In his now-viral post, Jain wrote, “AI is really getting out of hand.” He had attended a memorial for a relative who passed away several years ago. What followed at the ceremony shook him: the deceased uncle appeared alive again, virtually, speaking in his own voice, thanking the family for their presence and for the support during his lifetime. The family had created a deepfake-like video using artificial intelligence, animating his voice, face and gestures with haunting accuracy.
“My wife felt very emotional and really liked the AI video,” Jain admitted in his post, adding that “it really felt Uncle ji was talking in person.” While the video was impressively crafted, it left Jain with deeper concerns. “Now anyone can make anyone speak anything. We are entering a future where human voice, face and body can be cloned digitally and made to do anything.”
An emotional innovation or ethical minefield?
While the emotional impact of the video was undeniable for many, Jain’s reflection took a more cautionary tone. As someone with a long-standing career in both finance and tech, having served as Vice President at Paytm and now steering an AI-enabled education startup, his warning carries weight.
He questioned the growing acceptance of AI-generated human likenesses, particularly in emotionally charged scenarios. “It’s a really scary future ahead if we continue to equate video of a person with his own personality,” he warned, highlighting how such technologies could dangerously alter perceptions of truth and identity.
The prayer meet wasn’t just a private moment for mourning. It became a mirror to the rapidly evolving capabilities and societal implications of generative AI. As Jain notes, the ability to convincingly clone someone digitally opens up a Pandora’s box of potential misuse, especially in a world still conditioned to trust video as irrefutable evidence.
A signal to policymakers as deepfakes enter
Jain’s experience is not an isolated incident but perhaps a glimpse into what may soon become a norm. AI-crafted tributes could start replacing traditional mourning practices. While many see this as a beautiful way to preserve memories, it also calls for urgent legal and ethical frameworks. “If this becomes normalized,” he notes, “lots of legal issues will arise in day-to-day life.” Consent, authenticity, identity theft and psychological manipulation are just the tip of the iceberg in what Jain sees as an emerging digital minefield.
Are we witnessing the rise of the AI afterlife?
The moment marks a sobering milestone in the cultural transformation of grief. AI is not just changing how we live. It is beginning to redefine how we die and how we are remembered. From synthetic obituaries to digital resurrections, mourning is moving into the metaverse.
Saurabh Jain’s post, while brief, forces us to reckon with a profound question. In our quest to preserve what’s lost, are we tampering too much with what it means to be human?
In a world where avatars can outlive their originals, perhaps it’s time we ask. Just because we can bring back the dead, should we?
