Цифровые двойники и продление жизни: что по-настоящему важно? = Iglesias S., Earp B. D., Voinea C., Mann S. P., Zahiu A., Jecker N. S., Savulescu J. Digital Doppelgängers and Lifespan Extension: What Matters? / пер. с англ. А. В. Антипова

Продолжаются непрекращающиеся дискуссии об этике исследований в области продления жизни: в общих чертах, речь идет о применении медицинских технологий для увеличения биологической продолжительности человеческой жизни, за пределы существующего ‘естественного’ предела примерно в 120 лет. Одновременно наблюдается стремительный рост интереса к использованию искусственного интеллекта для создания ‘цифровых двойников’ людей, например, с помощью тонкой настройки больших языковых моделей на данных, относящихся к конкретным индивидам.

В работе мы исследуем вопрос о том, могут ли цифровые двойники (или, как мы их называем, цифровые доппельгангеры) стать путем к своего рода продлению жизни, или, точнее, продлению личности , которое не опирается на биологическую непрерывность. Мы рассматриваем соответствующие концепции сознания и тождества личности и доказываем, что цифровые доппельгангеры могут помочь нам достичь, по крайней мере, некоторых целей или предполагаемых благ, связанных с продлением существования личности, даже если они, согласно доминирующим философским подходам, не могут считаться буквальным продолжением нашей самости. Мы также принимаем во внимание реляционные концепции тождества личности и обсуждаем, каким образом цифровые доппельгангеры могут продлевать личность в реляционном смысле или сохранять некоторые блага, связанные с важными отношениями.

В заключение мы утверждаем, что исследовательская программа по изучению подобных вопросов актуальна для продолжающихся обсуждений об этике увеличения продолжительности человеческой жизни.

1. Schloendorn J. Making the Case for Human Life Extension: Personal Arguments. Bioethics. 2006;20(4):191–202. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2006.00494.x.

2. Davis J. New Methuselahs: The Ethics of Life Extension. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2018. 368 p.

3. Porter A. Arguments Over Life Extension in Contemporary Bioethics. Handbook of Bioethical Decisions. Vol. I / Eds. E. Valdйs, J. A. Lecaros. Cham: Springer, 2023. P. 247–276.

4. Lucke J. C., Hall W. Strong and Weak Lifespan Extension: What Is Most Feasible and Likely? Australasian Journal on Ageing. 2006;25(2):58–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17416612.2006.00150.x.

5. Porsdam Mann S., Earp B. D., Møller N. [et al.]. AUTOGEN: A Personalized Large Language Model for Academic

6. Enhancement Ethics and Proof of Principle. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2023;23(10):28–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15265161.2023.2233356.

7. Danaher J., Nyholm S. The Ethics of Personalised Digital Duplicates: A Minimally Viable Permissibility Principle. AI and Ethics. 2025;5(2):1703–1718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-02400513-7.

8. Danaher J., Nyholm S. Digital Duplicates and the Scarcity Problem: Might AI Make Us Less Scarce and Therefore Less Valuable? Philosophy & Technology. 2024;37:106. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13347-024-00795-z.

9. Steinhart E. Survival as a Digital Ghost. Minds and Machines. 2007;17:261–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-0079068-0.

10. Caon M. Designing Systems for the Digital Immortality of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies (IHIET 2019). Nice: Springer International Publishing, 2020. P. 783–789.

11. Voinea C. On Grief and Griefbots. Think . 2024;23(67):4751. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175623000490.

12. Voinea C., Porsdam Mann S., Savulescu J., Earp B. D. Digital Doppelgängers, Human Relationships, and Practical Identity. Bioethics. 2026;40(5):435–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/ bioe.70026.

13. Hicks M. T., Humphries J., Slater J. ChatGPT Is Bullshit. Ethics and Information Technology. 2024;26:38. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5.

14. Porsdam Mann S., Earp B. D., Mшller N. [et al.]. AUTOGEN and the Ethics of Co-Creation with Personalized LLMs Reply to the Commentaries. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2024;24(3):W6–W14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1526516 1.2024.2308175.

15. Earp B. D., Porsdam Mann S., Liu P. [et al.]. Credit and Blame for AI-Generated Content: Effects of Personalization in Four Countries. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2024;1542(1):51–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15258.

16. Masood M., Nawaz M., Malik K. M. [et al.]. Deepfakes Generation and Detection: State-of-the-Art, Open Challenges, Countermeasures, and Way Forward. Applied Intelligence. 2023;53:3974–4026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-02203766-z.

17. Sterri A., Earp B. D. The Ethics of Sex Robots. Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics / Ed. C. Véliz. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023. P. 241–257.

18. Morris M. R., Brubaker J. R. Generative Ghosts: Anticipating Benefits and Risks of AI Afterlives. arXiv preprint. 2024. arXiv:2402.01662. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.01662. (accessed: 04.09.2025).

19. Replika. 2024. URL: https://replika.com/ (accessed: 04.09.2025).

20. YOV Home | You, Only Virtual. 2024. URL: https://www. myyov.com/ (accessed: 04.09.2025).

21. Holley P. Hey, Google! Let Me Talk to My Departed Father. Washington Post . 2019. August 29. URL: https://www. washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/29/hey-google-let-metalk-my-departed-father/ (accessed: 04.09.2025).

22. Chesler C. AI’s New Frontier: Connecting Grieving Loved Ones with the Deceased. Washington Post. 2022. November 12. URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/11/12/ artificial-intelligence-grief/ (accessed: 04.09.2025).

23. Bubeck S., Chandrasekaran V., Eldan R. [et al.]. Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4. arXiv preprint. 2023. arXiv: 2303.12712. URL: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2303.12712. (accessed: 04.09.2025).

24. Bucher M. J. J., Martini M. Fine-Tuned ‘Small’ LLMs (Still) Significantly Outperform Zero-Shot Generative AI Models in Text Classification. arXiv preprint. 2024. arXiv: 2406.08660. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08660 (accessed: 93 04.09.2025).

25. Vaid A., Landi I., Nadkarni G., Nabeel I. Using Fine-Tuned Large Language Models to Parse Clinical Notes in Musculoskeletal Pain Disorders. The Lancet Digital Health. 2023;5(12):e855–e858. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00202-9.

26. Lewis P., Perez E., Piktus A. [et al.]. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020 / Eds. H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.-F. Balcan, H.-T. Lin. P. 9459–9474. https://doi.org/10.5555/3495724.3496517.

27. Zohny H., Porsdam Mann S., Earp B. D., McMillan J. Generative AI and Medical Ethics: The State of Play. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2024;50:75–76. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme2023-109834.

28. Schwitzgebel E., Schwitzgebel D., Strasser A. Creating a Large Language Model of a Philosopher. Mind & Language. 2024;39(2):237–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12466.

29. Earp B. D., Porsdam Mann S., Allen J. [et al.]. A Personalized Patient Preference Predictor for Substituted Judgments in Healthcare: Technically Feasible and Ethically Desirable. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2024;24(7):13–26. https://doi. org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2296402.

30. Armstrong K. ChatGPT: US Lawyer Admits Using AI for Case Research. BBC News. 2023. URL: https://www.bbc.com/ news/world-us-canada-65735769 (accessed: 04.09.2024).

31. Eaton K. How Many R’s in ‘Strawberry’? This AI Doesn’t Know. Inc . 2024. URL: https://www.inc.com/kit-eaton/howmany-rs-in-strawberry-this-ai-cant-tell-you.html (accessed: 04.09. 2025).

32. Chelli M., Descamps J., Lavoué V. [et al.]. Hallucination Rates and Reference Accuracy of ChatGPT and Bard for Systematic Reviews: Comparative Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2024;26:e53164. https://doi.org/10.2196/53164.

33. Sui P., Duede E., Wu S., So R. Confabulation: The Surprising Value of Large Language Model Hallucinations. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Vol. 1: Long Papers / Eds. L. Ku, A. Martins, V. Srikumar. Bangkok: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024. P. 14274–14284.

34. Jiang X., Tian Y., Hua Y. F. [et al.]. A Survey on Large Language Model Hallucination via a Creativity Perspective. arXiv preprint. 2024. arXiv:2402.06647. URL: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2402.06647 (accessed: 04.09.2025).

35. Chalmers D. J. Could a Large Language Model Be Conscious? arXiv preprint. 2023. arXiv:2303.07103. URL: https:// arxiv.org/abs/2303.07103 (accessed: 04.09.2025).

36. Schechter E. Intentions and Unified Agency: Insights from the Split-Brain Phenomenon. Mind & Language. 2012;27(5):570594. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12003.

37. Baars B. J. Global Workspace Theory of Consciousness: Toward a Cognitive Neuroscience of Human Experience. The Boundaries of Consciousness: Neurobiology and Neuropathology / Ed. S. Laureys. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005. P. 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(05)50004-9. 37. Dodig-Crnkovic G. How GPT Realizes Leibniz’s Dream and Passes the Turing Test without Being Conscious. Computer Sciences & Mathematics Forum. 2023;8(1):66. https://doi. org/10.3390/cmsf2023008066.

38. Bender E. M., Gebru T., McMillan-Major A., Shmitchell S. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? FAccT’21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2021. P. 610–623. https://doi. org/10.1145/3442188.3445922.

39. Long R., Sebo J., Butlin P. [et al.]. Taking AI Welfare Seriously. arXiv preprint. 2024. arXiv:2411.00986. URL: https:// arxiv.org/abs/2411.00986 (accessed: 04.09.2025).

40. Searle J. Biological Naturalism. The Blackwell Companion 94 to Consciousness / Eds. M. Velmans, S. Schneider. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. P. 325–334.

41. Lloyd D. What Is It Like to Be a Bot? The World According to GPT-4. Frontiers in Psychology . 2024;15:1292675. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1292675.

42. Block N. Consciousness, Accessibility, and the Mesh Between Psychology and Neuroscience. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2007;30(5-6):481–499. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0140525X07002786.

43. Naccache L. Why and How Access Consciousness Can Account for Phenomenal Consciousness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2018;373(1755):20170357. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0357.

44. Bird-David N., Israeli T. A Moment Dead, a Moment Alive: How a Situational Personhood Emerges in the Vegetative State in an Israeli Hospital Unit. American Anthropologist. 2010;112:5465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01196.x.

45. McInerney P. K. Person-Stages and Unity of Consciousness. American Philosophical Quarterly. 1985; 22(3):197–209.

46. Blumenthal-Barby J. The End of Personhood. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2024;24(1):3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15 265161.2022.2160515.

47. Dranseika V., Neiders I., Earp B. D. Time for Bioethics to End Talk of Personhood (But Only in the Philosophers’ Sense). The American Journal of Bioethics . 2024;24(1):32–35. https://doi. org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2278567.

48. Koplin J., Holzman T., Bhatia N., Savulescu J. Bioethics Should Not Be Constrained by Linguistic Oddness or Social Offense. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2024;24(1):15–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2279435.

49. Parfit D. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. 560 p.

50. McMahan J. The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 560 p.

51. Voinea C., Porsdam Mann S., Register C. [et al.]. Digital Duplicates, Scarcity, and Value: Commentary on Danaher and Nyholm (2024). Philosophy & Technology. 2024;37:121. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13347-024-00813-0.

52. Nagel T. What Is It Like to Be a Bat? The Philosophical Review. 1974;83(4):435–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914.

53. Partridge E. Posthumous Interests and Posthumous Respect. Ethics. 1981;91(2):243–264. https://doi.org/10.1086/292226.

54. Harris J. Doing Posthumous Harm. The Metaphysics and Ethics of Death: New Essays / Ed. J. S. Taylor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. P. 213–221.

55. Pitcher G. The Misfortunes of the Dead. American Philosophical Quarterly . 1984;21(2):183–188.

56. Feinberg J. The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations. Environmental Rights / Ed. S. Vanderheiden. New York: Routledge, 2017. P. 241–265.

57. Boonin D. Dead Wrong: The Ethics of Posthumous Harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. 222 p.

58. Birren J. E. A Contribution to the Theory of the Psychology of Aging: As a Counterpart of Development. Emergent Theories of Aging / Eds. J. E. Birren, V. L. Bengtson. New York: Springer, 1988. P. 153–176.

59. Kotre J. N. Outliving the Self: How We Live on in Future Generations. New York: W W. Norton & Co., 1984. 282 p.

60. Rozin P., Stellar J. Posthumous Events Affect Rated Quality and Happiness of Lives. Judgment and Decision Making. 2009;4(4):273–279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500003843.

61. Scarre G. On Caring about One’s Posthumous Reputation. American Philosophical Quarterly. 2001;38(2):209–219.

62. Hunter E. G. Beyond Death: Inheriting the Past and Giving to the Future, Transmitting the Legacy of One’s Self. OMEGA Journal of Death and Dying. 2008;56(4):313–329. https://doi.org/10.2190/OM.56.4.a.

63. Zacher H., Rosing K., Frese M. Age and Leadership: The Moderating Role of Legacy Beliefs. The Leadership Quarterly. 2011;22(1):43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.006.

64. Barnes D. B., Taylor-Brown S., Wiener L. “I Didn’t Leave Y’all on Purpose”: HIV-Infected Mothers’ Videotaped Legacies for

65. Their Children. Qualitative Sociology . 1997;20:7–32. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1024760113945.

66. Andersen S. M., Chen S. The Relational Self: An Interpersonal Social-Cognitive Theory. Psychological Review. 2002;109(4):619645. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.619.

67. Abdel-Khalek A. M. Why Do We Fear Death? The Construction and Validation of the Reasons for Death Fear Scale. Death Studies. 2002;26(8):669–680. https://doi. org/10.1080/07481180290088365.

68. Cicirelli V. G. Personal Meanings of Death in Relation to Fear of Death. Death Studies. 1998;22(8):713–733. https://doi. org/10.1080/074811898201236.

69. Bath D. M. Separation from Loved Ones in the Fear of Death. Death Studies. 2010;34(5):404–425. https://doi. org/10.1080/07481181003697639.

70. Taylor C. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. 601 p. (Гарвардское университетское издательство (Harvard University Press) внесено в реестр нежелательных организаций на территории Российской Федерации).

71. Lindemann H. Holding and Letting Go: The Social Practice of Personal Identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. 220 p.

72. Iftode C., Zorilă A., Vică C., Mihailov E. Experimental and Relational Authenticity: How Neurotechnologies Impact Narrative Identities. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. 2024;23:743–760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-022-09825-7.

73. Velleman J. D. Self to Self: Selected Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 385 p.

74. Turkle S. Authenticity in the Age of Digital Companions. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems . 2007;8(3):501–517. https://doi. org/10.1075/is.8.3.11tur.

75. Callahan D. Setting Limits: Medical Goals in an Aging Society with “A Response to My Critics”. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1995. 256 p.