Logging off life but living on: How AI is redefining death, memory and immortality

 

‘Gone but not forgotten’ could become a big understatement in the age of AI. Marina113/iStock via Getty Images

Imagine attending a funeral where the person who has died speaks directly to you, answering your questions and sharing memories. This happened at the funeral of Marina Smith, a Holocaust educator who died in 2022.

Thanks to an AI technology company called StoryFile, Smith seemed to interact naturally with her family and friends.

The system used prerecorded answers combined with artificial intelligence to create a realistic, interactive experience. This wasn’t just a video; it was something closer to a real conversation, giving people a new way to feel connected to a loved one after they’re gone.

Virtual life after death

Technology has already begun to change how people think about life after death. Several technology companies are helping people manage their digital lives after they’re gone. For example, Apple, Google and Meta offer tools to allow someone you trust to access your online accounts when you die.

Microsoft has patented a system that can take someone’s digital data – such as texts, emails and social media posts – and use it to create a chatbot. This chatbot can respond in ways that sound like the original person.

In South Korea, a group of media companies took this idea even further. A documentary called “Meeting You” showed a mother reunited with her daughter through virtual reality. Using advanced digital imaging and voice technology, the mother was able to see and talk to her dead daughter as if she were really there.

Virtual reality ‘reunites’ a mother with her dead daughter.

These examples may seem like science fiction, but they’re real tools available today. As AI continues to improve, the possibility of creating digital versions of people after they die feels closer than ever.

Who owns your digital afterlife?

While the idea of a digital afterlife is fascinating, it raises some big questions. For example, who owns your online accounts after you die?

This issue is already being discussed in courts and by governments around the world. In the United States, nearly all states have passed laws allowing people to include digital accounts in their wills.

In Germany, courts ruled that Facebook had to give a deceased person’s family access to their account, saying that digital accounts should be treated as inheritable property, like a bank account or house.

But there are still plenty of challenges. For example, what if a digital clone of you says or does something online that you would never have said or done in real life? Who is responsible for what your AI version does?

When a deepfake of actor Bruce Willis appeared in an ad without his permission, it sparked a debate about how people’s digital likenesses can be controlled, or even exploited, for profit.

Cost is another issue. While some basic tools for managing digital accounts after death are free, more advanced services can be expensive. For example, creating an AI version of yourself might cost thousands of dollars, meaning that only wealthy people could afford to “live on” digitally. This cost barrier raises important questions about whether digital immortality could create new forms of inequality.

Grieving in a digital world

Losing someone is often painful, and in today’s world, many people turn to social media to feel connected to those they’ve lost. Research shows that a significant proportion of people maintain their social media connections with deceased loved ones.

But this new way of grieving comes with challenges. Unlike physical memories such as photos or keepsakes that fade over time, digital memories remain fresh and easily accessible. They can even appear unexpectedly in your social media feeds, bringing back emotions when you least expect them.

Some psychologists worry that staying connected to someone’s digital presence could make it harder for people to move on. This is especially true as AI technology becomes more advanced. Imagine being able to chat with a digital version of a loved one that feels almost real. While this might seem comforting, it could make it even harder for someone to accept their loss and let go.

Digital afterlives bring thorny issues.

Cultural and religious views on digital afterlife

Different cultures and religions have their own unique perspectives on digital immortality. For example:

• The Vatican, the center of the Catholic Church, has said that digital legacies should always respect human dignity.

• In Islamic traditions, scholars are discussing how digital remains fit into religious laws.

• In Japan, some Buddhist temples are offering digital graveyards where families can preserve and interact with digital traces of their loved ones.

These examples show how technology is being shaped by different beliefs about life, death and remembrance. They also highlight the challenges of blending new innovations with long-standing cultural and religious traditions.

Planning your digital legacy

When you think about the future, you probably imagine what you want to achieve in life, not what will happen to your online accounts when you’re gone. But experts say it’s important to plan for your digital assets: everything from social media profiles and email accounts to digital photos, online bank accounts and even cryptocurrencies.

Adding digital assets to your will can help you decide how your accounts should be managed after you’re gone. You might want to leave instructions about who can access your accounts, what should be deleted and whether you’d like to create a digital version of yourself.

You can even decide if your digital self should “die” after a certain amount of time. These are questions that more and more people will need to think about in the future.

Here are steps you can take to control your digital afterlife:

• Decide on a digital legacy. Reflect on whether creating a digital self aligns with your personal, cultural or spiritual beliefs. Discuss your preferences with loved ones.

• Inventory and plan for digital assets. Make a list of all digital accounts, content and tools representing your digital self. Decide how these should be managed, preserved or deleted.

• Choose a digital executor. Appoint a trustworthy, tech-savvy person to oversee your digital assets and carry out your wishes. Clearly communicate your intentions with them.

• Ensure that your will covers your digital identity and assets. Specify how they should be handled, including storage, usage and ethical considerations. Include legal and financial aspects in your plan.

• Prepare for ethical and emotional impacts. Consider how your digital legacy might affect loved ones. Plan to avoid misuse, ensure funding for long-term needs, and align your decisions with your values.

Digital pyramids

Thousands of years ago, the Egyptian pharaohs had pyramids built to preserve their legacy. Today, our “digital pyramids” are much more advanced and broadly available. They don’t just preserve memories; they can continue to influence the world, long after we’re gone.

Patrick van Esch, Associate Professor of Marketing, Coastal Carolina University and Yuanyuan (Gina) Cui, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Coastal Carolina University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

‘This will not end here’: A scholar explains why Charlie Kirk’s killing could embolden political violence

 

A boy in Scottsdale, Ariz., attends a Catholic rosary prayer vigil for Charlie Kirk after he was killed during a Utah college event on Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2025. AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin

The fatal shooting of prominent conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10, 2025, has brought renewed attention to the climate of political violence in America. Kirk’s death reflects a sizable increase in threats against officeholders and politicians at the local and federal level.

Alfonso Serrano, a politics editor at The Conversation, spoke with University of Massachusetts Lowell scholar Arie Perliger after Kirk’s shooting. Perliger studies political violence and assassinations and spoke bluntly about political polarization in the United States.

Serrano: What were your initial thoughts after Charlie Kirk’s fatal shooting?

Perliger: It was a bit unusual that the attack was not against an elected official. Rarely have we seen political assassinations that are aimed at the nonprofit political landscape. Usually those people are not deemed important enough.

Secondly, and it’s something I see a lot in my research, political assassinations come in waves. We see that not only in the United States but other countries. I’ve looked at political assassinations in many democracies, and one of the things I see in a fairly consistent manner is that political assassinations create a process of escalation that encourages others on the extreme political spectrum to feel the need to retaliate. And that is my main concern. That this process creates legitimization and acceptance, that it provides the sense that this is an acceptable form of political action. This will not end here.

In 2024, there were two attempts to assassinate Donald Trump. Then, in early 2025, the residence of Gov. Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania was firebombed on Passover, and within months the U.S. witnessed the killing of Minnesota state lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, among other acts of political violence. The U.S., of course, is not immune to political violence, as we saw in the 1960s. But what stands out about this latest wave?

The data shows that there’s a substantial increase in the level of threats against officeholders at the local and federal level. What’s different now is we see an increased support in political violence from both sides of the political spectrum. Consistently, almost a quarter of the public is willing to support political violence in some form, or see that as a legitimate form of political action.

And as we see an increased political polarization, and the increased demonization of political rivals, we see the decline and disappearance of political discourse and policymaking. The bipartisan political process in Congress in the past few years has been almost nonexistent. And that spills over to the public, where the other (political) side is seen as a one-dimensional figure that is a threat.

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk speaks in West Palm Beach, Fla., on July 26, 2024. AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File

We’ve had political polarization in the U.S. in the past, but usually it was around a specific issue like civil rights in the 1960s and the Vietnam War. But this time there is no specific issue that we can say, “If we solve this, we solve the political polarization.” The problem is that there’s no space for convergence from both sides where they can work together, so there’s no bridges they can rely on to come together.

Does it strike you that Kirk’s assassination occurred on a college campus? It seems as if college campuses have become a flash point of violence in the U.S.

Campuses are becoming more and more contentious spaces. They were always intellectual hubs where political views were debated intensively. Activism was always part of campus life. But what we’ve seen in the past year is that campus life has become in some cases more violent. And the fact that Kirk was killed on a campus is, I think, heartbreaking because campuses symbolize a place where you can engage in political debate in a way that encourages intellectual exploration.

What’s happened in the past year is that campuses are not those spaces anymore. Yes, we still see political activism, but it’s the activism that doesn’t leave any room for actual debate. It’s just two sides that are completely hostile to each other and unwilling to hear each other.

Trump on Wednesday night blamed the media and the “radical left” for language used to describe people like Kirk. He said this rhetoric is “responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today.” Any thoughts?

I agree that language and rhetoric impact people’s behavior. I’ve seen that again and again in my studies, that the discourse of political figures impacts the way people think of the legitimacy of violence. Of course, we need to understand the context here, which is that Trump himself was willing to pardon thousands of people who engaged in political violence.

So, on the one hand, I agree with him that political leaders should be responsible for how they discuss political issues. It’s important for them to convey that political discourse can be constructive. However, we need to acknowledge that our own government, in many cases, sends signals that provide encouragement and support that legitimize violence. I think it’s important for politicians on both sides to be consistent in understanding that the way they discuss their political rivals is important.

The scene after shots were fired at an appearance by Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025, in Orem, Utah. Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Image

You’re an expert on the history of political assassinations. How do countries untangle themselves from waves of political violence?

Political leaders need to insist on working together. There are lots of policy areas where politicians can work together. When we see that people can work together within the political system, that sends an important message, that there is a space where we can work together. The second thing is trying to think about how the U.S. can restructure part of the political process to ensure that there is a real competition of ideas, to incentivize a constructive, productive approach that will legitimize those who are willing to engage in constructive policymaking.

Any last thoughts?

As part of my work, I track the most extremist online social media accounts, and what we see right now is a strong sense that this assassination is being celebrated by parts of the left. And that has created an escalation of language from those in the extreme right social media ecosystem. There is much more willingness to discuss issues of retaliation, an actual civil war.

And that’s my biggest worry. If you look at social media, what we see is that both sides embrace this kind of rhetoric that really concerns me. More than ever, I’ve seen calls for retaliation and a strong sense that the other side is unwilling to show any sympathy to what happened. Emotions are running very high, and I’m very worried about what may happen in the next few weeks.

Arie Perliger, Director of Security Studies and Professor of Criminology and Justice Studies, UMass Lowell

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

How to avoid seeing disturbing content on social media and protect your peace of mind

 

Social media often serves up disturbing images but you can minimize your exposure. Jacob Wackerhausen/iStock via Getty Images

When graphic videos go viral, like the recent fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, it can feel impossible to protect yourself from seeing things you did not consent to see. But there are steps you can take.

Social media platforms are designed to maximize engagement, not protect your peace of mind. The major platforms have also reduced their content moderation efforts over the past year or so. That means upsetting content can reach you even when you never chose to watch it.

You do not have to watch every piece of content that crosses your screen, however. Protecting your own mental state is not avoidance or denial. As a researcher who studies ways to counteract the negative effects of social media on mental health and well-being, I believe it’s a way of safeguarding the bandwidth you need to stay engaged, compassionate and effective.

Why this matters

Research shows that repeated exposure to violent or disturbing media can increase stress, heighten anxiety and contribute to feelings of helplessness. These effects are not just short-term. Over time, they erode the emotional resources you rely on to care for yourself and others.

Protecting your attention is a form of care. Liberating your attention from harmful content is not withdrawal. It is reclaiming your most powerful creative force: your consciousness.

Just as with food, not everything on the table is meant to be eaten. You wouldn’t eat something spoiled or toxic simply because it was served to you. In the same way, not every piece of media laid out in your feed deserves your attention. Choosing what to consume is a matter of health.

And while you can choose what you keep in your own kitchen cabinets, you often have less control over what shows up in your feeds. That is why it helps to take intentional steps to filter, block and set boundaries.

Practical steps you can take

Fortunately, there are straightforward ways to reduce your chances of being confronted with violent or disturbing videos. Here are four that I recommend:

1. Turn off autoplay or limit sensitive content. Note that these settings can vary depending on device, operating system and app version, and can change.

1. Use keyword filters. Most platforms allow you to mute or block specific words, phrases or hashtags. This reduces the chance that graphic or violent content slips into your feed.

2. Curate your feed. Unfollow accounts that regularly share disturbing images. Follow accounts that bring you knowledge, connection or joy instead.

3. Set boundaries. Reserve phone-free time during meals or before bed. Research shows that intentional breaks reduce stress and improve well-being.

Where to turn off autoplay in your account on Facebook’s website. Screen capture by The Conversation, CC BY-ND

Reclaim your agency

Social media is not neutral. Its algorithms are engineered to hold your attention, even when that means amplifying harmful or sensational material. Watching passively only serves the interests of the social media companies. Choosing to protect your attention is a way to reclaim your agency.

The urge to follow along in real time can be strong, especially during crises. But choosing not to watch every disturbing image is not neglect; it is self-preservation. Looking away protects your ability to act with purpose. When your attention is hijacked, your energy goes into shock and outrage. When your attention is steady, you can choose where to invest it.

You are not powerless. Every boundary you set – whether it is turning off autoplay, filtering content or curating your feed – is a way of taking control over what enters your mind. These actions are the foundation for being able to connect with others, help people and work for meaningful change.

More resources

I’m the executive director of the Post-Internet Project, a nonprofit dedicated to helping people navigate the psychological and social challenges of life online. With my team, I designed the evidence-backed PRISM intervention to help people manage their social media use.

Our research-based program emphasizes agency, intention and values alignment as the keys to developing healthier patterns of media consumption. You can try the PRISM process for yourself with an online class I am launching through Coursera in October 2025. You can find the course, Values Aligned Media Consumption, by searching for Annie Margaret at the University of Colorado Boulder on Coursera. The course is aimed at anyone 18 and over, and the videos are free to watch.

Annie Margaret, Teaching Assistant Professor of Creative Technology & Design, ATLAS Institute, University of Colorado Boulder

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.