a deceased individual[23]. While the veracityof Cellini's account is debatable, his involvement innecromantic practices during the renaissance era
demonstrates the enduring fascination with communicating with the spirit realm[24].

The emergence of new generative technologies,
AI clones, digital twins, and the ability to recreate
deceased individuals or simulate living personalities
has opened up new frontiers in the realms of AI androbotics. These advancements offer intriguing possibilities for commemorating the departed, engaging
with historical figures, and even shaping interpersonal relationships. However, they also raise profound ethical considerations surrounding consent,
identity theft, and the potential distortion of personal
narratives. Furthermore, the impact on the grieving
process and the perpetuity of a loved one’s presencein various digital forms evoke deep emotional andpsychological implications. By delving into thesecomplex themes, this study aims to shed light on theintersection of technology, humanity, and the social
fabric of our society, providing valuable insights into
the future implications of digital necromancy, AI
clones, and their impact on our lives.

During the Victorian era (1837–1901), a periodcharacterized by fascination with the supernaturaland spiritualism, the practice of necromancy foundits place in various forms[25]. One notable example isthe infamous case of the Fox sisters, Margaret(1833–1893) and Catherine (Kate) (c. 1839–1892),
who gained prominence as mediums and spiritualists.
In 1848, the sisters claimed to have made contact
with the spirit of a deceased person in their family
home in Hydesville, New York. Their alleged ability

2. Past use of digital necromancy
3

Life, death, and AI: Exploring digital necromancy in popular culture—Ethical considerations, technological limitations,and the pet cemetery conundrum

to communicate with the dead sparked a widespreadinterest in spiritualism, leading to the formation of
spiritualist societies and the emergence of séances as
a popular form of entertainment. The Fox sisters’
supposed interactions with the spirit realm and theirrole in popularizing spiritualism during the Victorianera exemplify the enduring allure of necromantic
practices in different historical periods[26].

regarding consent, privacy rights, and the potential
misuse of personal data. In this section, the multifaceted ethical considerations surrounding the newability will be explored, shedding light on the implications for individual rights, interpersonal relationships, and the grieving process.

With the rapid advancement of technology, we
have witnessed the rise of emerging tools and techniques that have facilitated the practice of talking to
the dead. In popular culture, there are several notable
examples of digital necromancy through the use ofhologram concerts and CGI characters. One prominent instance is the hologram performance of Tupac
Shakur at the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival in 2012. Through the clever integration ofcomputer-generated imagery and projection technology, a lifelike holographic representation of thelate rapper was brought to the stage, captivating theaudience and creating a surreal experience[27]. Similarly, in the realm of cinema, CGI has been employed to resurrect deceased actors and recreate theirperformances. For instance, in the film Rogue One:A Star Wars Story[26], the character Grand Moff Tarkin, originally portrayed by Peter Cushing, was digitally recreated to appear in the movie, despite theactor’s passing in 1994[28]. These examples demonstrate how posthumous interaction has permeatedpopular culture, blurring the boundaries between
reality and fiction, and raising intriguing questions
about the ethical implications and future possibilities
of recreating and interacting with deceased individuals through technological means.

With the emergence of posthumous AI emulation, privacy concerns have become a significant
ethical consideration. The use of personal data, suchas social media posts, emails, voicemails, andeven biometric information, raises questions about
the extent to which individuals’ privacy is being
respected[29]. The process of recreating someone’s
likeness and personality require access to their digital footprint, which may include sensitive and private information[30]. The ability raises concerns
about consent, data security, and the potential forunauthorized access or misuse of personal data.
Additionally, the use of personal data without explicit consent from the deceased or their families caninfringe upon their privacy rights and raise ethicalquestions about the boundaries of posthumous consent[31].

3.1. Ethical issues in digital necromancy

Another ethical consideration with digital revival is the ethics of commercializing the personas
and identities of deceased individuals. The use of
AI-powered replicas or avatars for commercial gain
raises questions about exploitation, dignity, and respect for the deceased. When deceased individuals
are brought back to life in digital form for entertainment, marketing, or other commercial purposes,
it raises concerns about commodification and thepotential exploitation of their likeness without theirconsent. The passing of Kobe Bryant in 2020 highlighted the importance of estate planning and posthumous branding for athletes, raising questions
about ownership, protection, and the legacy athletes
can establish, emphasizing the need for further research on athletes’ brand building and estate planning practices[32]. The commercialization of deceased individuals also raises questions about the
ethical responsibilities of companies and individuals

3. Ethics and privacy concerns
The rise of digital necromancy and the ability torecreate and interact with deceased individuals
through emerging technologies brings forth a host of
ethical and privacy concerns. This intersection of AI,
robotics, and the recreation of individuals’ digitalpresence poses significant challenges in safeguarding privacy and respecting the autonomy and dignityof the deceased. Profound ethical questions arise4

Hutson and Ratican

involved in creating and utilizing these digital replicas, as well as the potential impact on the legacy
and reputation of the deceased[33].

character, and infringing upon their right to be accurately represented[36].
Moreover, the use of AI to reanimate deceased
individuals can have profound implications for thegrieving process. Keeping a loved one artificially“alive” or recreating them in a digital form mayhinder the natural process of mourning and acceptance. It can potentially disrupt the emotional
healing and closure that comes with letting go of adeparted person. Furthermore, interacting with adigital replica of a deceased loved one may create a
false sense of companionship or attachment, preventing individuals from fully engaging in new relationships and moving forward in their grief journey[37].

In the realm of posthumous digital replication,
privacy concerns and the ethics of commercialization are critical areas that demand careful examination. Respecting the privacy rights of the deceased,
obtaining consent from their families, and ensuring
responsible use of personal data are essential for
upholding ethical standards. Likewise, considering
the ethical implications of using digital replicas of
deceased individuals for commercial purposes is
crucial to avoid exploitation and uphold the dignity
and memory of the deceased. By addressing these
ethical concerns, the use of these technologies canstrive for responsible and ethical practices that navigate the complex intersection of technology, privacy,
and commercialization.

Understanding and addressing the ethical implications of AI reanimating deceased individuals is
crucial for responsible and respectful practices.
Upholding the principles of consent, ensuring accurate representation, and considering the impact on
the grieving process are paramount. By navigatingthese ethical considerations, the field of AI reanimation can strive to balance technological advancements with compassion and ethical responsibility, ultimately contributing to the well-being anddignity of both the living and the departed.

3.2. Ethical implications of AI reanimating
deceased individuals
One of the significant ethical considerations in
AI reanimating deceased individuals is the issue ofconsent. Resurrecting the likeness, voice, and personality of a deceased person using AI raises questions about whether they have given their explicit
consent for such recreation during their lifetime[34].
Similarly, the consent of their family members orlegal representatives becomes crucial in determining
the appropriateness of recreating the deceased individual[35]. Respecting the wishes of the deceased andtheir family members is essential to ensure that theirautonomy and personal choices are upheld in thedigital realm.

3.3. Importance of privacy concerns in digital
necromancy
Privacy concerns play a significant role in digital necromancy, particularly regarding the use of
personal data. To recreate a deceased individual's
likeness, voice, and personality, substantial amountsof personal information and data are required. This
includes archived digital footprints, social media
posts, emails, voicemails, photographs, and more.
The gathering and utilization of such personal dataraise important questions about consent, ownership,
and the potential for misuse. Safeguarding the privacy of individuals, even after their passing, is crucial to maintain trust, respect their personal boundaries, and uphold ethical standards[38].

Another ethical concern stems from the potential misrepresentation of the beliefs and viewpointsof the deceased. AI algorithms may not accurately
capture the complexities and nuances of an individual’s thoughts and opinions. Consequently, therecreated digital persona may inadvertently express
views or take actions that the deceased would nothave endorsed or approved of in their lifetime. Thismisrepresentation can lead to the distortion of aperson’s legacy, misinforming others about their true

The digital reanimation of deceased individuals

5Life, death, and AI: Exploring digital necromancy in popular culture—Ethical considerations, technological limitations,and the pet cemetery conundrum

also raises concerns about the potential for identity
theft. Given the extensive collection of personal datarequired for accurate recreation, there is a risk that
this information could fall into the wrong hands
and be exploited for malicious purposes. From impersonation to fraud, the misuse of a deceased person’s identity can have severe consequences for theirfamily, friends, and the broader society[39]. Protecting the privacy and identity of the deceased becomes
essential in preventing unauthorized access andmitigating the potential risks associated with identity
theft.

Another limitation lies in the potential misrepresentation of cultural context. Cultural norms, values, and beliefs shape an individual’s identity andactions, and accurately capturing and replicatingthese aspects is a challenging endeavor. AI models
trained on diverse datasets might struggle to fully
grasp the cultural nuances and contextual referencesthat influence a person’s behavior, leading to potential misunderstandings or misinterpretations in therecreated digital representations[41]. While yet another limitation can be found in the quality andavailability of data. The accuracy and fidelity of therecreated personas heavily rely on the data usedduring training. In cases where limited data isavailable or the data sources are incomplete, theresulting digital avatars may lack the depth and authenticity necessary for a faithful representation[42].
Additionally, historical figures or individuals fromearlier periods may have limited data available,
making it even more challenging to accurately recreate their personas.

Addressing privacy concerns in digital reincarnation is imperative to maintain the trust of individuals and respect their right to privacy, even after
death. Strict privacy policies, secure data storage,
and informed consent protocols should be established to safeguard personal information. By prioritizing privacy and implementing robust security
measures, the field of digital necromancy can ensure
responsible and ethical practices that protect the
integrity and dignity of both the deceased and their
loved ones.

Understanding these current technological limitations is essential in shaping responsible practices
and managing expectations in the field. Recognizing
the challenges in accurately representing individual
personalities, cultural context, and the availability ofdata can inform ethical decision-making, guide thedevelopment of more advanced AI models, and help
establish realistic boundaries for the application ofthese technologies. Continued research and development in AI and related fields are necessary to address these limitations and ensure responsible andethically sound practices.

4. Current technological limitations
Despite significant advancements in AI andrelated technologies, there are several inherent limitations that affect the accuracy and ethical considerations of digital necromancy. Understanding thesetechnological constraints is crucial for assessing thecurrent capabilities and potential risks associatedwith recreating deceased individuals through AI.
One of the primary challenges in virtual afterlife is
the accurate representation of individual personalities and experiences. While AI models can learn
from vast amounts of data, capturing the nuanced
aspects of a person’s character, emotions, and subjective experiences remains a complex task. AI systems will for the foreseeable future struggle to fullycomprehend the intricacies of human behavior, motivations, and personal growth, resulting in potential
inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the recreateddigital personas[40].

5. The pet cemetery conundrum:
Problematic nature of the grieving
process
Popular culture has long been fascinated with
the idea of regenerating the dead, exploring thecomplex dynamics and ethical dilemmas surrounding the grieving process. Films like Pet Sematary(1989), Flatliners (1990), and The Lazarus Effect(2015) delve into the repercussions of bringing de-6

Hutson and Raticanceased loved ones back to life, raisingthought-provoking questions about the emotional
toll and moral implications of tampering with death.
There is a simultaneous attraction and revulsion
towards reanimating a deceased loved one, akin to
the uncanny valley effect[43]. In Stephen King’s
novel[43] and subsequent film adaptation of Pet Sematary, the story revolves around a mystical burial
ground that has the power to resurrect the deceased.
The narrative explores the consequences when theprotagonist, driven by grief, decides to bring back a
loved one, only to witness their dark transformationand the devastating effects it has on their family.
Similarly, Flatliners and The Lazarus Effect presentsa scientific approach to resurrection. In the case of
the latter, a group of researchers discover a way torevive the dead using an experimental serum.
However, the revived individuals come back withsinister changes and uncontrollable powers, highlighting the inherent dangers of playing withthe boundaries of life and death.

tional stagnation or detachment from the natural
healing process. Striking a balance between honoring the memories of the departed and allowing individuals to navigate the grieving process is paramount. Ethical discussions and guidelines should
address the boundaries and responsible use of theseexperiences, ensuring that the emotional well-beingof individuals is not compromised, and that thetechnology does not hinder healthy coping mechanisms.
Navigating the Pet Cemetery conundrum requires careful consideration of the emotional, psychological, and ethical aspects of the grieving process. Recognizing the limitations and potential
pitfalls of recreating the deceased through AI androbotics is crucial to promoting healthy grief management and supporting individuals in their journey
towards acceptance and healing. By fostering responsible practices and engaging in open dialogues,
society can navigate this complex territory and ensure that technology remains a tool that respects the
sanctity of the grieving process.

These representations in popular culture shedlight on the problematic nature of the grieving process when it comes to posthumous digital replication.
Grief is a deeply personal and complex experience,and the desire to reconnect with deceased loved ones
is a natural response. However, the ethical implications arise when technology offers the means torecreate their presence artificially. The act of resurrecting the dead raises questions about the moral
responsibility of individuals and the potential impact
on their own emotional well-being. Does digital
resurrection provide genuine closure or merely
prolong the grieving process? Can the recreatedversions truly capture the essence of the departed, or
do they become mere simulations that may hinder
the ability to let go and move forward?

6. Summary of key ethical issues
The review of research to this point has shedlight on the key ethical issues surrounding digital
necromancy, particularly in the context of
AI-powered avatars and replicas of real people. The
discussion highlights several important considerations, including privacy concerns, the ethics ofcommercialization, consent of the deceased and theirfamily, misrepresentation of beliefs and viewpoints,
the impact on the grieving process, and the importance of privacy in handling personal data. These
ethical issues are crucial in shaping our understanding of digital necromancy and require further
examination to refine and supplement our views. By
exploring these key concerns, researchers candeepen their understanding of the implications of
this technology and work towards developing ethicalframeworks and guidelines to ensure responsible andrespectful use of AI in replicating and interactingwith deceased individuals.

Therefore, digital necromancy presents a conundrum, as it offers the possibility of maintaining aconnection to deceased loved ones but also raises
concerns about the healthy progression of thegrieving process. While the technology may provide
comfort and solace, it is essential to consider the
long-term consequences and the potential for emo-7Life, death, and AI: Exploring digital necromancy in popular culture—Ethical considerations, technological limitations,and the pet cemetery conundrum

There are several key ethical issues surrounding
digital necromancy, including privacy considerations, as the use of personal data and the potential for
identity theft raise significant privacy risks. Additionally, the ethics of commercialization are raised,as the exploitation of deceased individuals for financial gain can be seen as morally problematic.
Consent of the deceased and their family is anotherimportant ethical consideration. The use of AI toreanimate deceased individuals raises questions
about whether explicit consent was given or if theindividual would have approved of such replicationand interaction. Misrepresentation of beliefs andviewpoints is also a concern, as AI may not accurately capture the nuances of an individual’s
thoughts and may potentially misrepresent theirlegacy.

These interactive virtual assistants could provide
guidance, share insights, and engage in conversations, offering a personalized and immersive experience[44].
While the idea of interacting with virtual versions of deceased individuals may be enticing, it
raises significant ethical considerations. The consent
of the deceased and their families must be carefully
addressed, ensuring that the use of their likeness andpersonality aligns with their wishes and respects
their rights. As well, safeguards should be implemented to prevent the misuse or exploitation of thesevirtual assistants, emphasizing the importance of
responsible and ethical implementation.

7.2. Realistic historical reenactments

7. Future potential use cases

Another potential future use case lies in therealm of realistic historical reenactments. By utilizing AI algorithms and available historical data,
it becomes possible to recreate significant moments,
events, or even entire eras with lifelike accuracy.
These reenactments could provide invaluable educational opportunities, allowing individuals to experience history in an immersive and interactive
manner[45]. However, ethical considerations must beat the forefront when utilizing this technology forhistorical reenactments. The accuracy and authenticity of the recreated personas and events must be
carefully verified to ensure that they align with historical facts and do not distort or misrepresent thepast. Additionally, maintaining transparency andavoiding the perpetuation of historical biases or
misconceptions becomes crucial to fostering a responsible and inclusive portrayal of history.

7.1. Creation of interactive virtual assistants

7.3. Bridging the gap between generations

The development of these new types of experiences opens up intriguing possibilities for the creation of interactive virtual assistants using the personalities of deceased individuals. Imagine having avirtual assistant that embodies the knowledge, wisdom, and unique characteristics of historical figures,
renowned scholars, or even beloved family members.

Digital immortality also holds the potential
to bridge the gap between generations by enabling
conversations and connections across time. Imagine being able to have heartfelt conversations withancestors or past generations, learning from theirexperiences, and gaining valuable insights into theshared history of humanity. This can foster a deeper

Furthermore, the impact on the grieving processof loved ones is a significant ethical consideration.
The ability to keep a deceased loved one “alive” indigital form may have both positive and negative
effects on the bereaved. It raises questions about theauthenticity of the grieving process and the potential
for prolonging or distorting the healing journey.
Overall, these ethical issues underscore theneed for careful consideration and responsible implementation of digital necromancy technologies.
Further research and discussions are necessary torefine our understanding of these ethical challenges
and to develop guidelines and frameworks that ensure respectful and ethically sound practices in thisemerging field.

8

Hutson and Raticanniques is another avenue to consider[49]. The accuracy of representations generated through these newgenerative technologies relies heavily on the available data and the AI models used. By expanding thedata sources beyond the individual's digital footprint
and incorporating diverse perspectives and experiences, a more comprehensive and nuanced representation can be achieved. Additionally, advancements in AI techniques, such as deep learning and
NLP, can contribute to more accurate and contextually appropriate interactions with the recreated individuals[50].

sense of connection, cultural preservation, and intergenerational understanding[46]. However, as withany application, it is essential to approach these interactions with respect and caution. Balancing thedesire for connection and knowledge with ethicalconsiderations, such as consent and accurate representation, is paramount. Additionally, ensuring thatthese interactions do not replace genuine humanconnections or hinder the development of interpersonal relationships is crucial for maintaining healthysocial dynamics.
The future potential use cases are vast andhold both promise and ethical challenges. As technology continues to advance, it is vital to approachthese possibilities with a thoughtful and responsible
mindset, ensuring that the benefits are maximized
while mitigating potential risks. By navigating the
ethical considerations and engaging in ongoing dialogue, we can harness the power to create meaningful and respectful interactions that enrich ourlives and deepen our understanding of the past.

Protecting privacy and ensuring consent are
crucial aspects that need to be addressed. Measures
can be implemented to safeguard personal data, ensuring that the use of such data complies with ethicaland legal standards[51]. Additionally, obtaining explicit consent from individuals or their designatedrepresentatives can help ensure that their likenessand identity are used appropriately and with theirinformed approval[52]. Transparency in data usage
and the implementation of privacy-enhancing technologies can further strengthen privacy protectionsin the context of the topic at hand while past examples from the health care sector can be referenced[53].

7.4. Addressing ethical concerns and limitations
Finally, when considering future potential use
cases of digital necromancy, it is important to address the ethical concerns and limitations raised in
the article. As such, this section provides an opportunity to delve into possible solutions and guidelinesthat can help navigate the complex ethical landscapesurrounding this technology. For example, one possible solution is the establishment of robust ethicalframeworks[47]. These frameworks would outline
clear guidelines and principles for the responsible
development and application of AI in the recreationof digital persons and would address issues such asconsent, privacy, and the respectful representation of
deceased individuals[48]. By providing a set of ethicalstandards, these frameworks would serve as a guidefor developers, researchers, and policymakers inensuring that the technology is used ethically andwith sensitivity.

Examples of these solutions and guidelines
can be drawn from existing frameworks and bestpractices in related fields. For instance, the field of
medical ethics provides valuable insights into informed consent and the protection of patient data.
Ethical considerations in AI development, such as
fairness, transparency, and accountability, can also
inform the establishment of ethical frameworks for
digital necromancy.
By exploring these solutions and guidelines,
researchers and practitioners can contribute to the
responsible and ethical advancement of digital necromancy technologies. These measures can help
address the ethical concerns and limitations raised,
ensuring that the development and application of thistechnology align with ethical principles, respectprivacy, and prioritize the well-being of individuals
and their loved ones.

Exploring alternative data sources or AI tech-

9

Life, death, and AI: Exploring digital necromancy in popular culture—Ethical considerations, technological limitations,and the pet cemetery conundrum

8. Conclusions

play a vital role in shaping the responsible andmeaningful use of this technology in the future.

Digital necromancy presents a fascinating yet
ethically complex landscape for popular culture
purposes. Throughout this article, the ethical considerations, limitations, and potential use cases ofthis technology have been explored. It is clear that
this new ability raises significant privacy concerns,
particularly in relation to personal data and the potential for identity theft. The ethics of commercialization and the consent of the deceased and theirfamilies also come into question. Furthermore, theimpact on the grieving process and the moral implications of using AI to generate interactions withthe dead must be carefully examined. While technological advancements have enabled remarkableachievements in recreating personalities and interactions with deceased individuals, the technology
should be used judiciously and regulated. The limitations of current technology should be recognized,
including the difficulty in accurately representing
individual personalities and experiences, misrepresenting cultural context, and the reliance on available data.

Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Moving forward, ongoing discussions andconsiderations of the ethical implications of these
posthumous experiences are of utmost importance.
As the technology continues to develop, engaging ina thoughtful and responsible approach will be essential. This includes prioritizing consent, safeguarding privacy, and ensuring accurate representation. By addressing these ethical concerns andfostering a collective understanding, we can navigate
the complexities of digital ephemera of essences andharness its potential for positive and meaningfulexperiences. The confluence of new technologies
opens up new possibilities for popular culture, historical reenactments, and bridging intergenerational
gaps. However, it is imperative that we proceed witha cautious mindset, maintaining a balance between
innovation and ethical considerations. By doing so,these new technological abilities can be used in amanner that addresses privacy, honors the wishes ofthe deceased, and enhances our cultural experiences.
Ongoing discussions and ethical considerations will

6.

7.

8.

9.

10

Fuller A, Fan Z, Day C, et al. Digital twin: Enabling
technologies, challenges and open research. IEEE
access 2020; 8: 108952–108971.
doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2998358.
Morse T. Digital necromancy: Users’ perceptions ofdigital afterlife and posthumous communication
technologies. Information, Communication & Society 2023: 1–17.
doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2023.2205467.
Dunn S. Identity manipulation: Responding to advances in artificial intelligence and robotics. In:
WeRobot; 2020 Sep 22–25. 2020.
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3772957.
Savin-Baden M, Burden D. Digital immortality andvirtual humans. Postdigital Science and Education
2019; 1: 87–103. doi: 10.1007/s42438-018-0007-6.
Sestino A, D’Angelo A. My doctor is an avatar! The
effect of anthropomorphism and emotional receptivity on individuals’ intention to use digital-based
healthcare services. Technological Forecasting andSocial Change 2023; 191: 122505.
doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122505.
Engineered Arts [Internet]. England: Engineered
Arts [cited 2023 Apr 8]. Available from:https://www.engineeredarts.co.uk/robot/ameca/.
Xygkou A, Siriaraya P, Covaci A, et al. The “Conversation” about Loss: Understanding how Chatbot
technology was used in supporting people in grief. In:
Schmidt A, Väänänen K (editors). In: Proceedings ofthe 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems; 2023 Apr 23–28; Hamburg
Germany. New York: Association for Computing
Machinery; 2023. p. 1–15.
doi: 10.1145/3544548.3581154.
Rodanés-Vicente JM, Cuchí-Oterino JA, Minami T,
et al. Use of cinnabar in funerary practices in theCentral Pyrenees. Analysis of pigments on bones
from the prehistoric burial of the Cueva de la Sierra
cave in Campodarbe (Huesca, Spain). Journal ofArchaeological Science: Reports 2023; 48: 103849.
doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.103849.
Lee PYK, Ma NF, Kim IJ, et al. Speculating on risksof AI clones to selfhood and relationships: Doppelganger-phobia, identity fragmentation, and living
memories. In: Nichols J (editor). Proceedings of the
ACM on Human-Computer Interaction; 2023 Apr.
New York: Association for Computing Machinery;2023. p. 1–28. doi: 10.1145/3579524.

Hutson and Ratican
10. StoryFile [Internet]. USA: StoryFile [cited 2023 Apr
8]. Available from: https://storyfile.com/.
11. Kaur G, Chauhan P. Cybersecurity Vis-A-Vis artificial intelligence: An analysis of the international
conventions. In: Kacprzyk J (editors). Lecture Notes
in Networks and Systems. New York: LNNS; 2022.
p. 490. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-4052-1_36.
12. Rani V, Kumar M, Mittal A, et al. Artificial intelligence for cybersecurity: Recent advancements,
challenges and opportunities. In: Nedjah N, Abd
EI-Latif AA, Gupta BB, et al. (editors). Robotics andAI for cybersecurity and critical infrastructure insmart cities. Cham: Springer; 2022. p. 73–88.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-96737-6_4.
13. Shamayleh G, Arsel Z. From blogs to platforms. In:
Belk R, Llamas R (editors). The Routledge handbook of digital consumption. Abingdon: Routledge;2022.
doi: 10.4324/9781003317524-11.
14. Cao L. A new age of AI: Features and futures. IEEE
Intelligent Systems 2022; 37(1): 25–37.
doi: 10.1109/MIS.2022.3150944.
15. Xie T, Pentina I. Attachment theory as a framework
to understand relationships with social chatbots: A
case study of Replika. In: Hawaiian International
Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS); 2022 Jan
4–7; Maui. USA: HICSS; 2022. p. 2046–2055.
doi: 10.24251/HICSS.2022.258.
16. Allison F, Nansen B, Gibbs M, et al. Bones of contention: Social acceptance of digital cemetery technologies. In: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems;
2023 Apr 23–28; Hamburg, Germany. New York:
Association for Computing Machinery; 2023. p.
1–17.
doi: 10.1145/3544548.3581520.
17. Aksar IA, Firdaus A, Pasha SA. Virtual vs. real self:
Gendered presentation and everyday performance of
virtual selfhood—A case study of pakistan. Journalof Communication Inquiry 2023; 47(1): 84–114.
doi: 10.1177/01968599221089236.
18. Lindemann NF. The ethical permissibility of chatting with the dead: Towards a normative framework
for “Deathbots”. Boulder: the Institute of Cognitive
Science; 2022. doi: 10.48693/67.
19. Safdar NM, Banja JD, Meltzer CC. Ethical considerations in artificial intelligence. European Journalof Radiology 2020; 122: 108768.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108768.
20. Kapcár A. The origins of necromancy or how welearned to speak to the dead. Sacra 2015; 13(2):30–58.
21. Ritner RK. Necromancy in ancient Egypt. In: Magic
and divination in the Ancient World. Leiden: Brill;
2002. p. 89–96
22. Karamanides D. Pythagoras: Pioneering mathematician and musical theorist of ancient Greece. New
York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc.; 2006.
23. Gallucci MA, Gallucci MA. Cellini’s Poetics II: The

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

11

Vita. In: Benvenuto Cellini: Sexuality, masculinity,
and artistic identity in Renaissance Italy. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan; 2003. p. 71–108.
Klaassen F. Necromancy. 1st ed. In: The Routledge
history of medieval magic. New York: Routledge;
2019. p. 201–211.
Dimolianis S, Evans SP. Jack the ripper and black
magic: Victorian conspiracy theories, secret societies and the supernatural mystique of the whitechapel murders. North Carolina: McFarland &Company, Incorporated Publishers; 2013.
Owen A. The darkened room: Women, power, andspiritualism in late Victorian England. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press; 1990.
Moser JM. Tupac lives! What hologram authors
should know about intellectual property law [Internet]. Business Law Today, 2012 Sep, p. 1–5. Available from:https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publi
cations/blt/2012/09/full-issue-201209.pdf.
Weitz C, Gilroy T. Rogue One: A Star Wars story.
Edwards G (director). San Francisco: Lucasfilm Ltd.;
2016.
Alkis A, Kose T. Privacy concerns in consumer
E-commerce activities and response to social media
advertising: Empirical evidence from Europe.
Computers in Human Behavior 2022; 137: 107412.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107412.
Mehmood S, Ahmad I, Khan MA, et al. Sentiment
analysis in social media for competitive environment
using content analysis. Education, Computer, Materials & Continua 2022; 71(3): 5603–5618.
doi: 10.32604/cmc.2022.023785.
Birnhack M, Morse T. Digital remains: Property or
privacy? International Journal of Law and Information Technology 2022; 30(3): 280–301.
doi: 10.1093/ijlit/eaac019.
Williams AS, Pedersen ZP, Brummett KJ. Legacy branding: The posthumous utilization and management of athlete brands. International Journal ofSport Communication 2022; 15(2): 1–8.
doi: 10.1123/ijsc.2021-0114.
Mostert F, Cruz S. How image rights have changed
over the past 20 years. In: Bosher H, Rosati E (editors). Developments and directions in Intellectual
Property Law: The IPKat’s 20-year adventure,
forthcoming. London: Oxford University Press;
2022.
Hagerty A, Rubinov I. Global AI ethics: A review ofthe social impacts and ethical implications of artificial intelligence. New York: Cornell University;2019.
doi: 10.48550/arXiv: 1907.07892.
Berkowitz I, Garrett JR. Legal and ethical considerations for requiring consent for apnea testing in brain
death determination. The American Journal of Bioethics 2020; 20(6): 4–16.
doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1754501.
Wang P. On defining artificial intelligence. Com-

Life, death, and AI: Exploring digital necromancy in popular culture—Ethical considerations, technological limitations,and the pet cemetery conundrum

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

puter Science, Journal of Artificial General Intelligence 2019; 10(2): 1–37.
doi: 10.2478/jagi-2019-0002.
Minsky M. The emotion machine: Commonsense
thinking, artificial intelligence, and the future of thehuman mind. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2007.
Sisto D, Kilgarriff A (translators). Remember me:
Memory and forgetting in the digital age. Hoboken,
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2021.
Payton T, Claypoole T. Privacy in the age of big data:
Recognizing threats, defending your rights, andprotecting your family. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield; 2023.
DiGiovanna J. 20 artificial identity. In: Patrick L,
Keith A, Ryan J (editors). Robot Ethics 2.0: From
autonomous cars to artificial intelligence. New York:
Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 243.
Prabhakaran V, Qadri R, Hutchinson B. Cultural
incongruencies in artificial intelligence. New York:
Cornell University; 2022.
doi: 10.48550/arXiv: 2211.13069.
Yue P, Shangguan B, Hu L, et al. Towards a training
data model for artificial intelligence in earth observation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 2022; 36(11): 2113–2137.
doi: 10.1080/13658816.2022.2087223.
Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N. The uncanny
valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 2012; 19(2): 98–100.
doi: 10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811.
Agarwal S, Agarwal B, Gupta R. Chatbots and virtual assistants: A bibliometric analysis. Library Hi
Tech 2022; 40(4): 1013–1030.
doi: 10.1108/LHT-09-2021-0330.
Hristova S. Data replay. In: Proto-Algorithmic War:How the Iraq War became a laboratory for algorithmic logics. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 89–115.
Hamon R, Junklewitz H, Sanchez I, et al. Bridging
the gap between AI and explainability in the GDPR:
Towards trustworthiness-by-design in automated

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

12

decision-making. IEEE Computational Intelligence
Magazine 2022; 17(1): 72–85.
doi: 10.1109/MCI.2021.3129960.
de Almeida PGR, dos Santos CD, Farias JS. Artificial intelligence regulation: A framework for governance. Ethics and Information Technology 2021;
23(3): 505–525.
doi: 10.1007/s10676-021-09593-z.
Horgan D, Romao M, MorréSA, et al. Artificial
intelligence: Power for civilization—And for better
healthcare. Public Health Genomics 2020; 22(5–6):
145–161.
doi: 10.1159/000504785.
Haefner N, Wincent J, Parida V, et al. Artificial intelligence and innovation management: A review,framework, and research agenda. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 2021; 162: 120392.
doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120392.
Gaur M, Faldu K, Sheth A. Semantics ofthe black-box: Can knowledge graphs help makedeep learning systems more interpretable and explainable? IEEE Internet Computing 2021; 25(1):51–59.
doi: 10.1109/MIC.2020.3031769.
Liu YL, Huang L, Yan W, et al. Privacy in AI and the
IoT: The privacy concerns of smart speaker users
and the Personal Information Protection Law inChina. Telecommunications Policy 2022; 46(7):102334.
doi: 10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102334.
Martins P, Silva JS, Bernardino A. Multispectral
facial recognition in the wild. Sensors 2022; 22(11):4219.
doi: 10.3390/s22114219.
Brauneck A, Schmalhorst L, Kazemi Majdabadi
MM, et al. Federated machine learning, privacy-enhancing technologies, and data protection laws
in medical research: Scoping review. Journal of
Medical Internet Research 2023; 25: e41588.
doi: 10.2196/41588.