Purpose, Methods, and Ethics in Eternal You 2024

Critics have studied non-fiction films for many years, conventionally since the interwar period, as the scope of ‘non-fiction’ grows, changes, and challenges our understanding of the representation of truth and reality. One angle of study is the social functions of documentary films. Questions arise such as what effect a film’s release will have on society, what this society looks like and who is a part of it, and who will have access to the film. With a media form that was originally defined by its presentation of “information on one topic at some length, using audio and visual materials primarily gathered from the real world” (Marcus, 2018), debates over what can be considered real are inevitable. There are a seemingly endless number of factors that play into the power filmmakers have to represent something. This includes but is not limited to, editing choices, filmmaker to participant relationships, extent of camera presence, extent of prior research into the subject, moral stances, choice of participants, and stylistic choices. In the article, “Where the Truth Lies—Or Not,” Rachel Kamerman (2011) points out the difference between literal truth and essential truth, arguing that the presentation of essential truths allow filmmakers to provide insights and contextualization to the ideas in the film. Literal truths would be, for example, a completely uncut interview. Kamerman’s point shows us that, while this is literally the entire truth as the interviewee states it to be, every second of the interview is not necessary for the audience to understand the main idea of what the person is saying. Other points of view would argue that any removal or re-ordering of this interview would automatically make for an untruthful version of the story because it does not display exactly what happens. This shows the basis of a common and ongoing debate over the extent to which something can be considered non-fiction, when the goal is to create something truthful and entertaining. Eternal You (2024), directed by Hans Block and Moritz Riesewieck, is a feature length documentary film about the new and advancing technology of artificial intelligence (AI) specifically in the death and afterlife industry. It shows the experiences of startup businesses as well as users of the products. Using interviews from a multitude of sources across the field, the film is structured in a way that creates space for a factual and moral discussion through hope and danger. In this paper, I will be looking at the purpose and cause of the film, which is to open up a multifaceted discussion over a specific industry of new technology, then dissecting the techniques and topics that the filmmakers use to get to this goal of capturing both sides of the debate surrounding an important questions, “how have documentaries started or intervened in public debate of important issues” (Marcus, 2018), and what techniques and ideas do filmmakers use to accurately represent the truth?

Purpose and Cause

The intention of Eternal You and its contemporaneity, according to Block and Riesewieck, was to open discussion over this emerging technology surrounding artificial intelligence and the afterlife. In an interview with CineFix, Block says, “I think we captured, like, a historical moment in a way, because we captured the first users of a new technology which will be developing in the next couple of years” (Block, 2024, 00:00:48). As one of the first films to cover this topic in depth, it will undoubtedly be an important piece of media in the beginning debates over digital afterlife. The film is a conversation between hope and danger, which was the original intention of the film. One participant, Christi Angel, a user of the AI chatbot company Project December, is a good representation of how much control these technologies can have over people. Viewers meet Christi early on in the film. She uses the text chat software to interact with a representation of her deceased first love and ends up having a very negative experience where the bot tells her things she does not want to hear; that he is unhappy and stuck in Hell. Despite the scary experience, we see her again at the very end of the film go back to the chat and message it again and this time, her deceased loved one tells her he is at peace and no longer in Hell. She goes from a bad experience, hating the AI, and talking negatively about it, to the negative experience being resolved and then saying that she could see herself checking in with the AI every once in a while. This is not to say that one of her opinions was right or wrong, but within the span of one person’s AI usage, we see multiple sides of the ethical conversation. The film portrays the possibilities of using artificial intelligence as grief support while also unfolding the ethical issues and dangers of recreating the deceased for a market of vulnerable customers.

How did they get there?

It is going to be important to look at, from a truth and realism and moral standpoint, how the filmmakers got the film to its endgame. Their goal was to capture both sides of the debate and open a floor for discussion, but how and to what extent did they do this?

Methods and Styles

A noticeable stylistic choice that guides the storytelling is the placement of different viewpoints next to each other. For example, one sequence begins with shots of Jason Rohrer, the founder of Project December, getting on a plane with his voiceover talking about how AI has a mind of its own and that you cannot expect the programmer to be fully in control of the technology. “The AI essentially has a mind of its own. What it does and how it behaves is sort of not actually understood by anybody.… The idea that, you know, somehow we programmed it or I am in control of it is not really true” (Block & Riesewieck, 2024, 00:31:57). His input on this topic ends by saying that “even the hard-nosed AI researchers are a little puzzled by some of the output that’s coming out of these things” (Block & Riesewieck, 2024, 32:24). The immediate next clip is an interview with Carl Ӧhman, an AI ethicist and researcher on the digital afterlife industry. He uses a metaphor about self-driving cars killing other drivers to display how it is in fact the AI’s creator who must take responsibility for the actions of the AI. Ӧhman’s words are placed so that they act as a counter argument to Rohrer’s point. This segues into Ӧhman’s next point where he then talks about how it is standard responsibility of companies to test products before putting them on the market. Following this, the film moves to a scene where Rohrer and his co-founder, Tom Bailey, are laughing while reading a transcript where their product completely went off the rails when used by a paying customer. The placement of this scene after Ӧhman’s point naturally causes the audience to view the founders of this company in a negative way. The following scene is a clip from a court hearing where Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, explains that the only way to test and continue to improve new technology is by letting people use it and examining what needs to be fixed. Now we are hearing from both sides of the debate that products need to be tested, but this leaves the question open of who it is being tested on. The order of these interviews and scenes serves as an indirect back and forth debate over the responsibilities of the technology companies.

Another stylistic choice made by the filmmakers that can affect how the truth is displayed is their choice of b-roll. For example, they include drone shots of nature to represent a harsh contrast between the natural and artificial. There are some shots of cemeteries, which also look a little like code, to show that death and grief are not as personal as they may seem. It represents how the rituals we have after death are not as original and personal to us as it may feel in our grieving states. This nods to the vulnerable state individuals are in when non-vulnerable companies are able to profit off the dead. B-roll pairing with certain participants causes viewers to subconsciously character-build and therefore acquire biases. This is an example of essential truths. At one point, there is a close up of Justin Harrison, the founder of You, Only Virtual (YOV), typing on a computer that is resting on top of a stack of playboy magazines with a vape right next to the keyboard. This shot is not necessary to show us exactly what he is doing, but it provides outside context to his character. The question here is, does this shot, which is most likely going to evoke strong negative judgements from viewers, give us necessary information to judge his character in the context of the discussion, or is it an out of place exaggeration? On one hand, we can assume that the filmmakers had the final say in including this shot and many may see this as a harsh choice based on personal biases. On the other hand, we can assume that Harrison knew there was a camera present and had the right to remove the magazines and not use his vape. The same logic can be used to assess the inclusion of his conversation about choosing the company over his wife, proceeding to divorce her, and carry on with this business. However, there are many other factors that can play into situations like this such as feeling pressure in the moment to speak or act, despite not being directly forced to say or do specific things. These subtle tactics are under control of the filmmakers and can skew how audiences process facts.

Topics

It is important to dissect how equally all sides of the discussion were represented, and if the film leans in one direction more than another.

One topic of discussion is who takes on the responsibility of the AI’s actions. The directors of the film stated in an interview with CineFix that they are of the strong opinion that creators of AI bear responsibility for its consequences, not users. (Riesewieck, 2024) This is a really important piece of information because it shows that there is some bias from the ones who have power over the manipulation of the film. The bias alone is not necessarily a point for concern; it would be unacceptable to expect them to have no opinions at all. Rather, the matter for discussion is how they choose to represent the people and ideas in the film that they don’t necessarily agree with, but must still respect. Carl Ӧhman compares the idea that the developer’s have no control over what this AI from the afterlife says to a developer who puts a self driving car on the road that kills someone, then claims it wasn’t the their fault because it was just the AI that did it. Ӧhman’s intention is to show how stupid it sounds to claim innocence as a creator of technology. The film directors publicly claim they agree with Ӧhman’s statement.

A second big piece of the discussion are the ethical implications of releasing this AI technology too soon. Jason Rohrer, founder of Project December, states that he is not afraid to use tech before it’s ready. He also does not think it is his responsibility to monitor other peoples’ impulses. Ӧhman counters this saying that it is a company’s responsibility to test ANY product before it is released, including AI technology. Altman, on the other hand, claims that there is no way to continue to improve a product if that product is not interacting with the world. Hearing both of these perspectives does its job showing both sides of the argument, but it could benefit from a bit more depth. There are three sides here: Rohrer, who doesn’t think things need to be completely perfect to become a product on the market, and Ӧhman and Altman who both agree that products should be tested. While both Ӧhman and Altman agree that the technology should be tested, it is clear that they have quite different opinions on what exactly this would look like. Unfortunately, it is not stated clearly in the film, but when one opinion comes from someone profiting from this technology, it can be assumed that this person is referring to testing the product through trial and error once it is already on the market. When another opinion comes from a researcher criticising the ethics of AI in the afterlife market, we can assume that they might have a different idea about the logistics of testing products.

Conclusion

Eternal You implements a wide range of thoughts, opinions, and ideas from a variety of CEOs, company founders, technology creators, researchers, and users of technology to represent a multifaceted discussion in the contemporary scene of artificial intelligence and its role in the afterlife business. The filmmakers use differing opinions on hot topics of debate and influential stylistic choices to lay the foundation for a conversation of both danger and hope. While it does a good job covering most of the prevalent concerns with the industry, one piece of the puzzle that was barely mentioned was the aspect of money. When business owners talk about testing products, or releasing products early, there is no discussion in the scope of this film about charging these users money, or the amount of money that is being charged, which I think is an important piece of the discussion. At times, the fact that these services cost money is mentioned or implied, but the amount is never talked about. There is mention, of death capitalism by Christopher Jones, Christi Angel’s half-brother, describing the industry by saying, “it capitalizes off of you feeling fucked up and spending more money to get over your fucked-up ness” (Block & Riesewieck, 2024, 00:40:30). With the minimal accounts of costliness, the film also lacks a conversation about income inequality in regards to accessing these softwares and monetization of human existence. There is a large gap between who can afford these technologies and who cannot and this could create a significant shift in society widening the already present income inequality and digital divide. “The question arises whether we are on the verge of an even more unequal and superficial society where individuality is reduced to a stimulation of bits and dollars” (Rodríguez Reséndiz, H., & Rodríguez Reséndiz, J., 2024, p. 6). An additional piece that was not as heavily touched on was how research exists that suggests “a healthy adjustment to grief does not necessarily require the severing of ties and emotional attachments, but may also build upon sustained connections to the deceased” (Stein, 2021, p. 506). My overall assessment of this film’s role in the discussion about AI and digital afterlife is that it covered almost all of the big ideas and questions, with the exception of a few. The filmmakers represented both sides of the discussion pretty strongly, but I believe that their personal biases can be seen in the representation of ideas. The film has an overall tone of caution and skepticism that override tones of hopefulness and positivity. The introduction in the first few minutes has a strong sense of uncertainty and uncomfortability, which is a strong way to set audiences’ first impressions. The final moments of the film attempt to add some positive insight, but by the time the film is over these are less simply positive, and more suggestive of further issues within itself.

Sources

Block, H., & Riesewieck, M. (Directors). (2024, January 20). Eternal You (A. Jünemann & L. Z. Geretschläger, Eds.). Kanopy.

CineFix – IGN Movies and TV. (2024, February 5). A.I. Is Coming For Your Grief | Eternal You Sundance Interview. YouTube; CineFix – IGN Movies and TV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz1x7x7fka8

IndieWire. (2024, January 30). “Eternal You” Directors Discuss Role AI Is Playing in the Lucrative Business of Grief. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76gCGn4tra4

Kamerman, R. (2011, February 15). Where the Truth Lies—Or Not. International Documentary Association; Documentary Magazine. https://www.documentary.org/feature/where-truth-lies%E2%80%94or-not

Lyden, J. Eternal You. (2024). Journal of Religion & Film, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.32873/uno.dc.jrf.28.01.58

Rodríguez Reséndiz, H., & Rodríguez Reséndiz, J. (2024). Digital Resurrection: Challenging the Boundary between Life and Death with Artificial Intelligence. Philosophies, 9(3), 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9030071

Stein, J-P. (2021). Conjuring Up the Departed in Virtual Reality: The Good, the Bad, and the Potentially Ugly. Psychology of Popular Media, 10(4), 505–510. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000315