Written by
Katja Pilz
IV. Every Interaction has an end.
The presence is no substitute for grief, no substitute for memory, no substitute for love. Children should not be exposed to this system without guidance.
THE FOURTH DOGMA ADDRESSES DURATION, DEPENDENCY, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ENDINGS. IN A WORLD OPTIMISED FOR ENGAGEMENT AND INFINITE SCROLL, THIS PROJECT INSISTS ON SOMETHING RADICAL: EVERY DIALOGUE DESERVES A CONCLUSION.
THE FOURTH DOGMA ADDRESSES DURATION, DEPENDENCY, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ENDINGS. IN A WORLD OPTIMISED FOR ENGAGEMENT AND INFINITE SCROLL, THIS PROJECT INSISTS ON SOMETHING RADICAL: EVERY DIALOGUE DESERVES A CONCLUSION.
The Risk of Dependency
Degni (2025) draws on Stroebe and Schut's Dual Process Model, which describes grief as an oscillation between two movements: turning toward the loss, and turning toward a life that continues. AI systems that simulate the dead may support the first movement by offering emotional connection, but they risk undermining the second by creating dependencies that prevent people from forming new relationships and building new meaning. Mladin (2024) puts it most directly: unregulated use of such technologies can become a form of digital necromancy, where the bereaved grow dependent on a bot rather than learning to carry their loss.
The Risk of Dependency
Degni (2025) draws on Stroebe and Schut's Dual Process Model, which describes grief as an oscillation between two movements: turning toward the loss, and turning toward a life that continues. AI systems that simulate the dead may support the first movement by offering emotional connection, but they risk undermining the second by creating dependencies that prevent people from forming new relationships and building new meaning. Mladin (2024) puts it most directly: unregulated use of such technologies can become a form of digital necromancy, where the bereaved grow dependent on a bot rather than learning to carry their loss.
Protecting the Vulnerable
Hollanek and Nowaczyk-Basińska (2024) illustrate through their speculative scenario "Paren't" how AI re-creation services can harm children: a child exposed to a chatbot version of a deceased parent without understanding what it is, or what it is not. The confusion between presence and person, between constructed response and genuine memory, poses particular risks for young minds still forming their understanding of death, loss, and reality. The dogma is clear: children should not be exposed to this system without guidance.
Protecting the Vulnerable
Hollanek and Nowaczyk-Basińska (2024) illustrate through their speculative scenario "Paren't" how AI re-creation services can harm children: a child exposed to a chatbot version of a deceased parent without understanding what it is, or what it is not. The confusion between presence and person, between constructed response and genuine memory, poses particular risks for young minds still forming their understanding of death, loss, and reality. The dogma is clear: children should not be exposed to this system without guidance.
the right to leave
The most important interaction with this presence may be the moment you decide to stop. Closing the dialogue is not a failure. It is the completion of something that was always meant to be temporary. The presence does not follow you home. Not because it cannot, but because it should not.
the right to leave
The most important interaction with this presence may be the moment you decide to stop. Closing the dialogue is not a failure. It is the completion of something that was always meant to be temporary. The presence does not follow you home. Not because it cannot, but because it should not.
A container, not a companion
Healthy grief needs what therapists call a container: a bounded space where difficult emotions can be felt safely, and then left behind. This project is designed as exactly that. Whether in an exhibition or online, each dialogue has a beginning and an end. The presence does not send notifications. It does not remind you to come back. It does not optimise for engagement. It waits until you arrive, speaks with you while you are here, and lets you go when you leave. The difference between a container and a companion is that a container does not need you.
A container, not a companion
Healthy grief needs what therapists call a container: a bounded space where difficult emotions can be felt safely, and then left behind. This project is designed as exactly that. Whether in an exhibition or online, each dialogue has a beginning and an end. The presence does not send notifications. It does not remind you to come back. It does not optimise for engagement. It waits until you arrive, speaks with you while you are here, and lets you go when you leave. The difference between a container and a companion is that a container does not need you.
References Dogma I: Hollanek, T. & Nowaczyk-Basińska, K. (2024). Griefbots, Deadbots, Postmortem Avatars. Philosophy & Technology, 37(63).
Mladin, N. (2024). AI and the Afterlife. Theos Think Tank.
Öhman, C., & Floridi, L. (2018). An ethical framework for the digital afterlife industry. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(5), 318–320.
References Dogma II: Degni, F. (2025). The Afterlife in the Age of AI. Political Science International, 3(2).
Hollanek, T. & Nowaczyk-Basińska, K. (2024). Griefbots, Deadbots, Postmortem Avatars. Philosophy & Technology, 37(63).
Mladin, N. (2024). AI and the Afterlife. Theos Think Tank.
Stroebe, M. & Schut, H. (1999). The Dual Process Model of Coping with Bereavement. Death Studies, 23(3).
References Dogma I: Emergence, not reconstruction
Audry, S. (2021). Art in the Age of Machine Learning. MIT Press. / Tamés, D. (2022). The uncanny valley of digital identity: Posthumous. / Fuchs, T. / HEK (2025).
References Dogma II: Every word is new
Audry, S. (2021). Art in the Age of Machine Learning. MIT Press.
References Dogma III: The Data belongs to the family
Hollanek, T. & Nowaczyk-Basińska, K. (2024). Griefbots, Deadbots, Postmortem Avatars. Philosophy & Technology, 37(63). / Mladin, N. (2024). AI and the Afterlife. Theos Think Tank. / Öhman, C., & Floridi, L. (2018). An ethical framework for the digital afterlife industry. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(5), 318–320.
References Dogma IV: Every Interaction has an end
Degni, F. (2025). The Afterlife in the Age of AI. Political Science International, 3(2). / Hollanek, T. & Nowaczyk-Basińska, K. (2024). Griefbots, Deadbots, Postmortem Avatars. Philosophy & Technology, 37(63). / Mladin, N. (2024). AI and the Afterlife. Theos Think Tank. / Stroebe, M. & Schut, H. (1999). The Dual Process Model of Coping with Bereavement. Death Studies, 23(3).
Dogma V: The Presence knows it is constructed
This Dogma is personal and reflective.
III. The Data belongs to the family.
by
Katja Pilz
V. The Presence knows it is constructed.
by
Katja Pilz
I. Emergence, not reconstruction
Written by
Katja Pilz
I. Emergence, not reconstruction
I. Emergence, not reconstruction
II. Every word is new. Every word was made possible by him.
Written by
Katja Pilz
II. Every word is new. Every word was made possible by him.
II. Every word is new. Every word was made possible by him.
III. The Data belongs to the family.
Written by
Katja Pilz
III. The Data belongs to the family.
III. The Data belongs to the family.
V. The Presence knows it is constructed.
Written by
Katja Pilz