Artificial intelligence can bring people back from the dead

Should it be allowed to replicate your loved ones?

Artificial intelligence has emerged as a wide-ranging tool in an attempt to transform the old methods of decision making and introduce a new era of technological advancements where access, integration and analysis of data is much more effective. However before going into the depths of what we would mainly focus on this read, one must know clearly what Artificial Intelligence is. In contrast with its rising popularity, lack of familiarity with the concept is evident in most parts of the world. Out of 1500 businesses surveyed in the United States in 2018 by H. James Wilson and Paul R. Daugherty, only 17% knew exactly what AI is.

In layman's terms, AI is an artificial human who responds to a structural stimulus just like we humans do. These are machines capable of making their own decisions and judgements based on an unhindered, independent perception. AI, nowadays serves several purposes, from deep learning models to tech assistants. One of those in limelight of heated debates and discussions is its potential idea to give closure to people by replicating loved ones who have died.

Human replications by AI is a technology that has many ethical concerns and would need surveys to know what an impact it can have on the family members of the loved one. AI is non-sentient. It means that these are merely machines with no true thought processes and feelings. What this technology really aims for is to create a simulation where a person can find a short term closure or cherish memories with their deceased loved ones through a machine which acts, talks, and behaves exactly like the deceased person.

Non-sentient AI replications of humans are theorised to speak, behave and act like the person they are replicating. This means that the consciousness of the dead person remains alive artificially in a machine and the aura-less machine still shows the material affection towards the loved ones just like the dead person could have done.

Yet, one cannot deny the immaterial affection of a living being is no where near what the machines will be programmed to do so. Human psychology shows that every person has a bipolar set of feelings — external and inner feelings. AI works on neural networks whose datasets are obtained from the behaviour, text, speech, actions of a person. However, unlike machines, human beings have another set of feelings that they often hide from the external world. These are mostly known and understood by the person closest to them through love and mutual understanding. Therefore, AI cannot fully replicate the complete personality and the person closest to the deceased one can never ever feel the exact same way with a machine like he/she felt while being with her dead loved one.

However another ethical challenge to the use of such a technology if it exists, is the data that needs to be collected and fed into the machine. Collection and storage of data often poses a huge threat to privacy and other illegal anti-state activities.

Another question that comes up in discussion of such a technology is that “Isn’t the making of AI machines replicating humans also making them virtually immortal? And doesn’t that disobey the law of life and death?” The fact that most people fail to realise is that the main purpose of technological advancements in this era is to take humans closer towards immortality. Medical facilities, infrastructure and every other tech innovation is supposed to make lives of humans easier and longer.

“Mental closure” is not a definite term as it depends on perspectives, from person to person, individual to individual, based on how emotionally attached a certain individual was to the deceased person. Closure is required so that people are easily able to come in terms with the reality and accept the truth. Whether the AI machines will be able to provide closure is relative to what the person’s emotions are. After all, it’s the literal purpose of replicating machine to provide closure to certain family members who have lost their loved ones. Arguments about individuals not being able to accept the truth of the real world / other mental problems due to virtual assistances are self contradicting in their own way because these assistances themselves are aimed with the purpose to reduce the impact on mental health, for instance, Depression.

In an honest opinion, one really cannot come to any conclusion whether such use of artificial intelligence is really going to prove beneficial for mankind or not. Such a usage of virtual machines must be carried out through various surveys, tests and prototyping cycles, as well as keeping in mind the privacy issues and other ethical challenges like illegal activities that these non-sentient beings pose.

A slippery slope from prevention to enhancement

CRISPR-Cas9 (or Clustered Regularly Inter-spaced Short Palindromic Repeat) has been a breakthrough in the field of genetic engineering recently, currently being the most precise and the most versatile method of genome manipulation. The initial extensive portrayal of this CRISPR technology referred to a removal, addition and alteration of sections in a genomic sequence. In a brief introduction, this new science was first discovered and developed by Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna as a way to produce RNA segments from genetically engineered arrays to cut down the DNA sequence of foreign agents (viruses, bacteria, etc) through Cas9 - a protein enzyme.

As a revolution in synthetic biology, it is now possible to study the effects and cures for various pathogenic diseases for humans using other animals as trial subjects.

Currently standing out as the fastest and the most reliable system for editing genes, CRISPR is also proven to be much more cheaper than the existing “gene editing” technologies like TALENs (Transcription Activator-like Effector Nucleases) and ZFNs (Zinc Finger Nucleases). Therefore having enormous potential in medical fields, ranging from virology and vaccine development to creation of stem cell models for various bacterial and viral infections.

While most of these applications are involved with genetic editing of somatic cells (non-reproductive cells), present discussions about the risks of CRISPR technology have revolved much around its potential use to edit human germ line. This is one of the notable ethical challenges that CRISPR technology poses in the field of genetic engineering. One cannot deny the fact that germ line editing is a great prospective for cancer treatment, extension of lifespan, crop modification and development of transgenic foods and meat. However it has still been banned in most countries like the United Kingdom because editing the germ cells will pass on the genetic material to the next generations as well, thereby having important ethical implications.

“The advance of genetic engineering makes it quite conceivable that we will begin to design our own evolutionary progress”
~Isaac Asimov

Unintended, unknown effects are possible in future generations as a consequence one cannot ignore. One of the main factors due to which germ line editing is controversial is the contradiction it poses to pros of CRISPR technology. Editing the genome of germ cells is likely to cause what genetic engineering aims to cure, i.e Cancer. Even though CRISPR-Cas9 is a relatively cheaper DNA alteration technology, patient specific germ line editing does come at a considerable cost. As the applications of this technology grow rapidly, so will the demands and requirements by patients and clinical researchers.

Although the mere possibility of “off-target” effects in future generations due to germ line editing, cannot overshadow the huge potential advantages of CRISPR-Cas9. However, proper implementation is a reasonable issue that needs to get enough attention. Therefore a need emerges for educating patients about secure informed consent for clinical use and medical trials. The concept of explaining the subtleties and potential for off-target effects in germ line alteration gives rise to an important question - “Do the pros of non-somatic genetic modification through CRISPR outweigh the ethical challenges it faces?”

Besides all the benefits of synthesizing and manipulating pathogens, it’s reasonable enough to make sure that genome editing is not a panacea for all genetic illnesses. Germ line editing can pave the way for even more potentially dangerous pathogens, making it a major ethical concern under the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention treaty (BWC treaty). In the wrong hands, altering germ cells may lead to biological weapons and other illegal practices. Being one of the simplest methods for genetic engineering, the tools and instructions could easily be accessible to individuals, making it difficult to prevent the misuse of biological tools and knowledge. Changing DNA with desired characteristics may result in inadequate containment mechanisms. This further makes it a hazardous possibility of premature environmental release, leading to an outspread.

Thus completing the cycle, one may arrive back to the question of whether these pros outweigh the cons of genome editing. It’s clearly undefiable that CRISPR indeed holds vast potential in the health sector but such practices of genetic engineering must be properly implemented, and supervised by higher authorities. It’s essential to ensure that the trial subjects and patients have knowledge and given consent of any clinical use of the technology, allowing it at their own risks and choice to achieve the probable benefits it holds. Henceforth, the growth of CRISPR is indirectly proportional to its audience and their individual perspectives towards such a practice. In my personal view, the risks of genome editing clearly surpass all the potential benefits and advantages as it not only poses a threat to one specific individual but to the future generations as well as a much larger group of people through biowarfare or even a man-made epidemic.

References -

• Doudna JA, Charpentier E (2014) Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 346: 1258096
• Lanphier E, Urnov F, Haecker SE, Werner M, Smolenski J (2015) Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature 519: 410 – 411
• No time to waste—the ethical challenges created by CRISPR. EMBOpress. (2015, October). https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201541337
• What is CRISPR-Cas9? (2016, December 19). Retrieved May 28, 2021, from https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-crispr-cas9