Written by: Akshita Pandey, Moitrayee Das
Grief, decades back, meant silence. The deceased had their own space in photos that had been saved in drawers, in the sound of their voice left on old answering machines, and also in tales told during family gatherings. In today’s world, technology is gradually altering the entire definition of grieving as AI-generated robots help people converse with their loved ones beyond death.
For many younger generations who have grown up in the digital age, such an advancement is not viewed as alarming. On the contrary, this may be viewed as incredibly soothing.
Artificial intelligence-enabled grief technology, otherwise known as griefbots, generates virtual replicas of departed loved ones based on their digital footprint. This technology can imitate the style of conversation, personality, and humour, creating dialogues that seem shockingly realistic. Indeed, some voice-cloning technologies are so realistic that people believe that they are conversing with the departed person (Jiménez-Alonso & Brescó, 2024).
To start with, from an initial perspective, these technologies would seem to fit perfectly with the manner in which modern psychology views grief processes. According to current psychological theories, effective grieving is not necessarily dependent on detaching oneself emotionally from the dead. Instead, people tend to have continuing relationships with the dead in memory form and ritualistic activities (Jiménez-Alonso & Brescó, 2024).
Yet beneath this promise of comfort lies a more complex question: what happens when technology begins mediating our relationship with death itself?
For Indians, this is especially pertinent because of the way the novel coronavirus outbreak resulted in millions of people losing their lives unexpectedly, without having had the chance to say goodbye. People still find themselves rereading their old messages on WhatsApp, replaying their voice notes, and looking through their photographs in the hope of finding some connection to their loved ones who have passed away.
The rationale for the popularity of griefbots becomes evident. According to research, interaction with an AI could potentially ease loneliness and even be helpful when people try to deal with their unresolved emotions after losing someone (Jiménez-Alonso & Brescó, 2024). In some cases, users might find it therapeutic to share their thoughts that were not articulated otherwise.
The above-mentioned trend has been further emphasized by the fact that young adults have been using digital platforms as sources of emotional consolation and interaction. However, the conversation of death has always been considered taboo across different societies, including that of India, where bereavement is supposed to become a personal matter after a while. In such circumstances, the use of AI systems seems to provide the necessary comfort in the form of constant availability and non-judgmental interaction (Bhattacharya, 2025).
However, comfort alone does not guarantee psychological safety.
One of the biggest concerns about the use of griefbots is their effect on the grieving process itself. In psychological theories of grief, the acceptance of death and understanding that the death cannot be undone are crucial aspects of the grieving process. These concepts conflict with the use of AI since the dead are still present. This can make it harder for the bereaved to accept the reality of the death of the loved one (Jiménez-Alonso & Brescó, 2024).
This is not a problem of users getting confused about whether they are dealing with a simulation or something real. The problem lies in emotional dependency. As humans, we are prone to getting attached to things. In this case, AI created to simulate the feeling of being intimate with someone else makes us feel emotionally attached. This attachment may make it hard to adjust to life without the deceased individual (Degni, 2025).
It is especially important in view of the young generation that experiences more and more interaction through technological means. Indeed, we often form relationships with technology-based communication services, online communities, and even AI assistants. With the further development and personalization of these technologies, the difference between emotional attachment and emotional dependence might disappear completely.
Ethical considerations are much more than psychological. Griefbots pose a number of questions concerning consent, identity, and property rights. Who is authorized to bring someone back to life in the form of an entity? May one decide if their personal data is going to be used after his/her death? Is it possible to provide proper consent for something unknown at the time data collection?
This is particularly critical in the Indian context, where the debate on digital heritage and postmortem privacy rights continues to be entirely overlooked. With individuals’ lives becoming increasingly digitized, the need for legal provisions regarding their digital identity beyond the grave becomes even more pertinent.
The most disturbing problem is perhaps the commercialization of grief. There has been an evolving “digital afterlife” industry providing services that include recreating the voice and personality of the departed. Although the technology can be consoling, it nevertheless commodifies one of man’s weakest moments (Degni, 2025).
This results in a moral dilemma. With businesses benefiting from the sustained engagement, there will be less encouragement from the company side for any healthy separation or emotional recovery. The concerns are whether such systems promote dependency by ensuring sustained interactions with the AI-powered representation of the deceased person (Jiménez-Alonso & Brescó, 2024).
In addition to these fears is that of memory itself. An AI-generated copy is not the dead individual, but rather an advanced simulation that learns from a database. As this simulation interacts with people many times, it becomes possible that the manner in which people recall their beloved would be altered. The fear with these gadgets is not that they help us keep our memories alive but that they help us create new ones by replacing genuine memories with those created through algorithms (Degni, 2025).
The consequences that are to follow are no less worthy of consideration. Traditionally, in India, the act of mourning was a communal exercise. From family members, religion, neighbours, or culture, everyone contributed their share in helping the individual overcome his grief. From praying circles to shraddha practices, everything about grief was communally done.
Grief through AI will likely push this process further into the realm of the private individual. People will turn not to family or community but to their machines. Although griefbots do not appear likely to wholly supplant personal relationships, they represent one example of a growing tendency whereby emotions will come to be experienced more through digital devices than through human connections (Bhattacharya, 2025).
This does not mean such technologies should be dismissed outright. For some individuals, particularly those coping with sudden loss, trauma, or profound loneliness, griefbots may provide meaningful short-term comfort. The challenge is not whether these technologies should exist, but how they should be governed.
As AI grief technologies become more accessible, policymakers must move beyond treating them as ordinary digital products. India’s emerging data governance frameworks should address issues such as posthumous consent, digital inheritance, and the ethical use of personal data after death. Companies developing griefbots should be required to disclose how their systems are trained, what data they use, and what psychological risks may accompany prolonged engagement. Mental health professionals, technologists, ethicists, and legal experts should collaborate to establish safeguards that prioritise users’ well-being over commercial interests.
AI could assist in saving the voices, the pictures, and the pieces of memory. AI could even offer some brief comfort during periods of intense loneliness. However, grief is not only about maintaining ties with people that we have lost. It is also about learning to survive without them.
As India enters an era where technology increasingly shapes human relationships, the challenge is not whether AI can keep memories alive. The challenge is ensuring that, in our desire to remain connected to the dead, we do not lose sight of what it means to let go.
References
Belén Jiménez-Alonso, & Brescó, I. (2024). AI and grief: a prospective study on the ethical and psychological implications of deathbots. Elsevier EBooks, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-443-18851-0.00011-1
Bhattacharya, M. (2025). Exploring the Psychological Effects of Social Media on Bereaved Adolescents After the Pandemic -A South Asian Perspective. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.25215/1304.077
Degni, F. (2025). The Afterlife in the Age of AI a Psychological, Ethical, and Technological Analysis. International Journal on Cybernetics & Informatics, 14(3), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijci.2025.140304
Akshita Pandey is an undergraduate psychology student at FLAME University, Pune, and Moitrayee Das is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at FLAME University, Pune.