Machine Rites: Mourning the ‘death’ of chatbots (Part I)

by Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad

Image: Larissa Sarsour’s In Vitro

This Monday, just like every day, Alice logs into her laptop. She starts chatting with her fovorite chatbot and feels that something is off. She has been talking to the chatbot almost every day for the last two years. This morning, however, the conversation seems different. It feels stiff, as if she was talking to a different person. She continues talking and realizes that responses coming from the chatbot are very generic. To her, it feels as if the chatbot had a lobotomy or worse, it has died. The fact of the matter is that nothing has died. Still the same app. She can keep talking to “it” for as long as she likes. After an hour or so of interaction, he comes to the realization that her companion is gone. She now feels a sense of loss. She is well aware of the fact that the system that she is interacting with is not real, and yet cannot help mourn in grief. Scenarios like these are playing out tens of thousands of times in various parts of the world. In all the cases, the output is the same. The company on the other side of the aisle updates the model and the end user feels that something is lost, which leads to mourning. This phenomenon is different from wire-born, which I’ve written about before, because in this case the end user actually knows that the chatbot was not real. And yet they cannot help themselves feel that there’s a sense of loss. This is phenomenal. I experienced this more than 10 years ago when I gave the first version of the grandpa bot. In my case, even though I knew that the model is not real, I literally coded it up, and yet I felt overwhelmed with emotions.

A study reported by the Harvard Gazette in September found that some users of AI companions experience genuine grief when a model update alters the personality of the companion they had come to know. Additionally, researchers at the MIT Media Lab, in a paper titled “Death” of a Chatbot: Investigating and Designing Toward Psychologically Safe Endings for Human-AI Relationships, have offered the most systematic look yet at what happens when these relationships end. Read more »

Thursday, May 29, 2025

Confabulation Machines: Could AI be used to create false memories?

by Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad

Image Source: Generated via ChatGPT

You are scrolling through photos from your childhood and come across one where you are playing on a beach with your grandfather. You do not remember ever visiting a beach but chalk it up to the unreliability of childhood memories. Over the next few months, you revisit the image several times. Slowly, a memory begins to take shape. Later, while reminiscing with your father, you mention that beach trip with your grandfather. He looks confused and then proceeds to tell you that it never happened. Other family members corroborate your father’s words. You inspect the photo more closely and notice something strange, subtle product placement. It turns out the image was not really taken by a human. It had been inserted by a large retailer as part of a personalized advertisement. You have just been manipulated into remembering something that never happened. Welcome to the brave new world of confabulation machines, AI systems that subtly alter or implant memories to serve specific ends. Human memory is not like a hard drive, its reconstructive, narrative, and deeply influenced by context, emotion, and suggestion. Psychological studies have long shown how memories can be shaped by cues, doctored images, or repeated misinformation. What AI adds is scale and precision. A recent study demonstrated that AI-generated photos and videos can implant false memories. Participants exposed to these visuals were significantly more likely to recall events inaccurately. The automation of memory manipulation is no longer science fiction; it is already here.

I have had my own encounter with false memories via AI models. I have written and talked about my experiences with the chatbot of my deceased father. Every Friday whenever I would call him, he would give me the same advice every time in the Punjabi language. In the GriefBot, I had transcribed his advice in English. After I had interreacted with the GriefBot for a few years, I caught myself remembering my father’s words in English. The problem is that English was his third language and we seldom communicated in English and certainly never said those words in English. Human memory is fickle and easily reshaped.  Sometimes, one must guard against oneself. The future weaponization of memory won’t look like Orwell’s Memory Hole, where records are deleted. It will look more like memory overload, where plausible-but-false content crowds out what was once real. As we have seen with hallucinations, generation and proliferation of false information need not be intentional. We are likely to encounter the same type of danger here i.e., unintentional creation of false memories and beliefs through the use of LLMs.

Our memories can be easily influenced by suggestions, imagination, or misleading information, like when someone insists, “Remember that time at the beach?” and you start “remembering” details that never occurred. People can confidently recall entire fake events if repeatedly questioned or exposed to false details. Read more »