A growing number of artificial intelligence services are offering to digitally reanimate deceased individuals, creating videos and chatbots that mimic their likeness and voice. While some see this as a way to preserve memories, the practice is drawing strong criticism from the families of public figures, who describe the AI-generated content as disturbing and a violation of their loved ones' legacies.
Key Takeaways
- AI services are now capable of creating videos and voice simulations of deceased individuals, marketed as a way to reconnect with lost loved ones.
- Families of celebrities like George Carlin, Robin Williams, and Martin Luther King Jr. have publicly condemned these AI reanimations, calling them distressing and disrespectful.
- Zelda Williams, daughter of Robin Williams, described the AI-generated clips of her father as "vile" and a puppeteering of legacies.
- Ethical questions are being raised about consent, the emotional impact on grieving individuals, and the commercial use of a deceased person's likeness.
Families Voice Discomfort and Opposition
The use of AI to generate content featuring deceased celebrities has prompted public objections from their relatives. Kelly Carlin, daughter of comedian George Carlin, reported discovering a video titled, “What would George Carlin say about UFOs today?” The video's creator claimed it was “100% AI: voice, script, video,” designed to capture her father's style.
In a message to her father's attorney, she referred to the content as “AI bull----.” Kelly Carlin later described the AI simulation as a “bad processed-food imitation of George Carlin,” adding, “it’s really disturbing to see your dead father resurrected by a machine.”
A Growing Trend of Digital Reanimation
Beyond George Carlin, AI has been used to create content featuring numerous other deceased public figures. Online platforms host videos of Tejano singer Selena Quintanilla in performances she never gave and President John F. Kennedy discussing modern commercial events. These re-creations highlight the technology's advancing capabilities and the lack of clear regulations governing its use.
Echoes of Concern from Other Families
The sentiment expressed by Kelly Carlin is shared by the families of other iconic figures. Zelda Williams, daughter of actor Robin Williams, issued a public plea asking people to stop creating and sharing AI-generated clips of her late father.
“To watch the legacies of real people be condensed down to ‘this vaguely looks and sounds like them so that’s enough,’ just so other people can churn out horrible TikTok slop puppeteering them is maddening,” Zelda Williams stated on social media.
Her message was publicly supported by Bernice King, the daughter of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Regarding AI-generated content of her father, King wrote, “I concur concerning my father. Please stop.” These statements underscore a growing consensus among the families of the famous that such simulations are unwelcome.
The Technology and Its Promises
Companies operating in this space promote their services as a tool for comfort and creating new memories. Services like LovedOnes AI and Pincel advertise the ability to “see departed loved ones again in a fresh light” and “create custom videos of loved ones that have died.”
The process typically involves users uploading a photograph and, if available, an audio sample of the deceased person's voice. The user then provides a script, which the AI uses to generate a video where the photograph is animated to appear as if it is speaking the provided text.
How the Technology Works
These services use a combination of machine learning techniques. Facial recognition algorithms map the features of a still photograph. Then, lip-syncing AI animates the mouth to match the phonemes of a given script, which is read by a text-to-speech voice synthesizer. If a real voice sample is provided, the AI can clone the voice for a more realistic effect.
If a user does not have an audio recording, many platforms offer a selection of generic voices to choose from. The final product is a short video clip intended to simulate a message from the deceased.
An Unsettling User Experience
Despite the promises of comfort, the actual experience of using these services can be jarring. In one documented user test of the LovedOnes AI platform, the process of creating a video of a deceased grandmother yielded unsettling results.
The user uploaded a photograph and wrote a script intended to evoke a feeling of comfort. However, the resulting video combined the slightly blurry source photograph with a hyper-realistic, crystal-clear animated mouth. The visual mismatch was described as deeply unsettling, drawing a comparison to the grotesque masks made by serial killer Ed Gein.
Furthermore, the limitations of a free trial version of the service cut the message short. The AI-generated voice was meant to say, “Everything will all turn out okay,” but the video ended abruptly after the line, “Everything will be O—.” This technical glitch transformed a message of reassurance into something nonsensical and eerie.
Ethical and Psychological Implications
The rise of these AI services raises significant ethical and psychological questions. A central issue is the concept of consent. Deceased individuals cannot give permission for their likeness and voice to be used in this manner, leaving decisions to family members who may disagree or to unrelated third parties who create content without any permission at all.
Psychologists also question whether these simulations provide genuine closure or instead create a form of digital haunting that complicates the grieving process. Rather than working through memories, users are interacting with an algorithm that has no real connection to the person they lost.
The Question of Memory
Critics argue that it is impossible to create “new memories” of a deceased person with AI. Instead, one is creating a memory of interacting with a machine. As Kelly Carlin noted, such AI extrapolations can feel like a “dilution” of what her father actually said and stood for during his lifetime, reducing a complex legacy to an algorithmic prediction.
The debate continues to evolve as the technology becomes more accessible and realistic. While some may find solace in these digital re-creations, the strong objections from those closest to the deceased highlight a profound ethical conflict between technological capability and human dignity.