Many years ago, I went to Disneyland, and they had an attraction there called "Tomorrowland". At this attraction, a robotic version of Abe Lincoln would arise from his chair and address the audience. It was a captivating achievement, and I remember thinking of how mind boggling the future will be with such things.
For some people, they may have felt it was just plain wrong to re-animate a dead person, but I didn't feel that way, any more than I would feel it is wrong to keep the picture of your deceased pet on your desk at work, or an old movie of a family vacation of those who are no longer with us. The memory is a fragile thing, and things often fade with time, so we have pictures, and movies to keep them fresh. If I watch a John Wayne movie, or listen to a Connie Francis song, my mind isn't pretending they are still alive. I just enjoy the experience, and nothing more.
Producing digital humans has become possible due to the latest breakthroughs in the fields of machine learning, computer vision, and conversational AI. These virtual personas are just the next step in the evolution of preserving the memories of loved ones. If one doesn't have sufficient awareness to know they aren't real people, it may be ill advised.
That being said, obtaining consent from the deceased person (While they are alive) before creating a virtual representation is ideal. It should be clearly stated (Like a will), who has the authority to use it (son, daughter, grandkids, descendants, etc...), or in celebrity cases, the wider public who admired and celebrated the departed individual.
I anticipate that the technology to build convincing digital surrogates of the deceased will become increasingly mainstream within the next decade, whether it be through AI and robotics, or holograms (Like Star Wars), or personalized chatbots. It's clearly not for everyone, but I would be comfortable with it. Some may choose to clone their beloved deceased pet, but others wouldn't. It's not a right or wrong thing IMO.
