The reaction was fast and furious, which wasn’t surprising. It’s hard not to react to something that sparks so much emotion.
You’ve likely seen it. A journalist, formerly employed on a cable news show, released the video of an interview he did with 17-year Joaquin Oliver. The teenager answers questions about gun violence, sports and movies, and asks questions of the host in return, in a conversation that goes on for five minutes. Fairly typical interview except for one major thing. Joaquin is gone. He died in the Parkland school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida in February, 2018.
On what would have been his 25th birthday, the artificially intelligent and interactive Joaquin, created by his parents, gave his first interview. According to Joaquin’s father, it was made with things their son wrote, said and posted online, general information gleaned from the internet on various topics, and all animated from a real photograph using generative AI.
Joaquin’s dad assures viewers he has no illusions about reviving his son. He had previously created a one-man show about grief that he performed across the country. He is honest about his sorrow and understands this is AI. Joaquin’s mom spends hours asking him questions just so she can hear his voice again. But they say this isn’t about trying to bring their son back. Instead it’s about a national conversation.
Joaquin’s parents launched this project so their son, who lost his life in a shooting, could speak about gun safety. They will keep creating content so Joaquin can build a following and have a voice in these discussions. Dad said, “This is just the beginning” and plans to have artificially created Joaquin “on stage in the middle of a debate.”
This interview occurred one year after the voices of other Parkland shooting victims were released to federal lawmakers to enact new legislation on gun reform. The AI-generated voices of six victims placed robocalls to members of Congress urging action and asks at the end of the call, “How many dead voices will you hear before you finally listen?”
The use of AI to recreate deceased people has been used in other places including courtrooms where videos serve as victim impact statements. One judge in a road rage case said, “I loved that AI, thank you for that. I feel that that was genuine.”
Should this not cause immense concern? It does for me. Many experts continue to raise red flags and warn this can lead to misinformation, identity misuse and blurred lines between real and artificial experiences.
Back in 2018 I talked about Michael Jackson’s performance at the Billboard Music Awards - six years after he died. Years before that, fans were stunned to watch rapper Tupac - who had been dead for 17 years at the time - sing at a festival that hadn’t yet been launched when he was alive. We can now attend concerts where there are no actual singers or musicians on stage. The fact that the performer is no longer alive shouldn’t stop us? Or should it?
Opera legend Maria Callas went out on tour, decades after her death. A preview concert impressed many fans and music critics, some even admitting to being unnerved because she seemed so real. Her digital creators say they could generate songs for her that she never actually sang so it is possible for one of the world’s most famous sopranos to sing rap or hip-hop, or any other genre of music with sound and lyrics she has no control over. One wonders what her reaction might be. If any artist can be back at work thanks to the tech available, there may be those who control their estates that see great potential. Sending their dearly departed loved ones on the road again could be profitable.
As I listened to the father of Joaquin explain his mindset in all this, I heard him insist this is not about trying to bring his son back. But I can’t help but wonder if this is as much about the anguish as it is the advocacy. They lost their child. The most devastating loss. They are embracing the chance to see and hear him again. None of us have any right to comment on how someone else grieves. But we can question where this all might be going.
Requiescat in pace may not be possible for those whose impact on issues or potential economic gain is seen as useful. As this technology is put to use in everything from entertainment to advocacy; commerce to court room proceedings, it is something we need to grapple with. What we need to come to terms with is how we are going to deal with it in present day, and also when it comes to us from beyond the grave. That’s my outlook.
