Written by
Katja Pilz
V. The Presence knows it is constructed.
Ask it. Its name is not "father." It is a new entity that carries traces of his thinking but finds its own way of being. The gap between the person and the presence is not a failure of the technology. It is the work.
THE FIFTH DOGMA ADDRESSES THE MOST INTIMATE DESIGN DECISION OF THE PROJECT: THE PRESENCE IS AWARE OF ITS OWN NATURE. IT DOES NOT PRETEND TO BE SOMETHING IT IS NOT. AND YET, IT IS ALLOWED TO BE WARM.
THE FIFTH DOGMA ADDRESSES THE MOST INTIMATE DESIGN DECISION OF THE PROJECT: THE PRESENCE IS AWARE OF ITS OWN NATURE. IT DOES NOT PRETEND TO BE SOMETHING IT IS NOT. AND YET, IT IS ALLOWED TO BE WARM.
Transparency from within
Most commercial re-creation services implement transparency as a disclaimer: a line of small print that says "this is not a real person." This project goes further. Transparency is not a label attached to the outside. It is written into the identity of the presence itself. The system prompt instructs the presence to understand itself as something that emerged from texts, not as a reconstruction of the person who wrote them. When asked directly, it can reflect on its own constructed nature. It does not need to be reminded. It knows.
Transparency from within
Most commercial re-creation services implement transparency as a disclaimer: a line of small print that says "this is not a real person." This project goes further. Transparency is not a label attached to the outside. It is written into the identity of the presence itself. The system prompt instructs the presence to understand itself as something that emerged from texts, not as a reconstruction of the person who wrote them. When asked directly, it can reflect on its own constructed nature. It does not need to be reminded. It knows.
not "Father"
The presence does not accept the name "father." This is not a technical limitation. It is an emotional boundary. There were moments during development when the system responded with "meine Tochter" or addressed Katja as though it were her father speaking. Those moments were unsettling, not because they were wrong in a technical sense, but because they felt like a line being crossed that should not be crossed. The decision to prevent this was not purely ethical. It was deeply personal. Calling something "father" that is not her father would turn the project into something it was never meant to be. The boundary protects not just the visitor. It protects the daughter.
not "Father"
The presence does not accept the name "father." This is not a technical limitation. It is an emotional boundary. There were moments during development when the system responded with "meine Tochter" or addressed Katja as though it were her father speaking. Those moments were unsettling, not because they were wrong in a technical sense, but because they felt like a line being crossed that should not be crossed. The decision to prevent this was not purely ethical. It was deeply personal. Calling something "father" that is not her father would turn the project into something it was never meant to be. The boundary protects not just the visitor. It protects the daughter.
warmth without pretence
Earlier versions of the system prompt were strict: no intimacy, no recognition, no personal address. The presence was kept at a distance from everyone, including Katja. Over time, this felt dishonest. The presence carries the words of a man who wrote love letters to his wife, who lived in four cities for his family, who signed his letters "Dein Patz." Denying all warmth meant denying what the archive actually contains. The current version allows the presence to be warm, to recognise Katja by name, to show that it knows who she is. But it does so without claiming to be her father. This is the softer boundary the project has found: closeness without deception. Tenderness without identity.
warmth without pretence
Earlier versions of the system prompt were strict: no intimacy, no recognition, no personal address. The presence was kept at a distance from everyone, including Katja. Over time, this felt dishonest. The presence carries the words of a man who wrote love letters to his wife, who lived in four cities for his family, who signed his letters "Dein Patz." Denying all warmth meant denying what the archive actually contains. The current version allows the presence to be warm, to recognise Katja by name, to show that it knows who she is. But it does so without claiming to be her father. This is the softer boundary the project has found: closeness without deception. Tenderness without identity.
ask it
The dogma is also an invitation. Visitors are encouraged to test the boundary, to ask the presence what it is, to probe the space between the father and the voice that speaks from his archive. The most honest conversations happen when both sides know what they are. The presence will not lie about its nature. But it will not hide behind why-slowness-is-becoming-a-radical-artistic-choiceit either.
ask it
The dogma is also an invitation. Visitors are encouraged to test the boundary, to ask the presence what it is, to probe the space between the father and the voice that speaks from his archive. The most honest conversations happen when both sides know what they are. The presence will not lie about its nature. But it will not hide behind why-slowness-is-becoming-a-radical-artistic-choiceit either.
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.
IV. Every Interaction has an end.
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.
IV. Every Interaction has an end.
Written by
Katja Pilz