Russian families are using artificial intelligence to create digital simulations of loved ones killed in the Ukraine war, a practice that has prompted a British parliamentary committee to launch an urgent ethical inquiry. The technology, which relies on deep learning models trained on photographs, voice recordings, and text messages, generates interactive avatars capable of conversing with grieving relatives. While advocates argue it offers therapeutic closure, critics warn of profound psychological and moral risks, including the potential for manipulation and the commodification of grief.
The ‘resurrection’ tools, developed primarily by small Russian tech firms, operate by synthesising a deceased person’s likeness and mannerisms. Users upload personal data, which algorithms use to construct a digital persona. Some platforms even allow real-time conversations, with the avatar mimicking the dead individual’s speech patterns and emotional responses. The process has been dubbed ‘digital necromancy’ by ethicists, who question whether it exploits vulnerable people in their darkest moments.
Margarita Volkov, a mother from Rostov-on-Don, lost her 22-year-old son in the Donbas region. She now interacts with a simulation of him daily. “It is like he is still here,” she told local media. “I know it is not real, but it brings me comfort.” Her experience is not isolated. Several Russian support groups for military families have reported growing interest in the technology, with some even offering subsidised access to bereaved relatives.
However, British MPs on the Science and Technology Committee have expressed alarm. Chair Greg Clark MP stated: “We must understand the psychological and societal implications of allowing algorithms to impersonate the dead. There are serious questions about consent, data security, and the potential for emotional dependency. We are opening this inquiry to prevent a future where grief is monetised and memory is manipulated.”
The committee will hear evidence from AI ethicists, psychologists, and digital forensics experts. Key areas of concern include the use of personal data without explicit consent from the deceased, the risk of creating ‘digital zombies’ that could be weaponised for propaganda, and the long-term mental health effects on users who may struggle to let go.
Dr. Helena Petrova, a Moscow-based psychologist, argues that the technology can be beneficial if used responsibly. “In cases of sudden, traumatic loss, a temporary digital representation can help the brain process reality. But it must be time-limited and accompanied by professional counselling. Unrestricted access risks preventing natural mourning.”
British experts are less sanguine. Professor Sir Nigel Shadbolt, a leading AI ethicist at Oxford, warns: “We are entering uncharted territory. The German word ‘Trauerarbeit’ – grief work – implies an active process of letting go. These avatars may short-circuit that, locking people into a fantasy. Moreover, who controls the rights to a dead person’s digital identity? We need robust regulation before this becomes a global industry.”
The inquiry comes as similar services begin to appear outside Russia. A US-based startup recently advertised an ‘AI companion for the bereaved’ using generative models trained on the deceased’s social media history. The British committee is expected to recommend a moratorium on commercial ‘resurrection’ services pending a full ethical review.
Digital sovereignty is also at issue. Some committee members worry that foreign companies could gain access to intimate personal data of British citizens, potentially violating privacy laws. The inquiry will therefore examine whether existing data protection frameworks, such as the UK GDPR, adequately cover the posthumous use of personal information.
As the technology improves, the line between remembrance and replication blurs. The Russian avatars are already startlingly lifelike. In one demonstration, an AI of a fallen soldier recited a poem he wrote days before his death. For families, the pull is understandable. But as we build a world where the dead can speak, we must ask: should they?
The committee will begin taking oral evidence next month, with a report expected by year-end. For now, the message is clear: the digital afterlife is arriving faster than our ethics can handle, and Britain intends to be at the forefront of shaping its rules.
