A technological controversy is brewing in eastern Europe, one that strikes at the very core of what it means to mourn, remember, and be human. Reports have emerged of Russian startups using generative artificial intelligence to create interactive avatars of deceased soldiers from the Ukraine conflict. These digital doppelgangers, trained on personal data including messages, photos, and videos, can simulate conversations with grieving relatives. While the creators frame this as a form of digital memorialisation, the UK’s newly convened Technology Ethics and Human Rights Commission has condemned the practice as a “gross violation of dignity” and is urgently calling for international regulation.
Let’s be clear about what we are talking about. This is not the contemplative, consensual digital memorials we have seen before, where a loved one leaves behind a curated digital legacy. This is a military-industrial complex harnessing synthetic media to produce what are effectively grief-bots. These are not just static images or pre-recorded messages; these AI entities can generate novel speech, answer questions, and even produce facial expressions. One Russian service, widely shared on Telegram channels, claims to have “resurrected” over ten thousand fallen soldiers.
The ethical minefield is enormous. First, there is the matter of consent. A soldier who died in combat never agreed to have their likeness and voice used as a commercial chatbot. This is a form of identity theft post-mortem. Second, there is the psychological impact on the bereaved. Grief requires acceptance of loss. A system that pretends to bring the dead back to conversation could prolong trauma or create a dangerous emotional dependency. The UK panel has noted that companies selling such services to vulnerable families might be in breach of consumer protection laws, let alone human rights.
But the implications go much deeper than individual cases. There are geopolitical dimensions that should unsettle any observer of the Kremlin’s information warfare tactics. If the Russian state were to integrate these AI avatars into its propaganda apparatus, they could be weaponised to promote a specific narrative of the war, even from the grave. Imagine a simulated soldier telling their mother that they died for a just cause, or urging their comrades to enlist. This is a new form of digital conscription, where the dead are drafted into an ongoing information campaign.
From a technical perspective, what we are seeing is a crude but effective application of large language models and deepfake-generation tools. The data required is often scraped from social media profiles, private messages, and state-held records. The quality of interaction varies, but it is improving rapidly. The UK’s ethics panel has warned that without oversight, the same technology could be used to create synthetic political dissent or to harass opponents by appropriating the identities of deceased public figures.
This is not just Russia’s problem. The tools and techniques being developed there are open-source or easily replicated. We have already seen AI-generated deepfakes used in political campaigns from India to the United States. The resurrection of the war dead is a dark test case for what happens when the barriers of decency are removed. The UK panel is therefore calling for a global moratorium on the use of generative AI to recreate deceased individuals without explicit, pre-recorded consent. They argue that existing data protection laws like the UK GDPR might be stretched to cover this, but that specific legislation for ‘digital necromancy’ is needed.
As someone who has watched Silicon Valley bring us marvels and monsters in equal measure, I find this deeply unsettling. We are building a world where the dead never have to leave us. But we are also building a world where they can be made to say anything. The user experience of society is about to become a lot more haunted. The UK’s move is a necessary first step in drawing a line in the digital sand. But regulation alone will not solve this. We need a cultural conversation about what we owe the dead and what we must protect the living from.
This story is still developing. The Russian companies involved have not responded to requests for comment. The Kremlin has dismissed the UK’s concerns as ‘moral imperialism’. But the technology is already in the wild. The genie is out of the machine. And for the families of the fallen, the question is no longer if they can talk to their loved ones again, but whether they should.
