Our latest AI Pulse survey reveals a significant degree of apprehension among professionals regarding the use of AI to create interactive digital avatars of deceased loved ones.
While the technology to simulate conversations with the departed is becoming more accessible, the overwhelming sentiment from our audience suggests that cultural and ethical comfort levels have not kept pace with technical capabilities.
The data, drawn from 88 respondents to our weekly AI Pulse survey on Episode 182 of The Artificial Intelligence Show, indicates a highly knowledgeable audience that is skeptical of "grief tech" and views AI-generated creativity as fundamentally distinct from human expression.
Anxiety Around Digital Legacies
Our first question this week covered the trend of AI apps that create interactive digital avatars of deceased loved ones. We asked: How do you feel about new AI apps that create interactive digital avatars of deceased loved ones?
Audience sentiment leaned heavily toward caution and concern. A combined 60.3% of respondents expressed concern regarding the technology. specifically:
-
27.3% labeled the technology "deeply concerning and unethical."
-
33% found it "mostly concerning, with some risks."
Uncertainty also played a major role in the results. 23.9% of respondents said they were "undecided or have mixed feelings," suggesting that for many, the ethical lines regarding digital afterlife technology are still blurred.
Only a minority viewed the technology through a strictly optimistic lens. Just 10.2% felt it could be "potentially comforting for some," and a mere 5.7% classified it as a "positive use of technology for legacy."
AI Creativity Seen as a Distinct Category
We also queried the audience on the nature of AI-generated work. With AI music and art gaining mainstream traction, we asked: "With AI-generated music now topping charts, do you feel AI-created work holds the same creative value as human-made work?"
The responses highlight a nuanced perspective rather than a simple rejection of AI art.
-
50.0% of respondents believe AI work represents a "different category of creativity entirely," rather than judging it as strictly inferior or equal to human output.
-
However, 23.9% took a middle ground, noting that "sometimes, but it's not the same."
-
Another 11.4% were more critical, stating, "No, it lacks genuine human creativity."
Notably, very few respondents subscribe to a purely utilitarian view of creativity. Only 10.2% agreed with the statement: "Yes, the final product is all that matters."
A Highly Knowledgeable Audience
These insights come from a group of professionals who are deeply embedded in the AI ecosystem.
The respondent pool is comprised almost entirely of regular users and practitioners. 40.9% classified themselves as "Advanced," noting they build, implement, or strategize AI daily. Another 50.0% identified as "Intermediate," using tools regularly and following the space.
8.0% identified as "Experts" (researchers/developers), and only a handful identified as "Beginners."
Methodology and Audience Description
In our ongoing AI Pulse surveys, we gather insights from listeners of our podcast to get a sense of how our audience feels about various topics in artificial intelligence. Each survey is conducted over a one-week period, coinciding with the first seven days after an episode is released. During that time, our episodes typically receive around 11,000 downloads.
Our survey results reflect a self-selected sample of listeners who choose to participate, and typically we receive a few hundred responses. While this is not a formal or randomized survey, it offers a meaningful snapshot of how our engaged audience perceives AI-related issues.
In summary, when you see percentages in our headlines, they represent the views of those listeners who chose to share their opinions with us. This approach helps us understand the pulse of our community, even if it doesn’t represent a statistically randomized sample of the broader population.