When first reading through it I thought it was going to be some kind of digital journal or time capsule thing, maybe one that has strong guarantees against data loss.
But then I got to the part about interacting with the virtual you.
They're trying to emulate a person, a (formerly) living, breathing person, by looking at them from the outside. And then they want to speak for that person.
Am I the only one who's bothered by this? Who finds this disrespectful? They're trying to emulate you based on the things you share with them, presumably. But that is a very far cry from preserving the person as a whole, and presenting it that way is disingenuous. Because you won't be interacting with that person. That person is gone. You'll be interacting with a crude facsimile of that person's branding.
If I were to have immortality, I'd much rather have it by not dying.
Better still would be to incorporate the expectations of people who interacted with the person; unfortunately even the conscious memories of living beings are currently rather hard to access.
When first reading through it I thought it was going to be some kind of digital journal or time capsule thing, maybe one that has strong guarantees against data loss.
But then I got to the part about interacting with the virtual you.
They're trying to emulate a person, a (formerly) living, breathing person, by looking at them from the outside. And then they want to speak for that person.
Am I the only one who's bothered by this? Who finds this disrespectful? They're trying to emulate you based on the things you share with them, presumably. But that is a very far cry from preserving the person as a whole, and presenting it that way is disingenuous. Because you won't be interacting with that person. That person is gone. You'll be interacting with a crude facsimile of that person's branding.
If I were to have immortality, I'd much rather have it by not dying.