With the rapid development of AI technology, AI chatbots called “Griefbots” (also known as deathbots and deadbots) are increasingly entering the public eye. Based on the digital legacy data of the deceased, this technology emulates their language style and personality traits, allowing users to talk to their “deceased loved ones” through text or voice. Its experimental nature has brought an unprecedented experience of solace, but has also triggered multiple controversies, including psychological, ethical, and social regulation.
How technology enables “conversations with the dead”
“Griefbots” often use large-scale language models (LLMs) to simulate personalized interactions by combining the digital trajectories of the deceased on social media platforms, text messages, emails, and voice. According to the Hastings Center, these AI avatars can carry voices, text, and even 3D images, making conversations so realistic that they sometimes feel “tactile” to the user. These platforms support a variety of interaction modes, from simple text chat to “digital tombstones” with voice or video, and Cambridge Core notes that their “dynamic learning capabilities” can make conversations more natural. Some services even allow you to create a “digital portrait” of yourself, setting the scope of use and style of discourse.
Emotional comfort
Griefbots are perceived by many as a way to “keep in touch” with grief and emotional trauma. For example, Sirine Malas, a Syrian refugee, found emotional solace through chatting after her mother’s death. Psychological research also supports the theory of “continuity of bonding” – when the emotional connection with the deceased continues, it helps with psychological recovery. However, Undark magazine points out that caution should be exercised in this regard: the continuity of the bond is about “meaningful understanding”, and digital simulation may hinder adaptation in the later stages of grief if it perpetuates the idea that the deceased is still alive. Cambridge University academics say that Griefbots can cause “cognitive dissonance”: users know that the person they are talking to is no longer alive, but are deceived by the “digital effigy”. This slows down the brain’s natural mechanism of “accepting facts and reconstructing mental models”.
Potential risks
Despite their calming effect, Griefbots have been questioned for causing deeper problems. The Cambridge research team suggests that there could be a variety of negative consequences: emotional dependency, false comfort, psychological manipulation, etc. Even more seriously, if the platform becomes commercially involved in recommending products or advertisements through conversations, there is a risk of misleading users who are in a vulnerable stage. In addition, children or emotionally unstable people are particularly vulnerable to the illusions created by the technology, which may result in serious psychological disruption. Therefore, such services should be prohibited for minors.
Ethical controversies and regulatory blind spots
The ethical and privacy controversy surrounding Griefbots continues to grow. According to the Hastings Center, such apps raise questions about the “moral status” of digital personalities: should they have “existential dignity”? Can they be turned off at any time? Or should user emotions be suppressed? The Cambridge team suggests establishing rules for the industry, such as the introduction of “digital funerals” (griefbots), explicit informed consent of the user, no construction of “digital portraits” without their permission, and that the device should be labeled as an AI, with a “termination mechanism”. The device should be labeled as AI and have a “termination mechanism”. Currently, there is no uniform regulation in this area. The U.S. OpenAI Usage Policy is the only reminder that such systems should be licensed by the deceased and labeled as analog. Academics are calling for an interdisciplinary regulatory system that combines technology, law, and counseling to guide the Griefbots industry on a path of soft regulation and ethical self-regulation.
Socio-cultural and religious conflicts
Different cultures have different levels of acceptance of Griefbots. Some religious beliefs emphasize that death is a natural end and that there are metaphysical boundaries that forbid “resurrection”. They fear that such technologies “productize” fragments of the deceased’s personality, undermining the religious view of the unity of the soul and the body. In the West, where traditional funeral rituals and “digital memorialization” tend to coexist, Griefbots, although controversial, may be accepted by some older users or expatriate communities as a “psychological tonic” to compensate for the loss of a loved one.
Future trends
As AI technology continues to evolve, Griefbots will become closer to real conversations, not only in text communication, but also in speech reproduction, facial image synthesis, and even interaction with the “digitized deceased” in virtual reality or video call platforms. These technological advances will make the “communication” experience between people and the deceased more immersive and realistic. In the future, the role of Griefbots may evolve from simple mourning companions to full-fledged “emotional experience platforms” that take on the functions of emotional management, psychological comfort, and even digital legacy trusteeship. People may be able to create “digital personality profiles” for themselves in advance, and continue to be there for their families even after they are gone.
However, all this development comes with a caveat. If Griefbots are over-commercialized and turned into a tool for exploiting the vulnerability of users, they could become a source of risk for creating “digital illusions”. If technology deviates from its original purpose of caring and healing, Griefbots will no longer be a bridge of emotions, but may become an invisible chain that deepens dependency and loss. Therefore, the future of Griefbots should move towards warm design and rational boundary control, and find a balance between technological realization and psychological ethics that is truly beneficial to mourning and recovery.
Conclusion
Griefbots have brought “talking to the dead” from the movies to reality, but whether it is a comforting tool or a psychological shackle needs time to be tested. From psychological research to ethical discussions to social reactions, this field is experiencing a “tipping point” between the public and regulation. Can technology be utilized for good? Can ethics protect it? If we consider Griefbots as a treatment, it should be used under professional counseling, for a limited period, and with an end mechanism; if we consider it as an “emotional support”, it should be accompanied by a psychological strategy, and the boundaries of its use should be set. Regardless of the future, death is an inevitable part of the human journey, and Griefbots reminds us that the digital world can reproduce images, but it cannot reshape souls. Society must be careful and responsible to ensure that technology becomes a healing light, not a “ghost” of the soul.
Leave a comment