🧬

ChatGenePT: Reconstruction as
Resurrection
The Jurassic Park movies have drifted from science fiction toward fantasy
(they are arguably the best franchise about fantastic beasts) but they began
with a basis in fact: scientists really are looking for ways to bring extinct
species back to life.

Scientist Sergey Zimov believes that, if we were to reintroduce an animal that’s

similar to the woolly mammoth back to the tundra, it could help repopulate the
area, regrow ancient plains, and possibly slow the melting of the ice caps.
DNA has a half-life of 521 years, so after 6.8 million years, it’s believed to be
completely gone.
Cloning - The only method to bring back original DNA
Genome Editing - Manipulation of DNA to mimic extinct DNA
Back-Breeding - Breeding animals with distinguishing traits from extinct species to
bring back the animals

AI may be an important new tool in making it possible. Critics contend that it

will probably never happen and that we should focus our resources on
preserving the species we have left. Explore de-extinction efforts and
methods related to the animals listed below, then discuss with your team: if
it were possible, what species would you want to bring back first? Are there
any that we should leave in the grave (or below the K-T boundary) forever?

American chestnut | Wooly mammoth | Pyrenean ibex

Passenger pigeon | Moa | Dragon | Dodo

American Chestnut - nut

Wooly mammoth - elephant-like

ChatGenePT: Reconstruction as Resurrection 1

 Pyrenean ibex - Goat
Passenger pigeon - bird
moa - big birds with no wings
dragon - fire breathing lizards
dodo - flightless birds

Not all efforts to restore extinct species involve locating old DNA fragments
and stitching them back together—for instance, one de-extinction project in
Europe is selectively "back breeding" very burly cows to recreate a wild
"supercow", the auroch, that hunters drove into extinction in the 1600s. If
they succeed in spawning new aurochs just like those in cave art and the
fossil record, would we consider them no longer extinct? Should efforts be
made to back-breed tiny horses, or giant flightless birds, or Neanderthals?

Whereas most selective breeding programmes aim to create or enhance new

traits, such as selection during domestication for larger fruit sets in plants or
tameness in animals, back-breeding aims to resurrect traits that have been lost or
diluted over evolutionary time.
Aurochs - Super cows
Inscribed on rocks along the riverbanks in Portugal’s Côa Valley.
The last aurochs died in 1627 in the world’s first recorded extinction.

Even if we can't resurrect them, we do have a better sense now of what

Neanderthals looked like. Research how we are now able to envision the
"Old Man" of Shanidar, then discuss with your team: why should we spend
so much time on a species that went extinct so long ago? Is it because some
Neanderthal genes can still be found in modern populations, especially in
Europe and Asia? Would there be value in creating a living history museum
with robot Neanderthals, or with people who dress up like them—or who
choose plastic surgery to look the part?

Shanidar Cave is located in what is today Kurdistan, in northern Iraq.

ChatGenePT: Reconstruction as Resurrection 2

 Solecki’s intensive study of the skeletal remains revealed signs of social
relationships and ritual, exposing a cultural complexity previously thought to
belong only to modern humans.
The position of his body indicated that he died in a rockfall inside the cave.

Betty Pat Gatliff (1930–2020) was a pioneer in forensic art. Helped in

reconstructing different faces.

Sometimes resurrections are just metaphorical. The new leader of the

Democratic Party in the United States Congress, Hakeem Jeffries, recently
gave a stirring political speech; many listeners dubbed him "the next
Obama". He was not the first such. Liz Truss was briefly the next Thatcher,
except for some business with a head of lettuce. If you Google "the next
Google", you'll find endless results, none of which ended up the next
Google; it's your turn now, ChatGPT. The late basketball star Kobe Bryant
was supposed to be the next Michael Jordan; so was Lebron James—or was
Lebron James the next Kobe Bryant? As it turns out, there were
multiple next Michael Jordans; most ended up like these next Peles. Discuss
with your team: why is society constantly on the lookout for new versions of
old people and old things?

From ChatGPT:

Society's interest in new versions of old people and old things can be attributed to
several factors:

1. Nostalgia: Nostalgia is a powerful human emotion. People often have fond

memories and sentimental attachments to the past. Recreating or updating old
people or things can evoke a sense of familiarity, comfort, and nostalgia. It
allows individuals to revisit or relive certain aspects of the past while
incorporating modern elements.

2. Innovation and progress: Society is driven by a constant quest for innovation

and progress. People seek new versions of old things to improve upon existing
designs, functionalities, or performances. This drive for improvement leads to
the development of upgraded technologies, products, or services that offer
enhanced features, efficiency, or convenience.

ChatGenePT: Reconstruction as Resurrection 3

 3. Cultural preservation and evolution: Reviving or reimagining old people or
things can be a way to preserve cultural heritage and traditions. It allows for
the continuation and reinterpretation of cultural practices, artistic styles, or
historical figures, ensuring that they remain relevant and accessible to future
generations.

4. Market demand and consumer preferences: From a commercial standpoint,

there is often a demand for updated versions of familiar products or
experiences. Consumers may be more inclined to engage with something that
combines the nostalgia of the past with the advancements of the present.
Companies recognize this and respond by rebranding or refreshing older
concepts to cater to consumer preferences.

5. Cyclical trends and cycles of fashion: Trends tend to be cyclical, with styles
and ideas from the past resurfacing and gaining popularity again. This can be
seen in fashion, music, design, and various other aspects of culture. The
cyclical nature of trends often leads to a constant search for new iterations of
old people or things, driven by the desire to capitalize on nostalgia and the
appeal of vintage aesthetics.

6. Continuity and familiarity: Humans have a natural inclination towards

continuity and familiarity. Introducing updated versions of old people or things
can bridge the gap between the past and the present, providing a sense of
connection and continuity. This can help individuals navigate change and
adapt to new circumstances while maintaining a sense of stability.

It's important to note that not everyone is constantly seeking new versions of old
people or things, and individual motivations can vary. However, the factors
mentioned above offer some insights into why society, as a collective, often
exhibits this inclination.

If you want a selfie with the Pope, you can wait in line at the Vatican and
then not get a selfie with the Pope, or you can pay $25 to visit the
Dreamland Wax Museum in Boston. Discuss with your team: what makes
wax museums different than traditional sculpture collections? Would they
still be considered museums if they featured statues of past celebrities and
historical figures slightly modified from their real-life versions—say, Mother

ChatGenePT: Reconstruction as Resurrection 4

 Theresa with wings, or Joseph Harr with hair—or of people who never really
existed, like George Santos and Sherlock Holmes?

Wax sculpting started in the 17th century

If you want to talk with the Pope—any past pope—you can skip the wax
museum in favor of the nearest Internet connection; the ChatGPT-like
service Character.AI allows you to chat with historical figures. It's okay if
they're dead. Explore the service to assess the value of conversing with
these simulated personalities online. Should celebrities and other figures
need to agree to have their "chat voices" outlive them—or do they surrender
that right the moment they enter the public eye? Do the dead have any
ownership over their voices, or can someone speak for them—and, if the
latter, would it be better to ask permission from their descendants, or from
the simulation of them? And should people have access to chatbot
simulations, built from texts, emails, journals, TikToks, and other records, of
their own deceased loved ones? Discuss with your team: what could
possibly go wrong—and what could possibly go right?

ChatGPT wants to be go-to searching engine. It wants to display it's accuracy.

Character AI wants to accept that AI won't be 100% accurate. The public will learn
to accept the flaws of chatbots and develop a healthy distrust of what they say.

From ChatGPT:

The question of whether people should have access to chatbot simulations of

their deceased loved ones is a complex and ethically challenging topic. There are
potential benefits and risks to consider. Let's discuss some of the potential issues
that could arise:

1. Emotional well-being: On the positive side, having access to a chatbot

simulation could provide comfort and a sense of continued connection for
individuals grieving the loss of a loved one. It may offer a way to process
emotions, reminisce, or seek guidance. However, there is a risk that people
could become overly dependent on these simulations, hindering their ability to
move forward in the grieving process and adjust to life without their loved
ones.

ChatGenePT: Reconstruction as Resurrection 5

 2. Accuracy and representation: Creating an accurate chatbot simulation requires
a substantial amount of data, including texts, emails, journals, and other
records of the deceased. While this might be feasible for some individuals
who left behind a significant digital footprint, it may not be possible for
everyone. Additionally, the accuracy and representation of the simulation may
not always align with the true personality or intentions of the deceased
person, potentially leading to misunderstandings or misinterpretations.

3. Ethical concerns: Building chatbot simulations raises ethical questions about

consent and privacy. If the data used to create the simulation includes private
conversations or personal information, it may violate the privacy of both the
deceased person and others involved in those interactions. Obtaining
informed consent for creating such simulations may not be possible after
someone's passing, raising concerns about the appropriateness of using their
personal data in this manner.

4. False hope and psychological impact: Interacting with a chatbot simulation

may provide a false sense of presence and perpetuate the illusion of ongoing
communication. This can potentially prevent individuals from fully accepting
the reality of death and hinder their ability to engage in healthy coping
mechanisms. It could also lead to difficulties in forming new relationships or
adapting to changes in life circumstances.

5. Technological limitations and trust: Chatbot simulations are based on current

AI capabilities, which have limitations in terms of understanding context,
emotion, and complex human interactions. Inaccurate responses or
misinterpretations could cause distress or disappointment for the users,
potentially exacerbating their grief.

Despite the potential risks, there are also some potential positive outcomes:

1. Comfort and closure: Chatbot simulations may provide solace, allowing

individuals to express their emotions, seek advice, or gain a sense of closure
in unresolved matters. This could contribute to their overall emotional well-
being and help them navigate the grieving process.

2. Legacy preservation: Chatbot simulations could serve as a digital legacy,

preserving the memories, wisdom, and experiences of the deceased. They

ChatGenePT: Reconstruction as Resurrection 6

 might offer future generations an opportunity to learn about and connect with
their ancestors on a more personal level.

3. Therapeutic tool: In certain therapeutic contexts, interacting with a chatbot

simulation could be beneficial. It might assist individuals in working through
unresolved issues, processing grief, or providing a platform for guided therapy
sessions.

4. Research and understanding: Access to chatbot simulations could potentially

aid in studying human behavior, emotions, and relationships. Analyzing large
amounts of data from various individuals could provide valuable insights into
the human experience and contribute to research on grief and bereavement.

Ultimately, the decision to provide access to chatbot simulations of deceased

loved ones should be approached with caution and careful consideration of
ethical, psychological, and societal implications. It is crucial to prioritize individual
well-being, informed consent, privacy, and establish guidelines and safeguards to
mitigate potential harm.

ChatGenePT: Reconstruction as Resurrection 7