Human Legacy And The Rise Of AI

Digital Ghosts: The Unsettling Rise of AI and the Fight for Human Legacy

A plea from the daughter of a beloved comedian has amplified a growing unease coursing through society. Zelda Williams, whose father Robin Williams remains a cherished icon, has asked individuals to cease circulating AI-powered clips of the late actor. Her request highlights a complex and emotionally charged debate surrounding the use of artificial intelligence to resurrect the dead. As technology rapidly evolves, it forces a confrontation with profound ethical questions about consent, legacy, and the very nature of human identity. The digital world is creating ghosts, and their presence is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

A Daughter's Public Appeal

Zelda Williams issued a direct and heartfelt message through her social media channels, urging the public to halt the circulation of AI-driven clips featuring her father. She stated plainly that she has no desire to see these digital recreations and finds them deeply unsettling. The filmmaker articulated a frustration that goes beyond personal grief, also highlighting the broader consequences of this burgeoning trend. She described the act of digitally "puppeteering" the deceased as maddening and a gross oversimplification of a person's life and legacy. The practice, she argued, is not art but a disturbing form of digital consumption that her father would have unequivocally rejected.

A Painful History Re-examined

Robin Williams, celebrated for his roles in films like Dead Poets Society and Good Morning Vietnam, was reportedly grappling with depression when he died in 2014. It was only after a post-mortem examination that his family learned his suffering was caused by an aggressive neurological disease, Lewy body dementia. This condition, often misdiagnosed, leads to a progressive decline in cognitive and motor functions, causing symptoms such as paranoia, confusion, and hallucinations. His widow, Susan Schneider Williams, has since worked to raise awareness about the devastating illness that ultimately led to the actor ending his own life at his California home.

Image Credit -by pinguino k from North Hollywood, USA, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

The Proliferation of Digital Necromancy

Zelda Williams has previously condemned the unauthorised use of her father's likeness. In 2023, she supported a campaign by the American media union SAG-AFTRA against the use of AI to replicate actors' voices, calling the practice "personally disturbing". Her recent comments reflect a wider social media trend. This trend involves animating pictures of deceased individuals, often with captions suggesting the technology can resurrect departed relatives. This phenomenon, sometimes called "digital necromancy," raises significant ethical questions about posthumous consent and the emotional impact on grieving families, who are often confronted with these digital ghosts without warning.

An Unsettling New Frontier

The unease articulated by Williams has been compounded by recent developments in AI technology. A notable example is the recent introduction of Tilly Norwood, an "AI actor," a digital creation by Dutch actor and comedian Eline Van der Velden. Van der Velden reportedly expressed her ambition for Norwood to achieve a level of fame comparable to Scarlett Johansson, a statement that sent ripples of concern through the acting community. The creation of a fully synthetic performer represents a new frontier in entertainment, one that many find deeply troubling for its potential to devalue human artistry and connection. Norwood is presented as a London-based aspiring actor, complete with a curated social media presence.

The Industry Reacts with Alarm

The introduction of Tilly Norwood prompted a swift and forceful backlash from human actors and industry bodies. The actors' union SAG-AFTRA issued a firm statement asserting that Norwood is not a performer but a computer-generated character. The union explained that the program was developed using the work of a vast number of real actors. They argued that such creations lack the life experience and emotion that are fundamental to authentic performance and that audiences show little interest in content that is disconnected from genuine human involvement. This sentiment was echoed by numerous performers who view the development as a direct threat to their livelihoods.

Voices of Concern in Hollywood

Prominent actors have added their voices to the growing chorus of disapproval. Emily Blunt recently voiced her own alarm, calling the concept of Norwood frightening. Speaking on a podcast, she called the development very scary. She pleaded with agencies not to pursue this path and to stop eroding the essential connection between people. Her comments came after being told of the creator's ambition for Norwood to emulate Scarlett Johansson, to which Blunt simply replied, "but we have Scarlett Johansson". Other actors, including Melissa Barrera and Simu Liu, also expressed their dismay, highlighting the ethical and artistic void at the heart of synthetic performances.

A Creator's Defence

In response to the widespread criticism, Eline Van der Velden defended her creation. She addressed those who were angered by the creation of her AI personality, Tilly Norwood. She clarified that the character is not intended as a substitute for a person but should be viewed as a piece of creative art. Van der Velden compared the use of AI to other technological advancements in storytelling, such as animation or CGI, arguing that it offers a new tool—a "new paintbrush"—to expand creative possibilities without diminishing the value of live acting. She insists that her work is an act of imagination and craftsmanship, aiming to build new stories in innovative ways.

The Union's Unwavering Stance

SAG-AFTRA, recently involved in a major strike where AI protections were a key demand, continues to staunchly oppose the substitution of human performers with synthetic alternatives. The union argues that AI-generated figures like Tilly Norwood are deeply problematic. Their reasoning is that these characters are frequently built upon the uncredited and uncompensated labour of professional actors. The union asserts this practice threatens actors' livelihoods and also devalues the fundamental human artistry audiences cherish. They insist that creativity must continue to be a human-driven process.

The Psychology of Digital Grief

The rise of AI-powered "grief tech" and "griefbots" presents a new and complex psychological landscape for those mourning a loss. While some proponents suggest that interacting with a digital twin of a deceased loved one could provide comfort and a sense of continued connection, psychologists warn of the potential for emotional harm. These digital interactions could complicate the natural grieving process, fostering an unhealthy reliance on a simulation and hindering the ability to accept the reality of loss. The phenomenon of "digital hauntings," where remnants of a person's online presence persist after death, can already be a source of distress for families.

The Perils of Posthumous Performance

The ethical minefield of resurrecting deceased performers is not entirely new, but generative AI has made the practice vastly more accessible and realistic. This raises critical questions about who has the right to control a person's likeness and legacy after they are gone. In many cases, decisions are left to the estates of the deceased, who may be guessing what the artist would have wanted. This has led to accusations of "cash grabs" and "digital indignity," where the primary motive appears to be commercial rather than artistic. Without explicit consent given before death, the use of a person's image becomes ethically murky.

Technological Acceleration and Its Consequences

The technology underpinning these digital recreations is advancing at a breathtaking pace. AI voice cloning can now generate highly realistic replicas from just a few minutes of audio data, making it possible to have a deceased person "say" anything. Similarly, video generation tools are becoming increasingly sophisticated, capable of creating lifelike animations from simple text prompts. While these tools have potential positive applications, they also open the door to widespread misuse, from generating convincing deepfakes for misinformation campaigns to the unauthorised commercial exploitation of a person's identity.

Public Perception and the Uncanny Valley

Public reaction to AI-generated art is deeply divided. Some view it as a novel and exciting tool for creative expression, while others see it as soulless and derivative. Studies have shown an interesting bias: people often rate AI-created images more favourably when they believe they were made by a human. However, when they know a work is AI-generated, their opinion often sours. This suggests that the human element—the story, the emotion, the lived experience behind the art—is still highly valued. Many AI creations, including digital actors, risk falling into the "uncanny valley," where they are realistic enough to be unsettling but not convincing enough to be embraced.

The Threat to Human Creativity

Beyond the emotional and ethical concerns, many artists feel that the rise of generative AI poses an existential threat to human creativity itself. Critics argue that these systems do not create in a human sense; instead, they "remix" or "regurgitate" vast datasets of existing human-made art, often collected without the original creators' permission. Zelda Williams powerfully captured this sentiment in her social media post, where she likened the output to making vile, over-processed sausages from the fabric of human existence. Her critique points to a fear that art is being reduced to mere content, churned out by algorithms for quick consumption.

The Legal and Regulatory Void

The rapid development of AI has outpaced the legal frameworks designed to govern it. While sharing sexually explicit deepfakes is illegal in the UK, the laws surrounding the creation of non-explicit deepfakes and the use of a person's likeness for other purposes remain complex and ill-defined. Lawmakers are scrambling to address the challenges posed by this technology, including issues of copyright, consent, and posthumous personality rights. There is a growing call for clear regulations to protect individuals from having their digital identities stolen or exploited, both during their lives and after their deaths.

Identity in the Digital Age

The concept of a "digital twin" — a virtual replica of a living person—is moving from science fiction to reality. While this could have applications in preserving knowledge or even achieving a form of digital immortality, it also raises profound questions about the nature of identity. The blurring of lines between a person and their AI clone could have significant psychological consequences, leading to what some researchers term "identity fragmentation." The debate forces society to consider what it means to be human in an age where our digital selves can be replicated, manipulated, and even outlive us.

A Call for Decency and Respect

Ultimately, the controversy returns to the simple, human plea made by Zelda Williams. Her request is not just about her personal grief but is a call for a broader sense of decency and respect in the digital age. It questions the motivation behind creating and sharing these digital ghosts, asking whether it serves any purpose beyond a fleeting, superficial novelty. Her words serve as a powerful reminder that behind every digital likeness of a deceased celebrity is a real family still navigating their loss. The debate is not merely about technology; it is about empathy.

The Unresolved Tension

The tension between technological innovation and ethical responsibility remains unresolved. Proponents of AI see a world of creative possibility, a new frontier for storytelling and expression. Critics see a Pandora's box of potential harms, from the erosion of human artistry to the emotional trauma inflicted on grieving families. As AI continues to evolve, the conversations sparked by figures like Zelda Williams and the controversy surrounding creations like Tilly Norwood will become increasingly vital. Society must collectively decide where the boundaries lie and what it means to honour a person's legacy in an increasingly artificial world.

The Enduring Value of Humanity

Despite the technological spectacle, the backlash against AI actors and digital resurrections suggests a deep-seated public value for authenticity. The unscripted moments, the flawed humanity, and the genuine emotion drawn from lived experience are qualities that algorithms currently cannot replicate. The enduring popularity of actors like Robin Williams rests not just on their performances but on the connection they forged with their audience—a connection rooted in a shared humanity. As the digital and the real become more enmeshed, the fight to preserve that connection is becoming more important than ever.

The Future of Legacy

The estate of Robin Williams took measures to protect his image for 25 years after his death, a move that now seems remarkably prescient. As more artists and public figures become aware of the potential for their likenesses to be used by AI, such legal protections may become more common. The concept of a digital legacy is no longer an abstract idea but a tangible asset that requires careful management. The ongoing debate will shape how future generations perceive and interact with the icons of the past, determining whether they are remembered through their authentic work or through endless, algorithmically generated facsimiles.

A Collective Responsibility

The challenge posed by AI-generated content is not one that can be solved by individuals alone. It requires a collective response from technology companies, lawmakers, artists, and the public. Tech platforms must grapple with the ethics of hosting and profiting from deepfake content, while governments must create clear and enforceable laws to prevent misuse. Artists and their unions will continue to advocate for the protection of their craft, and audiences have the power to reject synthetic content that feels exploitative or inauthentic. The path forward requires a thoughtful and human-centred approach to a powerful and disruptive technology.