The ethics of preserving someone who has died
The question people ask before anything else is whether this should exist at all. It deserves a direct answer rather than marketing.
The case for
Humanity has always preserved the dead: portraits, letters, recordings, home video. Each new medium was accused of being morbid, and each became ordinary. A conversational preservation is a continuation of that line, not a break from it — with one genuine difference: it can answer.
For many grieving people, that difference is the point. It gives space for the things that were left unsaid.
The case against
Three risks are real, and we take all of them seriously.
- Deception: a system that lets people believe it is truly the person
- Dependence: a design that rewards avoidance of grief rather than movement through it
- Consent: preserving someone who never agreed to it
Where we draw lines
- Consent from the person, or their family with legal authority, is required
- Companions are always labelled as AI interpretations inspired by memories
- No public figures, celebrities or religious figures, ever
- No engagement mechanics designed to maximise time spent
- Families can delete a companion, its memories and its voice permanently
On "digital immortality"
We use the phrase carefully, and mostly avoid it. Famyl preserves a reflection of a personality. It does not continue a consciousness. Any company that implies otherwise is selling false hope to people at their most vulnerable, and the category will be judged by whether it resists that temptation.