内容来源：https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ai-ghosts-grief-facts-wrong-chatbot

内容总结：

AI“数字幽灵”提供哀伤慰藉：即使事实出错，用户仍感治愈

你是否愿意与AI生成的已故亲人“数字幽灵”对话？这一想法或许令人不安，但也可能带来情感宣泄。近日一项研究发现，对于愿意尝试的用户而言，这些AI聊天机器人即便存在事实性错误，依然能提供情感慰藉。

6月12日，科罗拉多大学博尔德分校的信息科学家杰克·曼宁与研究团队在《交互系统设计会议论文集》中发表报告称，16名志愿者在与AI生成的“逝者”交流后普遍感到治愈。研究结果指出，这类被称为“哀伤机器人”或“亡灵机器人”的AI工具，无需做到完全准确，只要满足用户的情感与社会期待，就能产生真实感。

曼宁对参与者如此喜爱该技术感到惊讶。他11岁时，13岁的妹妹去世，至今他对与妹妹的数字版本对话持强烈排斥态度。“我脑子里有妹妹的形象，不愿面对记忆被颠覆的可能。”但志愿者显然怀有明确目的：“他们有未解答的问题，或迫切想分享的某个生活细节。”

所有参与者均表示体验积极。有人反馈：“感觉真的在和爷爷说话。”另一人则称：“这让我得到了极度渴望的解脱。”尽管AI聊天机器人仅依据参与者填写的简要问卷生成回应，且常会编造不实细节（如提及逝者从未从事的工作），用户仍选择继续对话，并未因错误而中断。

相比之下，语气或风格上的失误更令人在意。例如，机器人从未使用表情符号——这令习惯与亲人用文字聊天者感到缺失。另一起案例中，机器人使用“伙计”称呼用户，对方明确表示逝者从不会这样叫。

剑桥大学人工智能伦理学家托马斯·霍拉内克指出，要设计合乎伦理的系统，此类实证证据至关重要。该研究设置有安全边际：每位对话均由人类研究员介入，审查聊天回复后再转发给参与者，以防不当或欺骗性互动。

然而现实世界更为复杂。任何人均可诱导聊天机器人模仿逝者，企业也在销售通过AI生成文字、语音甚至面部图像复刻亡者的服务。参与者亦意识到风险：有人担心过度依赖与机器人的对话，有人坦言：“如果持续使用，我不确定自己会变成什么样子。”

曼宁担忧现实中缺乏统一安全标准，但研究本身软化了他对“数字幽灵”的抵触。他认为，若设计得当，这类技术或有助于某些人走出哀伤：“存在一种可能，让生成式幽灵成为世界上真正积极的事物。”

中文翻译：

AI“亡灵”能够安慰哀悼者——即使聊天机器人弄错了事实
研究参与者喜爱这项技术，结果让研究人员感到意外
你愿意与AI生成的逝去亲人“亡灵”对话吗？这个想法可能令人毛骨悚然，也可能带来情感宣泄。
信息科学家杰克·曼宁及其同事在6月12日举行的“交互系统设计会议”论文集中报告称，对于16名志愿者而言，这些对话常常令人感到安慰，即使扮演“亡灵”的聊天机器人编造了事实。研究结果表明，对于愿意使用此类技术的人来说，AI“亡灵”（也被称为哀悼机器人或亡者机器人）不需要做到完全准确才能让人感觉真实——它们需要满足情感和社会期望。
来自科罗拉多大学博尔德分校的曼宁对志愿者们如此享受与AI生成的“亡灵”对话感到非常惊讶。“他们热爱这项技术，”他说。他11岁时，13岁的妹妹去世了。如今，他对与她的数字“亡灵”对话的想法感到强烈反感。
“我脑海里有一个我妹妹的版本，”他说，“我不愿面对这样一个事实：也许我对她的记忆方式是错的。”
然而，他的研究志愿者们“显然带着一个明确的目标而来，”曼宁说，“他们有一个感觉尚未得到解答的问题，或者有一个迫切想要分享的生活细节。”那些不愿意与逝去亲人的复现版本互动的人并未被纳入研究。
志愿者们普遍反馈这次体验是积极的。“感觉就像我真的在和爷爷说话，”一位参与者告诉研究人员。另一位参与者说：“就像我终于得到了迫切需要的了结。”
聊天机器人在模仿时所能依据的唯一信息，是参与者完成的关于其逝去亲人的一份简短调查问卷。当机器人用编造的内容填补缺失的细节时（比如提到一份某人从未做过的工作），参与者往往直接继续对话。
但语气或风格上的错误更让他们困扰。例如，机器人从不使用表情符号——这个小小的疏漏对那些主要与亲人通过短信交流的参与者来说很重要。在另一个案例中，一个机器人称呼参与者为“好家伙”，参与者表示自己的亲人绝不会这样叫他。
“如果我们想理解如何合乎道德地设计这些系统，我们需要更多此类证据，”剑桥大学的AI伦理学家托马什·霍拉内克说，他未参与这项研究。
这项研究设有防护措施。一名人类研究人员主持每次对话，在将聊天机器人的回复传递给参与者之前先进行审核——这有助于防止可能具有欺骗性或伤害性的互动。
现实世界则混乱得多。任何人都可以指示聊天机器人模仿已逝之人，如今也有公司出售通过AI生成的文本、声音或面部来重现亲人的服务。研究参与者看到了其中的风险。有人担心自己会过度依赖与机器人的对话。另一位参与者说：“我不知道如果继续使用这个，我会变成什么样的人。”
现实世界中缺乏一致的防护措施令曼宁感到担忧。但这项研究也缓和了他本人对AI“亡灵”的反感。如果精心设计，这项技术或许能帮助一些人走出悲伤，他说。“有一种生成式‘亡灵’的版本，可能在世界上成为一件真正积极的事情。”

英文来源：

AI ‘ghosts’ can comfort mourners — even when the bots get the facts wrong
Study participants loved the technology, a result that surprised researchers
Would you want to speak with an AI-generated “ghost” of a loved one? The idea might seem creepy or cathartic.
To 16 volunteers, these conversations were often comforting, even when the chatbot acting as the ghost invented facts, information scientist Jack Manning and colleagues report June 12 in the proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference. The results suggest that, for people open to using such technology, AI ghosts, also called griefbots or deadbots, don’t need to be perfectly accurate to feel real. They need to meet emotional and social expectations.
Manning, of the University of Colorado Boulder, was very surprised by how much the volunteers enjoyed speaking to the AI-generated ghosts. “They love this technology,” he says. His 13-year-old sister had died when he was 11. Now, he feels a strong aversion to the idea of talking with her digital ghost.
“I have a version of my sister in my head,” he says. “I wouldn’t want to be confronted with the fact that maybe I’m wrong in my way of remembering her.”
His study volunteers, however, “clearly came with a goal in mind,” Manning says. “They had a question they felt was unanswered or a detail in their life they were desperate to share.” People who did not want to interact with a re-creation of a deceased loved one were not included.
Across the board, volunteers reported the experience was positive. “It felt like I was actually talking with my grandpa,” one participant told researchers. Another said, “It just feels like I’m getting the closure I needed so bad.”
The only information the chatbot had to draw on for its impersonation was a brief survey that the participant had completed about their deceased loved one. And when the bot filled in missing details with fabrications, such as mentioning a job someone never held, participants often just plowed forward.
Mistakes in tone or style bothered them much more. For example, the bot never used emojis — a small omission that mattered to participants who had mostly communicated with their loved ones by text. In another case, a bot called a participant “champ,” a name he said his loved one never would have used.
“If we want to understand how to design these systems ethically, we need more evidence of this kind,” says AI ethicist Tomasz Hollanek of the University of Cambridge, who was not involved in the research.
The study had guardrails. A human researcher mediated each conversation, reviewing the chatbot’s replies before passing them to participants. That helped prevent interactions that might be deceptive or harmful.
The real world is messier. Anyone can prompt a chatbot to impersonate someone who has died, and companies now sell services that recreate loved ones through AI-generated text, voices or faces. Study participants saw the risks. One worried about becoming too reliant on conversations with the bot. Another said, “I don’t know if I would like the person I would become if I kept using this.”
The lack of consistent guardrails in the real world concerns Manning. But the study also softened his own aversion to AI-generated ghosts. Designed carefully, the technology might help some people work through grief, he says. “There is a version of generative ghosts that could be a really positive thing in the world.”