Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Tuesday, September 19, 2023
'Digital necromancy': why bringing people back from the dead with AI is just an extension of our grieving practices
theconversation.com: Generative AI – which encompasses large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT but also image and video generators like DALL·E 2 – supercharges what has come to be known as “digital necromancy”, the conjuring of the dead from the digital traces they leave behind.
This feels absolutely insane to me. Part of me understands using AI to find a way to get someone like Carrie Fisher into a movie that she was a staple in the franchise for. But on the other hand, part of me thinks that it is super creepy to have a dead woman in a movie. Beyond that, I think that this AI technology could do someone a lot of harm while they are grieving and mess with people’s minds. I can see a world where it could be comforting but that window seems very small to me. I would be interested to see research from psychologists studying the connection of grieving to healing with the use of AI technology because I first instinct would be that it would slow this process down since there doesn’t have to be as much acceptance since you can, in theory, still talk to this “person.”
I am absolutely certain that this either was exactly or was at least close to the plot of a black mirror episode. I feel very strongly that it is important to honor the memories of those that have passed, we must always remember for better or for worse. However, I also very strongly believe that there is a difference between remembering and trying to bring someone back from the dead, even if just in appearance. It feels like someone taking their bodies from their graves and stringing them up like puppets, making them dance the way the puppeteer always wanted and never was able to get while they were still alive with free will. It is a terrifying thought. Especially when you think about who is actually grieving these people. The general populous are not grieving these pop culture icons, they miss them sure but it is the people who knew them personally who are truly grieving. And I can not imagine they are overjoyed by this.
The concept of digital necromancy is both intriguing and unsettling. Personally, I find it to be a topic that raises important questions about the intersection of technology, culture, and our emotional connection to the deceased. As someone who comes from a culture like Mexico, where death is often celebrated and remembered through traditions like Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead), I share the perspective that we are not inherently afraid of death itself. Instead, we find ways to commemorate and honor our loved ones' memories without the need to bring them back to artificial life. It's a celebration of their existence rather than an attempt to cheat mortality. The comparison drawn between digital necromancy and photography is thought-provoking. Both involve capturing moments in time, but AI takes it a step further by attempting to recreate not just the past but potentially generate new content. This divergence from mere remembrance to creation opens up a realm of ethical and philosophical questions.
I think this topic is fascinating because it is a discussion between so many different areas of life: technology, ethics, philosophy, culture, and more. When I first started reading the article, I had the attitude that the author described: unsettled and suspicious. Part of me wants to feel like this is fully disrespectful to dead people, and that a computer that does not have a soul will never be able to stand in for an actual human with actual feelings. However, as I read the article I started to think that maybe it was not as bad as my first reaction made me think. I especially agree with the last point that we use photographs in order to bring back memories of those who may have passed away. It doesn't stand in for them but serves as a supplement because of the lack of other options. This made me think that perhaps "digital necromancy" does have some value and should not be viewed as replacing people who have died, but instead only continuing parts of them. This is definitely not something for all people, but it could be helpful for some.
This article certainly sparks some interesting thoughts that have never occurred to me. Both sides of the argument seem to stand depending on how you look at it. I personally have no problem with generative visual AI (yet); I even consider them useful in ways that I can see scenic designers and media artists using them to help them visualise images. However, there is still much debate on the artistic integrity behind using tools like this. But all things considered, I think it is still a useful tool. But using generative AI to ‘bring back the dead’ can definitely make some people uncomfortable. I think the discussion on how humans use visuals to remember the dead is also new. I guess my question would be about the right to use the images and whether those people’s future generations are okay with their images being used. I can see how museums can make use of this technology to help with curation, but otherwise, it does seem a little immoral to use the deceased as a method of money-making.
5 comments:
This feels absolutely insane to me. Part of me understands using AI to find a way to get someone like Carrie Fisher into a movie that she was a staple in the franchise for. But on the other hand, part of me thinks that it is super creepy to have a dead woman in a movie. Beyond that, I think that this AI technology could do someone a lot of harm while they are grieving and mess with people’s minds. I can see a world where it could be comforting but that window seems very small to me. I would be interested to see research from psychologists studying the connection of grieving to healing with the use of AI technology because I first instinct would be that it would slow this process down since there doesn’t have to be as much acceptance since you can, in theory, still talk to this “person.”
I am absolutely certain that this either was exactly or was at least close to the plot of a black mirror episode. I feel very strongly that it is important to honor the memories of those that have passed, we must always remember for better or for worse. However, I also very strongly believe that there is a difference between remembering and trying to bring someone back from the dead, even if just in appearance. It feels like someone taking their bodies from their graves and stringing them up like puppets, making them dance the way the puppeteer always wanted and never was able to get while they were still alive with free will. It is a terrifying thought. Especially when you think about who is actually grieving these people. The general populous are not grieving these pop culture icons, they miss them sure but it is the people who knew them personally who are truly grieving. And I can not imagine they are overjoyed by this.
The concept of digital necromancy is both intriguing and unsettling. Personally, I find it to be a topic that raises important questions about the intersection of technology, culture, and our emotional connection to the deceased. As someone who comes from a culture like Mexico, where death is often celebrated and remembered through traditions like Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead), I share the perspective that we are not inherently afraid of death itself. Instead, we find ways to commemorate and honor our loved ones' memories without the need to bring them back to artificial life. It's a celebration of their existence rather than an attempt to cheat mortality. The comparison drawn between digital necromancy and photography is thought-provoking. Both involve capturing moments in time, but AI takes it a step further by attempting to recreate not just the past but potentially generate new content. This divergence from mere remembrance to creation opens up a realm of ethical and philosophical questions.
I think this topic is fascinating because it is a discussion between so many different areas of life: technology, ethics, philosophy, culture, and more. When I first started reading the article, I had the attitude that the author described: unsettled and suspicious. Part of me wants to feel like this is fully disrespectful to dead people, and that a computer that does not have a soul will never be able to stand in for an actual human with actual feelings. However, as I read the article I started to think that maybe it was not as bad as my first reaction made me think. I especially agree with the last point that we use photographs in order to bring back memories of those who may have passed away. It doesn't stand in for them but serves as a supplement because of the lack of other options. This made me think that perhaps "digital necromancy" does have some value and should not be viewed as replacing people who have died, but instead only continuing parts of them. This is definitely not something for all people, but it could be helpful for some.
This article certainly sparks some interesting thoughts that have never occurred to me. Both sides of the argument seem to stand depending on how you look at it. I personally have no problem with generative visual AI (yet); I even consider them useful in ways that I can see scenic designers and media artists using them to help them visualise images. However, there is still much debate on the artistic integrity behind using tools like this. But all things considered, I think it is still a useful tool. But using generative AI to ‘bring back the dead’ can definitely make some people uncomfortable. I think the discussion on how humans use visuals to remember the dead is also new. I guess my question would be about the right to use the images and whether those people’s future generations are okay with their images being used. I can see how museums can make use of this technology to help with curation, but otherwise, it does seem a little immoral to use the deceased as a method of money-making.
Post a Comment