Death has always been a subject with a clear boundary. In the digital world, this boundary is beginning to blur.

In late December, Meta was granted a patent describing the use of a language model capable of simulating a user's activity on social media, even if that person is absent for long periods or has already passed away. The document states that the system could “simulate” the user’s behavior, responding to posts, liking content, and even interacting through private messages.

The patent was registered in 2023 and has Andrew Bosworth, the company's CTO, as its lead author. In response to the media coverage, a Meta spokesperson told Business Insider that the company has no plans to implement this specific example. 

Even so, the issue is not just technological. It involves law, ethics, psychology and, above all, the way we handle grief.

What exactly did Meta patent?

According to the patent text, the idea is to use a large language model trained with specific user data (such as comments, likes, posts, and prior interactions) to simulate their digital presence.

In practical terms, this would mean:

• Responding to comments from followers.

• Liking and interacting with third-party content.

• Sending or replying to private messages.

• Simulating audio or video calls.

The system could be activated both for periods of voluntary absence (such as a “digital detox”) and in the event of death.

Read also: Cell phone addiction becomes an illness, has a name and already affects 60% of Brazilians

The justification presented in the document is that a user's absence affects the experience of those who follow them, especially in the case of content creators or influencers who depend on constant presence to maintain audience and revenue.

But the proposal goes beyond commercial logic. It touches on the idea of continuity of identity after death.

From digital inheritance to digital immortality

The discussion about digital legacy is not new. About a decade ago, Facebook began allowing users to designate a “legacy contact” to manage their accounts after death. The proposal was to preserve memories, not simulate presence.

What is changing now is the ambition of the technology.

Instead of just keeping a memorialized profile, the system described in the patent would allow the account to remain active, as if the user were still there.

Professor Edina Harbinja, an expert in digital rights and post-mortem privacy at Aston University (previously University of Birmingham), told Business Insider that this type of technology involves not only legal, but also social, ethical, and deeply philosophical questions.

The big question becomes “who speaks on behalf of someone who has already died?”.

Find out more: What happens to your data when you die?

The rise of “grief tech”: technology of mourning

The movement is not just originating from Big Tech. There is a growing sector known as “grief tech.”

Companies have been creating digital clones capable of chatting, answering questions, and simulating the personality of deceased people. These systems use generative artificial intelligence trained with audio, video, messages, and digital records.

Justin Harrison, founder of You, Only Virtual, developed a digital clone of his own mother after she passed away. He stated, in interviews with the American press, that he believes there is a moral obligation to offer better resources for those going through the grieving process.

In Brazil, the topic also gained prominence in a report by Fantástico. Psychotherapist Maria Helena warned, in the article, that grief involves recognizing the loss as something irreversible and that any attempt to “retain” or recreate the presence can interfere with this process.

The risk of distortions between memory and simulation

One of the main technical problems of these systems is the possibility of inconsistencies.

In the same Fantástico report, an experiment showed that a digital clone responded warningly and in a contradictory way to a simple question about soccer. The AI claimed to support a different team than the one declared by the real person.

It may seem trivial, but this type of error raises deeper questions:

• What if the system generates false statements?

• What if it invents memories that never existed?

• What if it socially decontextualizes or distorts the personality?

Robert Locascio, founder of Eternos, declared in the report that his company avoids creating clones of deceased individuals precisely because of the ethical risk. According to him, the possibility of the AI producing incorrect claims can generate unpredictable consequences.

This discussion is not new to pop culture. In the Be Right Back episode of the Black Mirror series, a grieving woman hires a service that digitally recreates her deceased husband based on his online records. The simulation starts as a chatbot and evolves into a synthetic replica. The series explores precisely the discomfort caused when the copy shows inconsistencies and gets too close, but is never actually, in fact, the original person.

Generative technology does not bring the person back. It recreates probabilistic patterns of language.

And that is not the same thing.

The economic incentive behind digital immortality

There is also a business component.

As Edina Harbinja highlighted to Business Insider, the continuity of digital activity means more engagement, more data, and more content circulating on the platform. In an environment where attention is an economic asset, “active” profiles generate value.

In the case of creators and influencers, a tool that maintains presence during absences may seem attractive. For platforms, this represents traffic continuity and audience retention.

The question is whether grief should be integrated into this market logic.

Absence has always been part of the human experience. Making it optional through simulation alters this dynamic.

Virtual influencers and the normalization of the “non-human”

The debate gains another layer when we observe the growth of influencers created by artificial intelligence, such as Aitana, considered one of the first AI influencers to gain notoriety.

Digital profiles that never existed as real people already accumulate followers, contracts, and daily interactions.

But influencers are only part of the phenomenon. Major brands have also been creating digital personas with their own identity, such as Lu from Magalu, from Magazine Luiza, and Nat, Natura's virtual assistant. These characters interact with consumers, answer questions, star in campaigns and, for many users, are perceived as almost-human presences.

In addition, corporate virtual assistants, customer service avatars, and digital characters are being incorporated into apps, e-commerces, and social networks as part of the daily experience.

If we already relate to completely synthetic characters, the transition to “simulated” profiles of deceased people may seem like just an additional step.

The difference is that, in the second case, there is real emotional memory involved.

The line between representation and substitution is beginning to become less visible.

Psychology of grief: facing loss or simulating presence?

Sociologist Joseph Davis, a professor at the University of Virginia, told Business Insider that one of the tasks of mourning is to face the reality of the loss. According to him, bringing the person back in the form of a simulation can create emotional confusion.

Psychotherapist Maria Helena reinforced, in the Fantástico report, that the healthy process involves recognizing that life will no longer be the same. Any attempt to “go back to the way it was before” can make this adaptation more difficult.

Technology can offer temporary comfort. But it can also prolong denial.

Grief has always involved memory, ritual, and saying goodbye. When saying goodbye ceases to exist because the presence continues, albeit artificially, the process changes in nature.

Are we prepared for accounts that never die?

Meta states that there are no immediate plans to implement the technology described in the patent. Even so, the mere fact that it formally exists indicates a possible direction.

The central question is not whether it is technically feasible. We already know it is.

The question is different: do we want to live in an environment where absence is replaced by simulation?

Social networks have already altered our relationship with identity, memory, and presence. The possibility of algorithmic continuity after death amplifies this transformation.

Perhaps the debate is not about digital immortality, but about the limits of representation. When an artificial intelligence keeps posting, liking, and responding like someone who has already departed, what exactly are we preserving? The memory or the illusion?

In the end, technology does not eliminate death. It creates an interface between memory and simulation.

And if everything can keep happening as before, even when there is no one there anymore, we run the risk of emptying the very experience of absence, including in grief.

Perhaps the challenge is not to prevent innovation, but to decide to what extent we want reality to be replaced by versions generated from it.

">