What if death was not the end? The rapid rise and advancement of generative artificial intelligence presents the unique opportunity to allow people to speak to loved ones who have passed. Samuel Hoy Brown VII’s Don’t Fear the Reaper? delves into the rapidly growing industry of posthumous communication, an increasingly lucrative industry. This article analyzes the intersection between artificial intelligence, mourning the loss of a loved one, after-death rights, and the law. As Brown explores the ethical effects of posthumous communication through artificial intelligence, he questions consent and the ownership of an individual’s likeness after death.
This article provides a comprehensive examination of the history of artificial intelligence, starting with early chatbot models like ELIZA to today’s highly specialized generative AI tools like HereAfter AI and You. Brown explains how these new specialized AI tools emerged, and how they are capitalizing on the posthumous communication market, promising families who are in mourning an opportunity to participate in “real” conversations with their loved ones. This AI technology uses voice recordings, texts, email communications, letters, and personal stories of the deceased to manufacture conversations for the families to have while they are grieving, and for family members and friends to enjoy for years to come. Some may see this tool as a comfort in the mourning process and as a method of preserving family history, while others may discern the ethical issues that can stem from this technology.
Brown takes a thorough look at the legal issues surrounding the release of people’s digital data to these companies and intrusions on the privacy of individuals who have passed. Brown highlights the issues with existing laws, and how the current state and federal regulations fail to provide adequate protection for people’s digital name and likeness after death. To address these issues, Brown proposes a two-prong solution: (1) a federally protected postmortem right of publicity, ensuring that individuals retain control over their digital likeness after death, and (2) the classification of posthumous communication technology as a medical technological tool, subjecting it to stricter oversight.
With the increasing popularity of after-death communication technology, driven by artificial intelligence, individuals may need to proactively address the use of their digital name, likeness and personal data in their estate plans. Brown explains that future wills-and-estate attorneys should include language in documents that explicitly either permits or bars such usages. By explicitly stating these preferences in legal documents, individuals can maintain control over their postmortem digital presence and prevent potential exploitation of their information by AI companies or users. This raises broader questions about whether laws should require that individuals give express consent for after-death digital replication or if the absence of restrictions should imply that permission is granted.
Brown showcases real-life examples of the benefits and fears that accompany the use of posthumous communication AI technology. He tells the story of Joshua Barbeau, who used a generative AI chatbot to converse with his late fiancée Barbeau to help overcome his grief. Brown continues by drawing parallels between contemporary posthumous AI and historical efforts to preserve the voices of the dead, from early phonographs to today’s deep fake technology. These accounts highlight the profound implications of AI’s ability to blur boundaries between life and death.
Brown’s article does not delve deeply into the potential emotional and psychological effects on users of interacting with the deceased, but it does acknowledge potential harms, like longer grief periods and dependence on the artificial conversations. Future research might examine the commercialization of the grieving process and how it can lead to ethical dilemmas. Companies that monetize the grief of others could face moral objections. Should lawmakers limit the opportunity of commercial actors to profit from others’ grief? How should society regulate access to and usage of the digital names and likenesses of deceased persons? A comprehensive solution might address the potential exploitation of grieving family members.
Another point worthy of future exploration is the religious implications of posthumous artificial intelligence. Different cultures and religions have varying beliefs about death, the afterlife, and communications with the dead. Some cultures may embrace AI interactions with the deceased as a way of honoring the life and respect of their ancestors, while others may view this new technology as a violation of their beliefs. Policymakers will have to grapple with this issue and how subsections of society differ in their acceptance or rejection of posthumous communication.
Brown’s policy recommendations are creative, though they face obstacles that might preclude their implementation. Establishing a federally enforced postmortem right of publicity would require extensive legislation and could encounter resistance from technology companies. Similarly, classifying posthumous communication technology as a medical tool, as Brown suggests, would require intense oversight that could be difficult to enforce. Brown provides a strong foundation to begin this discussion, but in practice it may be more difficult to enact than anticipated.
Beyond its potential advantage or disadvantage for the grieving process, AI’s increasing role in posthumous communication raises concerns about its economic impact on the American workforce. As AI advances, industries have seen a declining demand for human work. This has already led to job losses and has the potential to depress employment further, even in areas we would have never considered to be at risk. Here, the main focus is on using the name and image of deceased actors and public figures, but there is also the potential for customer service workers, digital content creators, and other media-focused positions to lose their jobs to AI.
As artificial intelligence continues to grow, the ethical and legal debates surrounding posthumous communication will grow in tandem. Brown’s Don’t Fear the Reaper? brings attention to the potential and already growing issues of posthumous communication. As technology blurs the lines between the living and the dead, we must ask ourselves: “What does it mean to truly say goodbye?” Should AI grant us the ability to hold onto our loved ones forever, or does true acceptance require letting them go? This article is a must-read for anyone interested in the future of AI and postmortem rights.
[Special thanks for the outstanding assistance of Allison Monacelli, J.D. Candidate May 2026, Texas Tech University School of Law, in preparing this review.]
