Following the emergence of ChatGPT in November 2022, artificial intelligence (AI) has gained increasing prominence. However, the technology has started to be used in new and innovative ways, with services being developed that, just a few years ago, were the stuff of science-fiction.
One such trend is what Marie Stafford, global director of Intelligence at creative agency VML, calls “extended lives”. Speaking at the annual Future 100 talk on 11 February, she explained that the trend is all about how “human potential is being up-levelled through science and technology”.
“So, first of all, longevity is a huge theme influencing lots of our trends at the moment as people are living longer, and aspiring to live longer, entire industries are popping up to help them do so,” she said.
“But also the boundary between what is human and what is technology is starting to blur.”
This trend is not new, of course, humans have always had an obsession with looking young and extending their life. But now we have the science to try and do so and these emerging markets will present new opportunities but also ethical and legal considerations for the advertising industry.
The continued rise of AI
The Future 100 conference was told that technological advancements have already seen trousers that enhance stamina and reduce fatigue, glasses that are computers that attach to the user’s face and, more profoundly, AI that allows us to bring back the dead.
Just a couple of weeks ago, The Beatles won a Grammy for ‘Now and Then’, a track that was created with the assistance of AI.
Stafford told the conference: “James Earl Jones, the voice of Darth Vader, has signed over his voice to Lucasfilm. He will be the voice of Darth Vader forever, even though he passed last year. [Deceased TV presenter] Michael Parkinson. Did you know he is interviewing people again from beyond the grave? He’s got his own podcast. [He] interviewed Monty Don, I think it was last week.
“Elvis is in London. Elvis is back in the building people and is performing in London this year. So you know, posthumous performance is becoming ever more common.”
But AI isn’t just being used to bring celebrities back from the dead. ‘Grief Tech’, also known as ‘Death Tech’, uses AI to help people cope with loss. It is popular in China with companies such as Super Brain using the technology to build avatars of deceased loved ones.
The technology is also popular in Taiwan, where firms are experimenting with it to bring back people’s pets. In the West, companies such as Hereafter AI use generative artificial intelligence to allow families to interact with their loved ones after death.
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest agency-related news sent straight to your inbox each morning
But not everybody welcomes these developments. Neil Evely, head of Innovation at creative production studio Helo, said: “For me Grief Tech (the very name makes my skin crawl) is riddled with issues and controversy.”
“I recognise that using AI (and a whole bunch of smart people in VFX) to bring people ‘back to life’ for movies, TV etc is very, very different to the concept of recreating loved ones for families and friends.”
He added: “In my opinion, the two things do not belong together. I enjoyed watching Peter Cushing in [the Star Wars film] Rogue One, it’s a huge moment in the film, it’s done well and is relatively harmless, plus it’s a character that he is portraying, it’s not trying to emulate him as a real person. It still requires a delicate touch, there is always a risk of uncanny valley but I never get a sense of it being unethical.”
But what about Grief Tech in the UK?
Well, according to Stafford, VML data shows that the UK is “relatively hesitant” about the idea of Grief Tech.
Speaking to Marketing Beat, she explained: “Brits do tend to have a more subdued attitude to death and mourning, especially compared to places like Mexico or China where honouring ancestors is just part of the everyday. But with things like death cafes popping up and people embracing alternative funerals, it suggests we’re gradually becoming more open to different ways of dealing with loss.”
She said: “The real game-changer might be younger generations – who are much more comfortable exploring their emotions. Both Gen Z and Millennials were a little more positively inclined to Grief Tech in our survey. Given time, it might not seem so strange after all.”
Helena Franklin, a media and entertainment lawyer at commercial law firm Simkins, agreed with that sentiment.
“It’s hard to say. My anecdotal experience is that the British public are a touch more conservative than their peers across the Atlantic, and may find the idea a bit too ‘Black Mirror’-esque,” she said.
“However, we’re talking about a sector which taps into some of the most emotional periods of a person’s life, and any tool that helps an individual seek solace will have an appeal for some.”
She added: “From a legal perspective, non-UK tech companies offering AI-personas of deceased persons to individuals in the UK will have additional regulatory considerations to take into account, like protective laws around deepfakes, misleading advertising and data protection laws (if training data involves a living person).”
“In most cases businesses will be able to navigate these hurdles, and the UK government has sought to position itself in recent months as an ‘AI maker’, not an ‘AI taker’, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see these products starting to seep into general usage amongst the public in the foreseeable future.”
Opportunities for marketing
As you might imagine, marketing Grief Tech will also present a huge challenge for creative firms.
Franklin explained: A compassion-first approach should be taken by agencies. The [Advertising Standards Authority’s (ASA)] CAP Code specifically states that references to anyone who is dead in ads “must be handled with particular care to avoid causing offence or distress”.
“If looking to incorporate ads into a Grief Tech service, marketers will need to be very careful about being transparent regarding ad content and to ensure they are not being misleading, she continued.
“In the UK, where a brand has paid for content (or put in place some other form of reciprocal arrangement) the CAP Code will apply, which requires ads not be misleading and be ‘obviously identifiable’. For example, the ASA has previously cracked down on “advertorial” content: content designed to look like editorial content but which is, in fact, sponsored.”
While Stafford added: “My sense would be that getting the intent and the tone right is crucial. By framing the technology as a way to honour memories and preserve stories, rather than trying to recreate what’s been lost. The messaging needs to be crystal clear that this is about heritage, remembrance and preserving legacy, rather than an attempt to recreate or simulate a persona.
“I think it feels more respectful in the context of a digital legacy that you might choose to leave behind for your loved ones, as opposed to a service a bereaved, grieving person would seek out.”
It is “a sensitive area that needs careful handling”, “but there are some fascinating possibilities”, she said.
“Imagine photographers offering not just static memories but interactive ones, or ancestry platforms where you could have a conversation with your great-great-grandmother or learn about your heritage based on family records and letters.”
She added: “People could even create their own time capsules of sorts – leaving messages for their grandkids’ graduation or wedding day, recording family stories, or passing down treasured recipes. And I can see a place for chatbots or apps that offer comfort through familiar voices. But it will be important to find the sweet spot between innovation and respect.”
A new world of ethical considerations
Like with many other technological advancements, there is the question of whether Grief Tech is ethical.
Many have debated over whether the technology will cause further harm and prolong the grieving process. Others have raised concerns over whether the technology just commercialises grief.
Neil Evely said: “The concept of connecting with a deceased family member via an AI chatbot or similar, is entirely different and whilst I see that it could be an extension of a photo, video or voicemail, if done very carefully and that it might promote ‘healthy grieving’, I firmly disagree with the idea of trying to recreate that person for ongoing engagement.
“We cannot (yet) truly encapsulate a human being in a digital form and any attempt to do so in this particular case feels wrong to me, at best you have an echo of someone but at worst it feels ghoulish and hollow.”
Stafford concluded: “Technology can help us preserve memories in amazing new ways, but we need to reflect on how this might affect the way someone processes grief. Will having an AI version of someone make it harder to accept they are gone? And what about consent – would your grandmother want her personality digitally recreated for eternity?”
“The most ethically sound approach might depend on context. Using this tech to help a child learn about their family history or heritage feels quite different from marketing it to someone in the raw stages of grief. As this field develops, we’ll need to keep having frank conversations about where to draw the lines to avoid it becoming exploitative.”
