Filenews 3 November 2025 - by Xenia Turki
"The group will go for coffee in a while. I would like you to come too" you suggest to your friend. "I'd love to too, but that's impossible, you know I've been dead for two years." The conversation does not come from the future, nor is it a scene from a science fiction movie. It is what is already happening, thanks to Artificial Intelligence, which creates digital avatars of people who have died and that are capable to a large extent of varying the finality of death.
Artificial Intelligence, argued in her interview with Fileleftheros, Katarzina Novaczyuk, a researcher at the Leverhulme Center for the Future of Intelligence at the University of Cambridge, comes to disrupt our relationship with our dead, essentially creating a digital immortality. While for centuries it was a one-way communication, now the illusion of a two-way relationship is created, where nothing is lost and where everything lives forever.
Of course, the repercussions are expected to be very large. "This is a huge social change, since now suddenly death does not necessarily mean the end of relationships. It's like saying we'll see you somewhere out there and not like saying goodbye. Thus, the potential impacts, cultural, social, political, and even ecological, are enormous," he said, stressing that artificial intelligence will allow the creation of a new relationship with our dead, which will depend on new business, ethical and legal decisions. That is why it is particularly important to proceed with the legislative regulation of the issue, since behind digital immortality there are companies that are trying to make money by capitalizing on our mourning and grief that will not hesitate to take advantage of us. For some, digital immortality, said Katarzina Novaczyuk, is a good solution, for others it is not. Loss and death are part of life, and we need to be able to manage them. "Education is important so that everyone can make the decision they need. We all need to understand how this technology works, what the risks are and what suits each of us, she stressed.
-What exactly is the Centre at the University of Cambridge's Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence?
-At the Levergulme center we work to understand, design and apply artificial intelligence in various areas of our lives, in a way that is safe for us. Personally, I specialize in digital death or digital immortality. That is, I'm trying to understand how the vast amount of data we generate every day can be used after our biological death. Also, I'm trying to understand how AI is changing the way we perceive, experience, and prepare for death and grief.
-How does digital immortality differ from traditional practices of remembering someone who has died?
– Well, there are many similarities, but at the same time there is a big difference. For centuries our communication with the dead was one-way. We visited cemeteries, had various rituals, saw and talked in their photos. It was a one-way communication. But for the first time in history, we have created a situation where we can have two-way communication when we ask questions and our deceased loved ones answer them when they talk to us. But, to be precise, I will emphasize that it is just an illusion of two-way communication, because obviously we are not talking to the person who has died but to an avatar. It is simply a representation of him, created from his personal data and curated by artificial intelligence. And behind this discussion, there's a very complex calculation and yes, and it's an AI-driven entity. It is a perspective and not reality.
-What is the process? What does one have to do to create the avatar of a deceased loved one?
– The process is simple. There are commercial companies that do this, and the more personal data someone provides them, the more accurate and sophisticated this representation becomes. The first step is to select the company and then give it as much data as possible. The AI then collects this data and interprets it, linking different pieces of information so that it is ready to answer the questions and predict what would be the most likely answer that the deceased person would give. So, that's the "magic" behind it: AI tries to predict what a person would say in a certain context.
-Is this legal? I mean, can someone give a company the personal data of someone who is not alive?
– Unfortunately, it is yes. As technology and the legal framework are today, this is legal. It is sad, but at the moment there is no legal framework that will make us feel safe. So, if someone wants to create an avatar after my death, it's legally and technically possible. This is something that people like me who work in this field are trying to implement and promote: to have explicit consent from people in order to create their avatar, so that those who will provide the data are fully aware of how it will be used. We are not protected. And I should note, that in the European Union, we have the GDPR regulation, which really helps us a lot to protect our personal data but this is true as long as we are alive and it does not apply when we are dead.
-The issue is to create an avatar in the image and likeness of the deceased. But what happens when we want exactly the opposite? For example, someone with an abusive father to create a loving avatar to apologize.
– This is an excellent issue and there is a lot of discussion around it. To what extent are the creators of these technologies allowed to study and change someone's life? It is a very important moral issue, whether we should change someone's biography or whether we are allowed to correct people's relationships after death. We have to answer who can decide what will happen, which events will be preserved and which will not. And the question is not only philosophical or moral, but also practical, since it must be decided legally what is allowed and what is not.
-I get the impression that we are moving towards a hybrid zombie society, where the dead and the living will coexist in digital applications. Can this disrupt one's perception of life and death to the extent that we don't care if someone dies or not since we keep talking to them?
– It is a very important question, but it is really difficult to predict how we will react to these technologies. I often say that we are in the middle of a techno-cultural experiment and we really do not understand the consequences of introducing these technologies on a large scale in society around the world. I'm not sure if we're ready to accept or embrace these technologies to such an extent that death doesn't make any sense to us. I don't think we're already at this point where it doesn't make any difference whether the person is biologically alive or if they're in a virtual space.
-For thousands of years, societies have functioned with the fact that people are born, live and die. Now that's kind of changing. What are the potential risks of living forever, even in digital form?
– This is a huge social change, since now suddenly death does not necessarily mean the end of relationships. It's like saying "we'll see you somewhere out there" and not like saying goodbye. Thus, the potential impacts, cultural, social, political, and even ecological, are enormous. For example, psychologically, we currently do not understand how these technologies change the way we experience grief and how we process death. Many psychologists worry that this can have really harmful consequences and that we could develop a form of emotional dependence because these technologies can be addictive. They even claim that it is as addictive as drugs and that some will find it difficult to leave the avatars of their loved ones dead and live without them. It is for this reason that several experts suggest that this technology should be used as a medical device under the supervision of psychologists, psychiatrists, in very carefully organized environments.
Another danger lies in the fact that digital immortality, currently, is dominated by commercial companies and it is they who shape the way these products are designed. Considering that their main motive is profit, it is something particularly worrying. There is a huge risk that commercial companies will use various, perhaps even unethical, strategies to increase their profit and data exploitation. We can imagine a situation where you talk to your loved one who has died, your grandmother, for example with whom you had a very beautiful relationship and she suggests that you buy a specific product, which of course also matches your needs.
-There is also an environmental cost, isn't it?
-Exactly, yes. When we think of an avatar after death we don't see a problem. But when we think of millions of avatars, we can start discussing the environmental costs of producing these technologies because it's just a myth that digital immortality is intangible. In fact, it requires a lot of resources to run data centers and servers, and all of that needs water, land, electricity, and all that. The question is whether we should invest in the memory of previous generations or whether we should also think about future generations.
-What is your advice for someone who has lost a loved one? What should he do to manage his loss?
-Death is a very personal journey and there is no standard path to follow. The first thing he should do is listen to himself, his needs and his fears. There are no specific stages that need to go through or points to reach so that it is a healthy process. He may at some point consider using digital immortality technology, but this is a very personal decision. What I would suggest is, in the first step, to try to understand how it works and the risks that exist. Because, digital immortality is certainly not a universal solution to loss. For one it can work and bring comfort and be a very beautiful experience. But at the same time, the same technology can be devastating for someone else. That's why my advice is that we have to be careful. Very careful.
TN helps us understand that we are mortal – We need to get a better legal framework
-Is digital immortality somehow a failure to deal with loss and mourning?
This is also my concern, that we find it so difficult to accept loss and say goodbye to things, to accept the natural cycle of life, that we create the illusion that we don't have to lose anything in our lives. And I'm not sure if this approach is completely healthy. I believe that we should try to educate ourselves to be ready to lose things, to lose. Perhaps these technologies can support this process. I recently participated in a related discussion with experts from India and China. And we asked them how we can use AI in this end-of-life context in a way that is beneficial to us. They suggest that possibly AI can be used in a way that helps us deal with the idea of death, helps us understand that we are mortal because at the end of the day, which doesn't change anyway. Perhaps we could apply it in a way that trains us to think about death, how to deal with it, and how to prepare for this very special moment. One of the Indian experts told us that "death is a skill". Perhaps this is true and therefore we need to learn how to get it. The first step is to talk about it, to be more open and sensitive, to express our wishes, fears and hopes about death, and then for technology to play a role. So, the first thing is dialogue, discussion.
-I've been trying as long as we're talking to figure out if you're for or against digital immortality and I admit it's hard to discern.
– I believe that there is potential for positive results, but we have to work very hard to achieve it. And right now, we're not on the right path to this bright future. There are many things that need to be corrected or changed in order to reduce the potential risks and negative effects. We need to have a better legal framework. And we must also try to break the monopoly that commercial companies have in shaping these technologies. This is a very sensitive issue.
-How feasible is this, considering the power of technology companies?
– I believe that yes, I remain optimistic. But it is too early to say that we are at the beginning of this journey, but my colleagues who work in this field, have legal backgrounds, lobby or work towards some ideas that could help us reshape this landscape. Researcher Edina Harbinia proposed the idea of "personal data after death", something like the GDPR we said earlier, but for the dead. The privacy of the deceased is important. What happens if someone doesn't want to become an avatar after they die? How can we prevent this and protect our personal data even if we are not alive? And what about the dignity of someone who is not alive? What if he doesn't want to live in digital form? I believe that we need arrangements that are inclusive and that protect the interests and desires of both sides. That is, those who want to stay "alive" and those who do not want to be present for years.
