Challenges of Artificial Intelligence Memorialization

William Bainbridge

doi:10.55613/jeet.v36i2.216

Authors

William Sims Bainbridge retired

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55613/jeet.v36i2.216

Keywords:

memorial, artificial intelligence, chatbot, griefbot, National Science Foundation

Abstract

Recent development of artificial intelligence based on large language models has made it possible to simulate conversations with deceased persons, based on texts they wrote during their lifetimes. Considerable research has investigated potential similarities between human cognitive processes and computer algorithms. Among the results are new tools for doing research on the human mind, along the spectrum from person to group to society. This study explores the collective memories of five deceased program directors at the National Science Foundation who were responsible for research relevant to human-centered artificial intelligence. They managed review of grant proposals in many NSF programs, including: Robust Intelligence, Cyber-Human Systems, Linguistics, Social Psychology, Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, and Human Cognition and Perception. The perspective stresses social dimensions of human personality, at a time when the influence of AI on our culture seems great. An open question is how Artificial Intelligence Memorialization (AIM) may interact with religion, perhaps adding a way to communicate with people in the afterlife, or supporting secular trends by dealing with grief as faith traditionally did, or just adding methods for preserving history and the guidance of deceased people for our personal lives.

Author Biography

William Sims Bainbridge, retired

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9077-1391

The author recently retired from the National Science Foundation, where for 31 years he served as a program director, first in Sociology then in Human-Centered Computing.

References

Ammerman, Nancy T. (2013). Spiritual but not religious? Beyond binary choices in the study of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52(2), 258-278.

Baggot, Michael. (2025). The quest for connection in AI companions. Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies, 35(1), jeet.ieet.org/index.php/home/article/view/202/167

Bell, Gordon, and Jim Gray. (2001). Digital immortality. Communications of the ACM, 44(3), 28-31.

Brewer, C. D. (2026). Publish or perish in the era of ChatGPT. Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies, 36(1), jeet.ieet.org/index.php/home/article/view/189/177

Brubaker, Jed R., Meredith Ringel Morris, Dylan Thomas Doyle, Casey Fiesler, Martin Gibbs, and Joanna McGrenere. (2014). AI and the afterlife. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 458, 1-5, par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10528213

Bush, Vannevar. (1945). Science, the endless frontier. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Chapin, Paul G. (1967). On the syntax of word-derivation in English. Bedford, Massachusetts: Mitre; archive.org/details/onsyntaxofwordde68paul/page/n1/mode/2up

Chomsky, Noam. (1981). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. Pp. 32-75 in Explanation in Linguistics, edited by Norbert Hornstein and David Lightfoot. London: Longman.

Hollanek, Tomasz, and Katarzyna Nowaczyk-Basińska. (2024). Applications of generative AI in the digital afterlife industry. Philosophy and Technology, 37(63), 1-22, doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00744-w

Kasselstrand, Isabella, Phil Zuckerman, and Ryan T. Cragun. (2023). Beyond doubt: The secularization of society. New York: New York University Press.

Krueger, Joel, and Lucy Osler. (2022). Communing with the dead online: Chatbots and continuing bonds. Journal of Consciousness Studies 29, 222-252.

Leen, Todd K. (1991). Dynamics of learning in linear feature-discovery networks. Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 2(1), 85-105.

Leen, Todd K. (1994). From data distributions to regularization in invariant learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 7, 223-230.

Linden, Katerina. (2025). The talking dead: An analysis of posthumous identity construction in AI voice-cloning services. Thanatos 13(2): 1-25, journal.fi/thanatos/article/view/160215/120195

Marshall, Joey, and Daniel V. A. Olson, (2018). “Is ‘spiritual but not religious’ a replacement for religion or just one step on the path between religion and non-religion? Review of Religious Research, 60(4), 503-518.

Miller, Courtney. 2016. Spiritual but not yet religious: Rethinking the legal definition of religion. Virginia Law Review, 102(3), 833-894.

Moreman, Christopher M., and A. David Lewis, eds. (2014). Digital death: Mortality and beyond in the online age. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger.

Morris, Meredith Ringel, and Jed R. Brubaker. (2025). Generative ghosts: Anticipating benefits and risks of AI afterlives. CHI '25: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 536, 1-14, par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10623872

Mosurinjohn, Sharday, and Galen Watts. (2021). “Religious studies and the spiritual turn. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 33(5), 482-504.

Reeker, Larry H., and Albert T. Jones, (2002). A new classification of information: A step on the road to interpretability. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.990

Tong, Yunping, and Fenggang Yang. (2018). Internal diversity among “spiritual but not religious” adolescents in the United States: A person-centered examination using latent class analysis. Review of Religious Research, 60(4), 435-453.

Worth, Tammy. (2025). Ready or not, the digital afterlife is here. Nature, www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02940