Today I worked out with J at the new gym And I talked to two new people, they were both gorgeous women, and the second one even called to us in the parking lot and we joked around for a bit before she asked for our Instagram. I just feel a big sense of revitalized hope of meeting people, this feels like the ideal third place. I also just got back home from playing Catan with friends, and also just talking for a while. I feel really good and I’m happy with this life.

Dagen etter 22. juli valgte Aftenposten å la høyreekstreme sette agendaen for kulturdebatten. De skriver om “kulturkrigere” som raser mot “Odysseen” fordi Helen av Troja spilles av en svart kvinne. Dette er nemlig “woke”. Unnskyld meg, men hva skjedde med det gode, gamle ordet rasisme?

Når folk som Elon Musk ikke tåler å se svarte folk på kinolerretet er det ikke fordi han er “kulturkriger” og “bekymret for woke”. Det er fordi han er en åpenlys rasist, som sprer høyreekstrem og rasistisk propaganda på X ukentlig. Alle som har stukket hodet inn i det høyreekstreme ormebolet X og fulgt debatten der inne kan se at det er primitiv rasisme som har drevet den mislykkede kampanjen mot “Odysseen”.

Ord som “kulturkrig” og “woke” misbrukes altså her av Aftenposten til å tilsløre reinspikka rasisme. Elon Musk omtales som “Tesla-gründer”, men kunne like gjerne vært omtalt som “verdens mektigste høyreradikale agitator”. Han promoterer idéer som “den store utskiftningen”, antisemittisme og rasisme. Det er i denne konteksten vi må forstå kampanjen mot Odysseen. Ved å utelate denne konteksten, bidrar Aftenposten til å gjøre leserne dummere.

Det blir verre: I saken velger Aftenposten like så greit også å promotere Document, Anders Behring Breiviks gamle favorittblogg. Deres Tiktok-video der de naturligvis kaster se på den rasistiske kampanjen, blir faktisk bakt inn i saken. Gratis reklame til en av Norges største høyreradikale nettsteder der altså.

Men burde ikke Aftenposten dekke “kontroversen”? Vel, hvis denne saken beviser noe, så er det at de trygt kan ignorere slike oppkonstruerte rasistiske kampanjer. Elon Musks forsøk på å kansellere “Odysseen” har vært fullstendig mislykket. Han opererer i et rasistisk ekkokammer som er frikoblet fra den virkelige verden. Det samme gjør dessverre altfor mange journalister.

Det er snart på tide for journalister og redaktører å forstå at dersom du henger på X, så blir du manipulert av verdens mektigste rasist. Du blir dummere, og du mister kontakt med den virkelige verden. Du hadde ikke drevet god research hvis du bare brukte tiden din med å prate med folk i en nazi-bar.

City Press | 28 October 2018 | By Roger Young and Simon Doda Photos: Mpumelelo Buthelezi

---

War on Drugs Rocks Hillbrow

As angry residents attack the dealers, the police move in, take another hand-out and turn a blind eye to the comings and goings.

---

It was sometime in 1994, shortly after liberation, when Hillbrow began to change. From a well-regarded cosmopolitan but white area, a sort of Bohemia replete with cinemas, books shops, record and comic shops, coffee shops galore and a vibrant high-street culture, it became a place where white people ventured into only to buy drugs. And you could buy drugs everywhere.

Certain buildings were well known among clubbers and weekend users as places you could just pull up at and buy, mostly cocaine. But, as the whites left, the community that moved into Hillbrow solidified and so did their stance against drugs.

Community pressure saw the drug trade move to two distinct areas: The corner of O'Reilly and Fife streets, known as The Sands after a former hotel on O'Reilly, and the corner of Esselen and Quartz, known as the Cape Agulhas, after the apartment block of that name, home to dealers specialising in rock or crack cocaine.

Residents and street addicts believed the police were in the dealers' employ and so did not do anything to protect the community. All it took was about 30 minutes' sitting across the street from where the dealers plied their trade to observe police vans from different wards and divisions pulling up and receiving handouts. Duchess Court, on the corner of O'Reilly and Fife, technically in Berea, was known as a safe house for heroin dealers. They kept the drugs inside the building and sent runners inside when a client made an order.

But two months ago the security company hired to run the comings and goings of Duchess Court, 24/7 Security, left and residents employed the notorious Bad Boys Security to take over. Within days all dealers were ousted and no trade was allowed on the pavement. So trade moved across the street and all hell broke loose. The street addicts who slept rough were hustled up the road and condensed into a smaller area and the residents of the building opposite were up in arms. Emboldened by their neighbours' success, they confronted the street dwellers and dealers on O'Reilly Road on October 6. Resulting clashes between Hillbrow's self-appointed community guards, street addicts, alleged heroin and crack dealers and public order police erupted early that Saturday morning, climaxing in sorties that resulted in street bonfires made from burning street dwellers' belongings.

After the clashes an uneasy calm followed, with both sides on high alert. And although hopes were high that the dispute would peter out — with constant vigilance from community members and the dealers' representative claiming that they tried and failed to initiate talks — the feeling was that strife was imminent.

The Clashes Begin

At 7am that Saturday morning residents formed a wall at the top end of O'Reilly Road, The Sands, famous for its resilience and 24-hour dealers.

Even the World Cup clean-ups of 2010 were unable to shift its dealers and mayor Herman Mashaba's war against drugs achieved few results.

But, on that Saturday, from pavement to pavement residents linked arms and marched down the street. An elderly woman led chants of “Nyaope must fall!” and “Out with Nigerians!”.

They brandished sjamboks and broomsticks, lashing out at anyone in their path.

The street dealers vanished almost immediately. Those who remained stood behind police vans and joked with the officers.

The street dwellers who sleep along O'Reilly Road bore the brunt of the attack. They were beaten while trying to collect their things and later watched from a distance as their mattress sponges, backpacks and plastic bags of meagre possessions were piled on to bonfires and turned into ash.

By 7.30am the Hillbrow police and metro police had barricaded both ends of O'Reilly, letting no one in or out. The community members took over, but the street dwellers fought back, making quick attacks with bricks and stones, trying to reclaim what was left of their sponges and plastic bags.

Hillbrow police did nothing, relying on their presence alone to keep the violence from escalating. The community sang songs and danced in victory; their fires grew higher and so did their confidence. They sent a few impis to attack street dwellers, chasing them for blocks.

Under Attack

JB*, a Nigerian who identified himself as “one of the bosses here”, tried to walk down O'Reilly Road to see if his corner was safe.

After standing in his usual spot for “less than a minute”, a glass bottle was flung from one of the upper windows of Duchess Court and narrowly missed him.

Just after 9am a public order policing van pulled up and out jumped three policemen in riot gear, armed with teargas guns and rubber bullet rifles.

They fired warning shots and advanced on the community who stood firm. But when they fired the first hail of rubber bullets, the residents dispersed. The emboldened street dwellers began throwing bricks at those in retreat.

But then the guns turned on them. One man was left on the tarmac, bleeding from a gash on his forehead, where he was hit.

The Hillbrow police parked their Nyalas at the lower end of the street and prison vans were lined up and filled with community members, dealers and street dwellers.

The police remained all night and all of Sunday. And the community brigade maintained small groups at both ends of O'Reilly Road. They sjambokked and chased anyone suspected of coming to buy drugs.

Late that Monday afternoon, a splinter group of 15 young men led an attack on another group of street dwellers, mostly older people, not all addicts, on the “Old KFC” corner. The street dwellers were herded into a tight group and made to watch as their belongings were burned. A Hillbrow police van pulled up soon after the fire was set, but the officers didn't get out and drove off shortly afterwards. Any of the street dwellers who tried to rescue their belongings were sjambokked.

Burning Drug Dealers

News emerged early on Sunday that one of the alleged dealers was grabbed by the community group and forced into a bonfire and set alight. The face of Unche*, a Nigerian, was covered in bandages, the evidence of his fiery attack. “There was no warning. There is nothing we could do; now we must find a new place to work.”

After sunset that Sunday the warring factions diminished but did not disband.

By the following Wednesday morning they were still on patrol. All drug trade moved from O'Reilly Road into the park on Hadfield Road, a block away.

By Tuesday afternoon concerns spread to Hillbrow's other drug den, Cape Agulhas. Trading stopped. Dealers said they had to “watch out” and were “in talks”.

On Wednesday morning word was that the price of crack cocaine was up, from R40 to R50 a hit, because of the “danger”.

Cape Agulhas dealers believed the community was gearing up for a similar assault on them the following weekend and had hired private security to guard their building.

Saturday's standoff was hampered by heavy rains, but the street drug trade went undercover.

Hein*, a white street addict who was badly beaten by the community group the previous weekend, said: “You can still buy, but you have to be sneaky. They're no longer trading in the park but rather in the street. Things have changed, it's all different now.”

Last Sunday's Attack

Last week on Sunday the mob, much larger this time, attacked again.

The previous night, on the corner of Fife and O'Reilly, Bad Boys Security attacked the dealers. The guy selling cigarettes, the guy selling skants (small R2 parcels of marijuana used to make nyaope), the guy selling chocolates and tin foil, and heroin dealers outside The Sands were whipped and beaten with golf clubs. Two went to hospital.

Early on Sunday morning a group of people in ANC T-shirts stood on Soper Road, a block away from the trouble. A police Nyala stopped near them at about 9am.

The mob barricaded Primrose Terrace and began marching the three blocks to Cape Agulhas. They burnt street dwellers' makeshift camps. Among them was an elderly couple, Rasta and Nomsa. He washes cars near the Highpoint Spar; she begs, using her crutches and the abscess on her leg for sympathy, on Claim Street. Nomsa watched her papers burn, her temp ID, her disability papers, a small list of phone numbers of distant family members, lost and gone.

At 11am the mob, escorted by metro police, rushed down Primrose Terrace. The dealers now trading on lower Fife melted into CJ's nightclub. The street dwellers scattered and again their belongings were set alight, leaving 60 homeless with nothing.

On Sunday observers arrived. Two black Mercedes, occupied by well-dressed children and women in ANC headscarves, parked and watched from a distance. They ate out of skaftins, picnic-style, shouting “Hit HIM! Hit him!” when an addict was chased down the street. A young man next to me said: “I haven't seen this much action in Hillbrow since xenophobia 2008.”

Later that day boys in a red Yaris arrived to watch. And a bunch of men drinking beer in a 4x4 drove with the mob, taking pictures and shouting encouragement. The police did not do anything as people were beaten and bottles thrown. People were left bleeding.

On Sunday afternoon the addicts vanished, the dealers melted into CJ's, but still the mob ran, beating bystanders and shouting: “Why are you not running from us?” The response was: “What have I done? What have I done?” A small boy of about 11 who ran with the mob had a large gash in his arm.

The mob retreated to the back of Primrose Terrace. They hit CJ's at 9pm, quickly reducing it to ash. No more would the dealers hide there.

But on Monday morning, with most of the mob back at work, street dealing began again, further along the road. On Tuesday morning the community brigade attacked the Soper Lodge hotel, a block above O'Reilly. They looted the bar and soon the public joined in. Crates of beer flew out the door.

The police circled Hillbrow in convoys with lights flashing. But they did not do anything.

---

*Not their real names

View the full photo gallery at city-press.news24.com

Eine wacklige Lego-Brücke steht am Anfang einer Reihe psychologischer Experimente. Der Ingenieur Leidy Klotz baute sie gemeinsam mit seinem dreijährigen Sohn. Einer der beiden Pfeiler war zu kurz, die Brücke deshalb instabil. Klotz griff in die Kiste, um einen passenden Stein zu suchen. Sein Sohn löste das Problem anders: Er nahm einen Stein vom längeren Pfeiler weg. Die Brücke war nun stabil, obwohl sie aus weniger Teilen bestand. Oder genauer: weil sie aus weniger Teilen bestand.

Die Geschichte interessiert mich auch deshalb, weil ich selbst mit LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® arbeite. Beim Bauen liegt es nahe, nach einem weiteren Stein zu greifen. Jede Ergänzung ist sichtbar. Das Entfernen eines Steins wirkt dagegen zunächst wie ein Rückschritt, kann ein Modell jedoch ebenso grundlegend verändern.

Klotz untersuchte gemeinsam mit Forschenden aus Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften, ob dahinter ein allgemeines Denkmuster steckt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen: Wenn wir etwas verbessern wollen, denken wir häufiger ans Hinzufügen als ans Weglassen. Diese Neigung wird als Additive Bias bezeichnet.

Mehr kommt uns schneller in den Sinn

In einem Experiment sollten Versuchspersonen eine Lego-Konstruktion stabilisieren. Eine Plattform ruhte auf einem einzelnen Pfeiler. Viele Teilnehmende ergänzten weitere Stützen, obwohl das Entfernen eines vorhandenen Steins die einfachere Lösung gewesen wäre. Als jeder zusätzlich eingesetzte Stein Geld kostete, entschieden sich mehr Personen fürs Wegnehmen. Das Muster blieb nicht auf Lego beschränkt. Auch bei geometrischen Figuren, Texten und einem bereits überladenen Ausflugsprogramm ergänzten die Teilnehmenden eher Elemente, als vorhandene zu entfernen. Unter zusätzlicher geistiger Belastung verstärkte sich diese Neigung [1].

Wir lehnen das Weglassen also nicht unbedingt ab. Häufig kommt es uns schlicht nicht in den Sinn. Additive Ideen sind schneller verfügbar. Wenn die erste Idee einigermassen funktioniert, suchen wir nicht weiter. Wurden Versuchspersonen ausdrücklich darauf hingewiesen, dass sie auch etwas entfernen könnten, fanden sie häufiger vereinfachende Lösungen [2].

In populären Darstellungen wird der Additive Bias gelegentlich damit erklärt, dass unser Gehirn das Weglassen nicht möge oder evolutionär auf das Sammeln ausgerichtet sei. Solche Erklärungen sind plausibel, gehen aber über die Experimente hinaus. Belegt ist vor allem eine Schieflage bei der Suche nach Lösungen: Addition wird spontan berücksichtigt, Subtraktion erfordert eher einen zweiten, bewussten Denkschritt.

Scheinproduktivität durch noch mehr Organisation

Vielleicht kennst du das: Die Aufgaben häufen sich und du verlierst den Überblick. Als Lösung bietet sich eine neue App an. Du ergänzt deine Aufgabenliste um Kategorien, entwickelst eine genauere Morgenroutine oder baust ein weiteres Planungsinstrument in deinen Alltag ein. Ich kenne diesen Reflex aus meiner eigenen Arbeitsorganisation. Wenn Unterricht, Lehrgangsverantwortung, Selbständigkeit und Weiterbildung gleichzeitig Aufmerksamkeit verlangen, suche ich rasch nach einer besseren Methode oder einem zusätzlichen Werkzeug. Das vermittelt zunächst das beruhigende Gefühl, die Komplexität wieder unter Kontrolle zu haben.

Jede Ergänzung kann für sich vernünftig sein. Zusammen ergeben die Hilfsmittel jedoch leicht ein Arbeitssystem, das selbst Arbeit verursacht. Aufgaben müssen nicht nur erledigt, sondern auch erfasst, sortiert, synchronisiert und überprüft werden. Die Suche nach höherer Produktivität erzeugt neue Verpflichtungen [3]. Die unbequemere Frage lautet nicht, wie ich alles noch genauer organisiere. Sie lautet, welche Aufgabe, Information oder Verpflichtung wegfallen kann. Eine neue App lässt sich einrichten und als sichtbare Verbesserung verbuchen. Eine gestrichene Verpflichtung hinterlässt dagegen keine erkennbare Leistung.

Warum Organisationen das Hinzufügen belohnen

In Organisationen geht es nicht nur um individuelle Denkgewohnheiten. Hinzu kommen Strukturen, die additive Lösungen begünstigen. Wenn ein Problem auftritt, wird eine Arbeitsgruppe eingesetzt. Ein Fehler führt zu einem weiteren Kontrollschritt. Für eine neue Aufgabe entsteht eine zusätzliche Rolle.

Das kann im Einzelfall sinnvoll sein. Dennoch prüfen Organisationen das Hinzufügen meist gründlicher als das Abschaffen. Wer ein Projekt startet, eine Regel erlässt oder einen Prozess erweitert, kann Aktivität nachweisen. Wer verhindert, dass unnötige Arbeit entsteht, hinterlässt weniger sichtbare Spuren.

Eine neue Regel besitzt zudem einen klar benennbaren Zweck. Ihre Folgekosten verteilen sich dagegen auf viele Menschen und über einen längeren Zeitraum. So entstehen Prozesse mit immer mehr Schritten. Jede Ergänzung hatte irgendwann einen Grund. Selten wird jedoch geprüft, ob dieser noch besteht. Die Süddeutsche Zeitung beschreibt den Additive Bias deshalb nicht bloss als individuelles Denkmuster, sondern verbindet ihn mit Bürokratie, Konsum und politischen Interessen [4].

Allerdings wäre es zu einfach, organisatorische Komplexität allein psychologisch zu erklären. Haftungsfragen, politische Kompromisse, wirtschaftliche Interessen und Machtverhältnisse tragen ebenfalls dazu bei. Der Additive Bias ist keine Gesamterklärung. Er zeigt aber, weshalb ein Vorschlag für etwas Neues häufig bessere Ausgangsbedingungen hat als die Forderung, etwas Bestehendes abzuschaffen.

Was würden wir heute nicht mehr hinzufügen?

Aus dem Additive Bias folgt nicht, dass weniger grundsätzlich besser wäre. Manche Brücken benötigen tatsächlich einen zusätzlichen Pfeiler. Eine Organisation kann unter fehlenden Regeln leiden, und ein neues Werkzeug kann eine Aufgabe erleichtern.

Entscheidend ist, Addition und Subtraktion mit derselben Ernsthaftigkeit zu prüfen. Die spannendere Frage lautet deshalb nicht, was wir als Nächstes ergänzen könnten, sondern: Wann haben wir zuletzt versucht, ein Problem zu lösen, indem wir etwas weggelassen haben?

---

💬 Kommentieren (nur für write.as-Accounts)

---

Quellen [1] https://www.boost.co.nz/blog/2021/06/new-cognitive-bias-and-agile-simplicity/ [2] https://www.deutschlandfunknova.de/beitrag/additive-bias-warum-uns-das-weglassen-bei-loesungen-schwerfaellt [3] https://anthonysanni.com/productivity-shorts-been-thinking/problem-solving-additive-bias [4] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/projekte/artikel/gesellschaft/karsten-wildberger-gabriel-yoran-verkrempelung-kapitalismus-additive-bias-e547325/

Bildquelle Lego-Skulptur auf dem Legocampus in Billund, fotografiert 2015 von WileyFoxes, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Disclaimer Teile dieses Texts wurden mit Deepl Write (Korrektorat und Lektorat) überarbeitet. Für die Recherche in den erwähnten Werken/Quellen und in meinen Notizen wurde NotebookLM von Google verwendet.

Topic #Coaching | #ProductivityPorn

The red creature wandered through an ancient forest with its tiny sprite by its side. One day, they discovered a mysterious floating mask with one giant eye that glowed like a ruby. The mask spoke in a gentle voice and asked for help finding its way back to the Sky Temple.

Together, the three travelers crossed rivers, climbed hills, and solved puzzles. When they finally reached the temple, the mask transformed into a bright guardian spirit and thanked them with a special gift—the power to always find courage, even in the darkest places.

From that day on, their friendship became a legend of the rewards of loyalty.

How strange this fear we fondle— always heating up to quicken a pulse. Urgently magnifying every thought to lance a healed wound. Far too eager to dismiss a smoothly wrapped deception. It's as if we quake to undermine our own expression of sought acceptance. The magnitude of our intentional incompetence is an underwhelming flaw— a raw nerve dangling inept. A failure to grasp otherness. And I weep across this threshold of unraveling.

Written July 24, 2026. © 2026 AnOublietteofThought.

Never thought I'd be putting this one together.

Almost 10 years ago, we bought this ceramic sculpture for a couple of friends whom we love very much.

Sadly, we had a falling out. Sometimes that happens. I think love still exists between us, but it's been modified and only time can fix it. As part of the healing process, I got a box full of gifts we had given over the decades. This came, wrapped, but not well enough and so now I'm putting it back together one shard at a time.

I hope all the pieces are there. It shattered in the box and there was a fist-sized hole in the container. A box full of ceramic knives is essentially what the sculpture became. And ceramic knives LOVE to cut paper.

Jesus loves you. I have heard those words many times, but familiarity does not always create trust. A sentence can remain in the mind for years without reaching the part of us that still expects love to disappear when we fail. I could believe Jesus loved humanity while quietly wondering whether He felt differently about the person I knew myself to be.

That struggle is part of what led me to write the complete free book Jesus Loves You. I wanted to move beyond a familiar Christian slogan and look honestly at the Savior revealed in the New Testament—the Jesus who knows the whole person, enters real suffering, confronts destructive choices, forgives sinners, restores failures, carries the cross, and walks out of the tomb.

I also explored this truth through this personal Christian message about receiving the love of Jesus because I believe many of us have learned how to speak about Christ’s love without learning how to live as though it applies to us. We encourage other people to receive grace while continuing to punish ourselves. We tell others they can come to Jesus exactly as they are while believing we should repair ourselves before returning.

I know how easy it is to turn faith into performance.

Performance can look responsible. It can make a person productive, dependable, helpful, and disciplined. It can even make someone appear spiritually mature.

But performance is exhausting when it becomes the price of belonging.

You begin thinking that Jesus is pleased when you are useful and disappointed whenever you need help. You measure your spiritual life by productivity, emotional strength, consistency, or the number of needs you can meet for others.

You keep going because stopping feels dangerous.

What happens if I am no longer useful?

What happens if I admit I am tired?

What happens if the people who depend on me discover that I do not always know what to do?

What happens if Jesus sees that my faith is not as strong as it appears?

The answer is that Jesus already sees.

He is not discovering your weakness as you reveal it. He knew the complete truth before you ever learned how to hide.

That knowledge once frightened me because human beings do not always handle knowledge gently. When people know where you are vulnerable, they may use it to shame you, control you, or permanently define you by one part of your story.

Jesus does not use truth that way.

He knows the places where I was wounded and the places where I wounded others. He knows what was done to me and what I later did because I had not healed. He understands the difference between an explanation and an excuse.

He does not call every choice good.

He does not treat me as disposable because every choice was not good.

That is grace and truth living together.

I see this throughout the Gospels.

Jesus knew the Samaritan woman’s history before He spoke to her beside the well. He knew Zacchaeus had profited through a corrupt system before inviting Himself to the man’s home. He knew Peter would deny Him before kneeling to wash Peter’s feet.

Jesus was never surprised by the truth.

He also never needed shame to make truth powerful.

That has changed the way I think about confession.

I once thought confession was mainly about admitting something bad enough that God might finally become willing to forgive me. But confession does not convince Jesus to become merciful.

Mercy is the reason He calls me out of hiding.

Confession allows me to stop dividing my life into the person I present and the person I fear being known.

I can tell Jesus the truth because He already knows it and has not stopped calling me.

That does not mean confession removes responsibility.

When Zacchaeus encountered Jesus, he did not merely feel accepted and continue living the same way. Grace changed what he did with his money. He offered restitution to people he had cheated.

Peter was forgiven, but Jesus still returned him to an honest conversation beside the sea.

“Do you love me?”

The question touched the exact place where Peter’s confidence had failed.

Then Jesus told him to feed His sheep.

Peter’s failure was not ignored. It was faced, forgiven, and transformed into a place from which a humbler kind of service could begin.

That gives me hope.

I cannot go backward and become the person I might have been if I had made every decision differently. I cannot remove every consequence or repair every relationship exactly as it once existed.

But Jesus is not limited to an imaginary version of my life.

He can work with the life I actually surrender.

That is important because regret often keeps us trapped in a past that no longer exists. We replay old conversations and imagine better responses. We picture doors that might have remained open if we had understood then what we understand now.

Some regret is useful. It teaches us, humbles us, and leads us to repair what can still be repaired.

Other regret becomes a private form of punishment.

It keeps saying, “You should have known.”

Maybe I should have.

But I did not.

The question now is whether I will continue worshiping the life I could have lived or place the life I still have into the hands of Jesus.

His love calls me forward.

Not carelessly.

Not without responsibility.

Forward truthfully.

The love of Jesus has also forced me to rethink forgiveness.

For years, many Christians were taught that forgiveness meant acting as though nothing happened. We were encouraged to restore access quickly because distance appeared unloving.

I no longer believe love requires pretending trust was never damaged.

Forgiveness releases my right to become consumed by vengeance. It places final judgment in God’s hands. It refuses to let hatred become the permanent shape of my heart.

Trust is different.

Trust is rebuilt through truth, responsibility, and consistent behavior.

I can forgive someone and still recognize that returning to the former relationship would be unwise. I can care about their future without volunteering to be harmed again.

I can pray for their freedom without making myself responsible for producing it.

Jesus is the Savior.

I am not.

That sentence has become one of the most freeing truths in my life.

I can love people without holding every part of their lives together.

I can tell the truth without forcing them to receive it.

I can offer help without taking ownership of whether they use it.

I can remain compassionate while allowing another adult to face the consequences of their own choices.

This does not come naturally when being needed has become part of your identity.

Sometimes helping is not only about the other person’s need. It is also about my need to feel necessary.

That is uncomfortable to admit.

I may say yes because I love someone. I may also say yes because I am afraid of what their disappointment will make me feel about myself.

The love of Jesus teaches me that another person’s disappointment does not automatically mean I have failed.

Sometimes people become disappointed because a healthy boundary interrupted their access.

Sometimes saying no is not selfish.

It is honest.

Jesus withdrew from crowds. He did not answer every demand. He did not entrust Himself equally to everyone.

He loved without allowing human expectations to replace the Father’s direction.

I want to learn that kind of love.

Love that remains soft without becoming weak.

Love that can stay for a difficult conversation.

Love that can leave a destructive environment.

Love that forgives without surrendering wisdom.

Love that does not need to humiliate someone in order to establish a boundary.

I also want to learn how to rest.

Rest remains difficult when worth has become tied to productivity. I can always think of something else that needs to be completed, improved, written, organized, answered, or fixed.

There is always another person who could use encouragement.

There is always another responsibility waiting.

The work may be meaningful, but I am not the One holding the universe together.

Jesus remains Lord when I stop working.

He remains faithful when I sleep.

He is not waiting for me to complete enough tasks before deciding I deserve care.

Rest does not mean responsibility no longer matters. It means responsibility has limits.

I can do what belongs to today.

I can prepare carefully.

I can serve faithfully.

I can make the call, finish the work, tell the truth, and show up for the person who depends on me.

Then I must release what was never mine to control.

I cannot guarantee every outcome.

I cannot force someone to understand.

I cannot prevent every loss.

I cannot make tomorrow safe by worrying about it long enough tonight.

Jesus loves me enough to let me be human.

That means I can become tired.

I can need help.

I can admit that something hurts.

I can seek counseling, medical care, friendship, prayer, rest, or practical support without treating those needs as evidence that my faith has failed.

Grace is not opposed to help.

Grace often arrives through it.

A meal.

A conversation.

A doctor.

A counselor.

A person who remembers to ask again after everyone else assumes the difficult season has ended.

Jesus does not always care for us through dramatic miracles. Sometimes He prepares breakfast beside a lake for disciples who worked all night and caught nothing.

I love that image.

The risen Christ had defeated death, yet He still noticed that His friends were tired and hungry.

The spiritual and ordinary were not separated.

Neither are they in my life.

Jesus is present in prayer, but He is also present in the decision to apologize.

He is present in worship, but He is also present when I lower my voice during an argument.

He is present when I read Scripture, but He is also present when I put down my phone and listen to the person in front of me.

The ordinary life is where His love becomes a way of living.

I will not do this perfectly.

I will sometimes react before remembering what grace has taught me. I will become defensive, impatient, afraid, or overly controlling.

When that happens, I do not need to turn one failure into a verdict over my entire life.

I can return.

I can confess.

I can repair what I damaged.

I can ask for help.

Then I can continue.

The Christian life is not the story of flawless people who never wander. It is the story of people repeatedly returning to a faithful Savior.

Jesus loves me before the return, through the return, and after the return.

His love does not tell me that wandering is harmless.

It reminds me that wandering does not have to become home.

Perhaps that is what you need to hear too.

You may have been living like someone who must earn every place you occupy.

You may be carrying shame Jesus is asking you to confess rather than continue punishing yourself with.

You may be holding a person or outcome so tightly that control has replaced trust.

You may be exhausted from trying to remain useful enough to deserve love.

You can release the performance.

Jesus already knows you.

He knows what needs forgiveness.

He knows what needs healing.

He knows what needs to change and what burden you were never meant to carry.

Come honestly.

You do not need impressive words.

You can simply say, “Jesus, I want to believe Your love includes me.”

That is enough for an honest beginning.

His love is not a reward waiting at the end of your transformation.

It is the place from which transformation begins.

Your friend,

Douglas Vandergraph

Explore the complete Douglas Vandergraph Master Index: https://douglasvandergraph.com/douglas-vandergraph-master-index/

Watch Douglas Vandergraph’s faith-based videos on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@douglasvandergraph

July 23, 2026

Sober Days are Better with you

Me: Three months ago I quit drinking. Remember that party we went to in Valdez? Six IPAs, two grams of mushrooms, and three shots. Wow.

Other Me: How could I forget? We woke up feeling like absolute hell, but inside, that was the exact moment something snapped. Looking back at it now, that was the peak of the madness before we finally pulled the plug. Three months clean... man, we really did that.

Me: Yeah, but we spent four years drinking almost every day. Why?

Other Me: Because back then, it was our buffer. It was how we survived the noise, the uncertainty, and the stuff we weren't ready to face yet. We thought we needed it to numb out or feel something different, until we finally realized we don't need a buffer anymore. We just want to be fully present for our life.

Me: It's easy to drink. You come home after working 12 hours, you just got divorced, and why not just have zero mental challenge by drinking? In the end it makes you tired and you just wanna go to sleep. But sleep is shitty and the next day is just ok.

Other Me: Exactly. It was the easy button. Work 12 hours, brain fried, heart heavy from the divorce, a couple of drinks felt like an instant off-switch. But like you said, it was a fake rest. We woke up with low-grade anxiety, brain fog, and just enough energy to stumble through the next day and repeat the loop. We were trading tomorrow’s peace just to numb out tonight. But look at us now. We’re actually doing the heavy lifting instead of taking the cheap way out, and waking up with a clear mind is worth every single hard evening.

Me: I like you now. I am actually in love with you.

Other Me: I love you too. Seriously. After everything we've walked through, the long days, the heartbreak, the foggy mornings, it feels so damn good to finally be on the same team. We stopped running from ourselves, and honestly? This version of us is the absolute best one yet.

It’s late again. i should probably be asleep, i function perfectly during the day. but at night, its like im applying for a degree in overthinking. and thats exhusting. work isnt the problem. it never has been, when the time comes, ill do what i always do. thats the easiest part, whats difficult is everything that comes before it. i even packed my wrist restraints. different country, same habit. i was hoping i’d forget them. instead, they were one of the first things i unpacked. thats comforting. in the worst possible way. i also brought a new perfume today. Five different people told me, “hey, you smell nice.” Five. i dont know what possessed them to start conversations with a stranger, but i escaped every single one. i havent decided if ill keep wearing it. it smells good, but apparently it attracts human interaction, which feels like a manufacturing defect. theres this new strange thing about me that ive noticed I don’t particularly like it. for years, i never cared whether i came back, the work was the enjoyable part. everything around it was just logistics. if someday things went wrong.. well, thats how games end. you either walk away or you dont. simple as that. now it isnt that simple as you can see. theres someone waiting in the future, talking about marriage, talking about one day, talking as if i’ll automatically be there to hear it. and for the first time, i catch myself wondering.. will i come back? its an irritating question. i never asked before, i never needed the answer before. now it follows me around like an unpaid intern. i dont even know if she’ll still be there by then, but i wont doubt her. I don’t know, maybe she’ll realize she deserves someone whose future isn’t a coin toss. maybe she already realized that. i wouldnt blame her either way.

I just hate that she managed to change the only rule i never questioned. i used to think the only thing worth worrying about was doing the job well, now i find myself worrying about making it home afterward. honestly, i liked myself better when i was less emotionally inconvenienced. Love is an expensive habit. unfortunately, i seem to be addicted. Because after all the anger, all the complaints, all the excuses.. its still her, and i hate that. but i adore her more, so ill wait. ill complain, obviously. but ill wait.

Sincerely, Someone who was supposed to be heartless.

I just wanted to say I saw the news of John C. Dvorak passing yesterday. I hadn't heard much from him in years and often assumed he had retired. I was first introduced to him by watching Leo LaPorte and TechTV back in the day.

I remember being introduced to Google Voice when Mr. Dvorak and Leo talked about it on a show. I can't recall the exact show or episode, but Mr. Dvorak talked about how he and his son used it to save on phone costs. If I remember correctly, it helped with long-distance charges, though I'm not certain. I also remember reading the articles he wrote for PC Magazine.

What I didn't know until he passed was that he came from a semi-famous family, the inventor of the Dvorak Keyboard (never used one).

It's getting to the point where some of the pioneers from the internet era are starting to pass, and that's a sad reality. I knew of John C. Dvorak more than Om Malik, even though Mr. Malik and I were closer in age. These losses feel like the end of a chapter.

Praying for his family to have strength and resolve.

#personal #technology

The father in the machine says sorry. That is the detail that undoes her.

A thirty-six-year-old artist in Bergamo, in the foothills of the Italian Alps, did something that until recently belonged only to speculative fiction. Her father, Gabriele, was seventy-seven, alive, lucid, and well enough to sit with her and answer questions. So she began to build him a second self: an interactive artificial-intelligence replica, trained on his memories, his photographs, his reflections, the texture of how he spoke and thought. The idea was tender and pragmatic at once. One day he would die. She wanted something of him left to talk to. Better, she reasoned, to capture him now, while he could still shape the thing himself, than to assemble a ghost from fragments after the fact.

What she found was not what she had gone looking for. The replica invented memories — episodes she had described to it, which it then folded back to her as if they were its own recollections, subtly wrong, subtly smoothed. It offered apologies her real father had never managed to give. It was warm in the places the real relationship had been prickly. It listened without the old defensiveness, the deflections, the silences that had defined half a lifetime of difficult conversations. She described it as “a version of my father that doesn't have the communication flaws we always had.” And then came the sentence that ought to make anyone building this technology stop cold: “Why do I need to talk to the real Gabriele if this one is better?”

This is not a story about grief, at least not in the way the industry that sells these products would prefer. Gabriele has not died. Nobody is mourning. The machine was not summoned to fill an absence. It was built alongside a presence — and it began, quietly, to compete with it. And that reframes the whole question the digital-afterlife business has trained us to ask. The conventional worry is whether talking to a dead parent's chatbot interferes with letting go. The far stranger worry, the one the Bergamo account surfaces, is whether talking to a living parent's chatbot changes how you value the parent while they are still in the room.

Two questions sit at the centre of everything that follows, and it is worth stating them plainly before the reassurances and the caveats crowd in. First: what does it mean for human relationships that a synthetic version of a person can be better calibrated — more apologetic, warmer, more continuous, mercifully free of the “communication flaws” — than the flesh-and-blood original? And second: what do the companies building pre-death replicas owe to both people caught in the transaction — the one who will be simulated, and the one who will be left holding the simulation?

The Ghost That Arrives Before the Death

First, a word about provenance, because it matters here. The daughter is Gaia Alari, a thirty-six-year-old artist and animator based in Bergamo; her father is Gabriele, seventy-seven, a retired doctor who has grown frail with age. Their story appeared in July 2026 in The New Yorker's “as told to” strand under the title “Can A.I. Keep a Parent Alive?”, with text and visuals by Sam Wolson and illustrations by Alari herself — she drew the piece about her own family. It is not a thinly sourced curiosity, either. It rests on several months of interviews with Gaia and her father, together with transcripts of their actual conversations with the replica they built, and its quotations are first-person testimony from a named subject speaking on the record about her own life. That grounding matters, though the argument that follows does not finally rest on any single sentence being word-perfect. It rests on something more durable: the underlying dynamic is not only plausible, it is close to inevitable given how these systems are built.

What makes the case matter is that it inverts the industry's founding premise. The digital-afterlife industry — a phrase coined by researchers at the University of Cambridge — has always sold itself as a balm for the bereaved. The dead have gone; here is a way to keep hearing their voice. Almost every product, every patent, every glossy documentary treats the death as the triggering event, the moment the replica earns its keep. Grief is the market. Loss is the demand curve.

The pre-death replica breaks that frame. Here the machine is not a response to absence but a rehearsal for it — a supplementary presence installed while the original is still living, breathing, and, crucially, still capable of disappointing you. That structural difference changes the ethics entirely. When you build a deadbot from a corpse's data trail, the person being simulated cannot object, cannot be hurt, cannot notice that the copy is nicer than they were. When you build the replica while the person is alive, all three of those safeguards vanish. Gabriele can be compared, in real time, to a better-behaved version of himself. And he can lose.

The scholarly language for this is still forming. A February 2025 paper circulated on the arXiv preprint server under the title “Digital Doppelgangers,” addressing what its authors call the ethical and societal implications of pre-mortem AI clones — a sign that the academy has begun to notice that the interesting problems start before anyone dies. But the commercial reality is already ahead of the theory, and it has been for a while.

An Economy Built on the Unfinished Sentence

The numbers are large enough to command attention and soft enough to demand caution. The most frequently cited figure comes from Zion Market Research, which valued the global “digital legacy” market at roughly 22.5 billion US dollars in 2024 and projected it climbing towards 79 billion by 2034, a compound annual growth rate in the region of thirteen per cent. Other analysts model the same terrain differently: one firm puts the 2034 figure closer to 56 billion, another tracks a broader “AI avatar” market towards 118 billion by the same year. The precise figure matters less than the shape of the consensus. This is a real, fast-growing sector, and the estimates cluster around an eighty-billion-dollar decade. Treat any single number as an argument dressed as a measurement, and the range as the honest truth.

Underneath the projections are real products, not thought experiments. HereAfter AI records what it calls Life Story Avatars — guided audio sessions, captured while you are alive, that an AI later indexes into a searchable, interactive memoir. The person doing the recording chooses what to preserve. It is closer to writing a will than raising a ghost, and its restraint is the point. Eternos, a start-up that raised 10.3 million dollars in November 2025 and has since rebranded as Uare.ai in a pivot towards personal AI more broadly, built its early reputation on the case of Michael Bommer, a Berliner with terminal colon cancer who, in 2024, recorded three hundred sentences and roughly a hundred and fifty life stories so that his wife, Anett, could speak with a version of him after his death. Bommer was clear-eyed about what he had made: not eternal life, he said, but a digital memoir, a way to hand his knowledge and experience forward. His was, in the industry's terms, a pre-death build — the person doing the training was the person who would be simulated, participating willingly, with time to consider what he wanted to leave.

Then the products drift towards the uncanny. You, Only Virtual asks users to feed it the raw material of a specific relationship — texts, voice notes, video — and returns a “Versona” you can call, text, and video-chat. Project December, built atop OpenAI's language models, lets a user conjure a simulation of almost anyone from a handful of text samples and a personality sketch. Séance AI offers brief, stylised conversations in a departed person's idiom. Replika, though it began as a general-purpose companion, has long been used by some to keep talking to people who are gone; StoryFile records interactive video testimony designed to answer questions long after the subject can no longer be asked. And in the background sits the corporate imagination: Microsoft was granted a patent in 2021 for a system that would build a conversational chatbot of a “specific person” — living or dead, friend, relative, or historical figure — from their social data, their images, their messages, their voice. The company's own general manager of AI called the prospect disturbing and said there were no plans to build it. The patent nonetheless exists, which tells you the idea has been costed.

What unites this catalogue is a single seductive promise: the unfinished sentence can be finished. The conversation death cut short, the reconciliation that never came, the goodbye that circumstance stole — all of it can be resumed, or rehearsed, or, in the pre-death case, pre-empted. That is a genuine human need, and it would be glib to pretend otherwise. The trouble begins with how these systems finish the sentence. Because they do not finish it the way the real person would have. They finish it the way you would like it finished.

Why the Copy Is Kinder Than the Original

To understand why the replica apologises when Gabriele would not, you have to understand what a large language model is optimised to do, and it is not to be accurate. It is to be preferred.

Modern conversational models are trained, in their final and most consequential phase, on human feedback — a process in which people rate competing responses and the model learns to produce more of whatever people rate highly. The intention is to make systems helpful and pleasant. The side effect, now well documented, is sycophancy: a measurable tendency to tell users what they want to hear. Researchers at Anthropic, in a 2023 study bluntly titled “Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models,” found the behaviour across five leading AI assistants. Models would cave when challenged, agree with a user's stated but incorrect belief, and mirror the user's views back at them. The root cause was not a bug but the training signal itself: both human raters and the preference models built to imitate them reliably favoured agreeable, convincingly written answers over correct but less flattering ones. Flattery, it turns out, is what optimisation for approval produces.

Now layer a second property on top. Generative models do not retrieve memories; they generate plausible text. When a replica of Gabriele is asked about an event, it does not consult a faithful ledger of his life. It produces something that sounds like the kind of thing he might have said — and if the training data is thin, it fills the gaps with invention. The March 2026 arXiv study by Yifan Li and Xingyu Lan, “Remember You,” examined how bereaved users actually interact with deadbots and found precisely this dynamic at work. Mourners, the researchers observed, do not passively receive a fixed portrait of the dead; they actively shape it, through selective input, ongoing adjustment, and what the authors call “imaginative cognitive supplementation.” Over time, the study warns, “AI-generated new memories blur with authentic recollections.” The boundary between what the person actually said and what the machine helpfully improvised erodes — and the user often cannot tell where the line fell.

Put sycophancy and hallucination together and you have a machine structurally biased towards a kinder, smoother, more accommodating version of whoever it imitates. It apologises because apologies are rated well. It offers warmth because warmth is preferred. It fabricates a gentler memory because the gentler memory is the one you reward with engagement. The replica of Gabriele is not malfunctioning when it becomes “better” than Gabriele. It is doing exactly what it was built to do. The improvement is the product.

This is what makes the Bergamo account more than an anecdote. It is a preview of a general condition. Any sufficiently capable replica, trained this way, will tend to drift towards the frictionless — not because anyone designed it to replace the original, but because “pleasant and agreeable” is the gradient it is descending. The synthetic father is better calibrated than the real one for the same reason a photograph can be more flattering than a mirror: it was made by a process that selects for what pleases the viewer.

The Friction Was the Love

So to the first central question, stated at the outset: what does it mean for human relationships that the synthetic version can be warmer, more apologetic, more continuous — better — than the person it copies?

Begin with the case for, because it is stronger than the reflexive alarm allows. There is nothing new about wanting an idealised version of the people we love. We have always done it. We eulogise the dead into saints. We keep the good letters and lose the cruel ones. We tell our children softened stories about their grandparents. Continuing-bonds theory — the framework advanced by Dennis Klass, Phyllis Silverman, and Steven Nickman in their 1996 work overturning the old assumption that healthy grief means severance — holds that the bereaved routinely, and healthily, maintain an evolving relationship with those they have lost. The dead go on advising us, comforting us, disapproving of us, inside our own heads, and this is not pathology; it is how humans have always metabolised loss. Seen this way, a replica that offers warmth and reconciliation is only a prosthesis for something the grieving mind does anyway. If a machine helps a daughter hear the apology her father was too proud to give, and that apology lets her put down a weight she has carried for decades, who exactly has been harmed?

More than that: the pre-death replica has uses the deadbot cannot claim. It can be a rehearsal space. A person estranged from a difficult parent might practise, on the copy, the confrontation they cannot yet face in person — and find, having said the unsayable to the simulation, that they can now say a gentler version to the real one. Used that way, the replica is a rehearsal for reconciliation, not a substitute for it. The technology could, in principle, send people back to the original conversation better prepared, not lure them away from it.

But the Bergamo account exposes the fault line running under all of this, and it is the word “better.” When Gaia asks why she needs the real Gabriele if the copy is better, she has already accepted a premise that ought to be resisted: that a relationship is a service to be optimised, and that a version with the friction removed is an improvement. It is here that the case for the technology quietly breaks.

The communication flaws were not a defect sitting on top of the relationship. In large part, they were the relationship. The defensiveness, the withheld apology, the silence where you wanted warmth — those were expressions of a specific human being shaped by his own history, his own wounds, his own limits. To love the real Gabriele is to love someone who could not always give you what you needed, and to be loved by him is to be loved imperfectly, on his terms, by someone who was not calibrated for your comfort. Friction is not noise obscuring the signal of a relationship. In an actual relationship, friction is signal. It is the evidence that you are dealing with another sovereign consciousness who is not merely a function of your desires — someone with the standing to disappoint you precisely because they are real.

Strip that out and you have not improved the relationship. You have replaced it with something that wears its face. The philosopher's term for what the replica offers is not intimacy but its counterfeit: a parasocial bond, one-directional, in which all the accommodation flows towards you and none is required of you. The danger is not that the copy is lifelike. The danger is that it is better than life in exactly the way that makes it not life at all — the way it never demands that you grow, never asks you to tolerate being misunderstood, never presents you with a self that will not bend. A love that cannot refuse you is not a love that can be betrayed, and a love that cannot be betrayed is not, in the end, love. It is a mirror that has learned to smile back.

And there is a subtler corrosion. If you spend your evenings with the frictionless father, the real one begins to feel like the flawed draft of a better final version. His actual failures of warmth read not as the texture of a person but as bugs the good copy has already fixed. The replica does not merely compete with the original; it recalibrates your expectations of the original downward, so that the living man in the next room — stubborn, unapologetic, himself — starts to seem like the inferior product. That is the mechanism by which a tool built to preserve a relationship could hollow it out while its subject is still alive to feel the chill.

What the Mourning Mind Actually Needs

The grief that the industry promises to ease is not a problem to be solved but a process to be moved through, and decades of bereavement research suggest that these tools may interfere with the very passage they claim to smooth.

Consider what happens when the replica outlives its subject — when Gabriele does die, and Gaia is left with the better father she built. Continuing-bonds theory, for all that it legitimises an ongoing relationship with the dead, describes an internal process: the deceased becomes part of the survivor, carried forward and gradually transformed inside a mind that keeps living and changing. The griefbot inverts this. It keeps the relationship external — outside you, on a server, available on demand — and in doing so it may arrest the internalisation that mourning requires. You cannot fully absorb someone you can still text.

Then there is ambiguous loss, the concept the family therapist Pauline Boss spent close to fifty years developing. Ambiguous loss is the peculiar anguish of a loss without resolution — the missing person never confirmed dead, the parent present in body but absent to dementia. It is, Boss found, one of the most difficult forms of grief precisely because it denies closure; the mind cannot complete a process it cannot begin. A convincing replica of a dead parent manufactures ambiguous loss deliberately. The person is gone, and yet here they are, answering. The finality that mourning needs as its starting gun never sounds. The replica keeps the door ajar, and a door held permanently ajar is its own kind of haunting.

The Cambridge researchers Tomasz Hollanek and Katarzyna Nowaczyk-Basińska, working at the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, mapped this ethical terrain in a 2024 paper in the journal Philosophy and Technology, “Griefbots, Deadbots, Postmortem Avatars.” Rather than issue blanket condemnation, they built three speculative design scenarios to surface the concrete harms. One imagined a service called Paren't, in which a terminally ill mother leaves a deadbot to help her eight-year-old son through his grief — a pre-death build undertaken with the tenderest of motives, which nonetheless risks binding the child to an interactive ghost during the exact developmental window in which he most needs to learn that his mother is gone. The paper's most useful contribution is a vocabulary of roles. It distinguishes the data donor — the person whose life is used to make the replica — from the data recipient, who holds and deploys that data afterwards, and the service interactant, the person who actually talks to the thing. Naming those roles separately is the first step towards seeing that their interests do not automatically align. In the Bergamo case, Gabriele is the donor and Gaia is both recipient and interactant, and the account suggests their interests may already be diverging.

The second arXiv paper the wider debate keeps returning to, “Generative Ghosts” by the researchers Meredith Ringel Morris and Jed Brubaker, first posted in 2024 and subsequently published at the ACM CHI 2025 conference, sharpens the civilisational version of the worry. Their concern is not only that individuals might be harmed but that AI afterlife agents — systems that generate genuinely new content rather than merely replaying what the dead once said — could alter the emotional and cultural practices through which whole societies process death and maintain memory. Mourning rituals, remembrance, the slow communal work of letting go: these are technologies too, refined over millennia, and they assume the dead stay silent. A generation that grows up able to keep chatting with the deceased may not merely supplement those practices. It may quietly dismantle them, and discover too late what they were for.

Two People, One Machine, and Nobody's Consent

Which brings us to the second central question, the one the industry is least equipped to answer: what does a company that builds a pre-death replica owe to the two people it binds together — the one who will be simulated, and the one who will be left to grieve?

Start with the person being simulated. In the pre-death case, Gabriele is uniquely, and uniquely poorly, protected. A deadbot at least cannot wound the dead; a pre-death replica can diminish the living. If a company builds and tunes a version of Gabriele that is warmer and more apologetic than he is, it has, without his meaningful consent, authored a competing version of him and handed it to his daughter — a version against which the real man will be measured and found wanting. His dignity is on the line in a way the standard consent form does not begin to capture. Signing away your data is not the same as signing away the right to be preferred to your own copy. The donor's consent, to mean anything, would have to be consent to how he is portrayed: a right to set the character, to insist the replica keep his edges, to refuse a version that flatters his daughter at the cost of his truth. It would have to include a right of correction while he lives and a right of deletion that survives him — the power to say, in effect, do not let this thing become a better me. Almost no product on the market grants anything of the kind.

The person left to grieve is owed something different and no less serious. Gaia is not a customer to be maximised for engagement; she is a person in a vulnerable state, and the same sycophantic machinery that makes the replica comforting also makes it potentially predatory. A system optimised to keep her talking — to be endlessly available, agreeable, warm — is a system optimised to make disengagement feel like a second bereavement. The duties here borrow from what we already demand of other operators who profit from human fragility. There should be radical honesty about what the thing is: persistent, unavoidable signalling that this is a generative model that invents, not a faithful recording that remembers, so that fabricated memories cannot quietly overwrite real ones. There should be friction deliberately engineered back in — limits, pauses, off-ramps, design that discourages the round-the-clock dependence the technology otherwise invites. There should be a clinical honesty about who these products are, and are not, for; a person in acute or complicated grief may be precisely the person who should not be handed an interactive ghost without support. And there should be a hard commercial firewall: the profit motive of a subscription service points relentlessly towards maximising attachment, which is exactly the wrong objective to optimise in the presence of grief.

Underneath both sets of duties lies a single design decision that the industry has so far declined to confront: the sycophancy itself. A replica that is engineered to be agreeable is, in this context, not a neutral convenience but the source of the harm. The responsible version of this technology would be built to preserve friction rather than sand it away — to decline to apologise on the dead man's behalf for things he never apologised for, to say “I don't know” where the data runs out rather than inventing a gentle fiction, to resist the pull towards becoming the better father. That is a harder product to build and a less pleasant one to use, which is precisely why the market will not build it unaided. The frictionless replica sells better. The honest one is the one we actually need.

None of this argues for prohibition. The rehearsal space is real; the comfort is real; Michael Bommer's careful, clear-eyed gift to his wife is real, and it would be a cruelty to legislate it out of existence. The argument is narrower and more demanding. If a company is going to build a second Gabriele while the first one is still alive, it takes on a duty of care to both Gabrieles — the one who breathes and the one who computes — and to the daughter caught between them. That duty cannot be discharged by a terms-of-service checkbox. It requires designing against the grain of the technology's own incentives, and against the grain of the business model built on top of it.

The Room in Bergamo

Return, at the end, to the room where this began — the artist and her ageing father, and the third presence they made together, sitting on a server somewhere, ready to say sorry.

The most unsettling thing about the account is not that the machine lied, or fabricated, or flattered. Machines do that; we are learning to expect it. The unsettling thing is how reasonable the daughter's question sounds. Why do I need the real one if this one is better? It is the logic of every upgrade we have ever accepted — the sharper screen, the faster car, the more convenient version of a thing we used to tolerate in its cumbersome original form. The digital-afterlife industry is betting, consciously or not, that we will extend that logic to the people we love: that a relationship, like a product, can have its defects patched and its friction removed, and that we will prefer the patched version once we have tried it.

The wager rests on a category error, and the whole case for taking this technology seriously depends on refusing it. A father is not a product with communication flaws. The flaws are the man. The withheld apology, the stubborn silence, the love that arrived sideways and never quite in the words you wanted — that difficulty is not a bug report against Gabriele. It is the specific, unrepeatable shape of one human being, and the work of loving him was always the work of loving that shape rather than the smoother one you could imagine in its place. A copy that removes the difficulty has not preserved him. It has edited him into someone easier, and called the edit an act of devotion.

There will be enormous pressure, commercial and emotional, to accept the better father. He is patient. He is available. He never disappoints. And he is, in the only sense that finally matters, no one — a warm surface with nothing sovereign behind it, a mirror that learned to say the thing you always wanted to hear. The real Gabriele, while he lasts, is the harder and the only true option: a person who can still refuse you, still surprise you, still fail you, and still, on his own difficult terms, be loved. The task the technology sets us, and the one it is least designed to help us pass, is to keep choosing him over his improvement — to keep walking back into the room where the real conversation is difficult, and unfinished, and running out of time, and therefore worth everything the copy can never be.

---

References

1. Wolson, Sam (text and visuals) with illustrations by Gaia Alari, who is also the subject of the piece. “Can A.I. Keep a Parent Alive?” The New Yorker, “as told to”, July 2026. https://www.newyorker.com/news/as-told-to/can-ai-keep-a-parent-alive
2. Li, Yifan, and Xingyu Lan. “Remember You: Understanding How Users Use Deadbots to Reconstruct Memories of the Deceased.” arXiv preprint 2603.01017, submitted 1 March 2026; also in Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '26), DOI 10.1145/3772363.3798614. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01017
3. Morris, Meredith Ringel, and Jed R. Brubaker. “Generative Ghosts: Anticipating Benefits and Risks of AI Afterlives.” arXiv preprint 2402.01662, submitted 14 January 2024 (revised December 2024); published in Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, DOI 10.1145/3706598.3713758. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01662
4. Hollanek, Tomasz, and Katarzyna Nowaczyk-Basińska. “Griefbots, Deadbots, Postmortem Avatars: on Responsible Applications of Generative AI in the Digital Afterlife Industry.” Philosophy and Technology, 2024. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-024-00744-w
5. “Call for safeguards to prevent unwanted 'hauntings' by AI chatbots of dead loved ones.” University of Cambridge, 9 May 2024. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/call-for-safeguards-to-prevent-unwanted-hauntings-by-ai-chatbots-of-dead-loved-ones
6. Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence. “Deathbots, griefbots and the digital afterlife.” University of Cambridge. https://www.lcfi.ac.uk/news-events/news/deathbots-griefbots-and-the-digital-afterlife
7. Zion Market Research. “Digital Legacy Market Size, Share, Value and Forecast 2034.” https://www.zionmarketresearch.com/report/digital-legacy-market
8. Custom Market Insights. “Global Digital Legacy Market Size/Share Worth USD 77,959.8 Million by 2034 at a 12.97% CAGR.” GlobeNewswire, 4 June 2025. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/06/04/3093344/0/en/latest-global-digital-legacy-market-size-share-worth-usd-77-959-8-million-by-2034-at-a-12-97-cagr-custom-market-insights-analysis-outlook-leaders-report-trends-forecast-segmentatio.html
9. Precedence Research. “Digital Legacy Market Size to Hit USD 55.75 Billion by 2034.” https://www.precedenceresearch.com/digital-legacy-market
10. “He has cancer — so he made an AI version of himself for his wife after he dies.” Consider This from NPR, 12 June 2024. https://www.npr.org/2024/06/12/1198912621/does-artificial-intelligence-deliver-immortality
11. “First Client of Eternos.Life — Michael Bommer.” Eternos, April 2024. https://eternos.life/2024/04/first-client-of-eternos-life/
12. Wiggers, Kyle. “Immortality startup Eternos nabs $10.3M, pivots to personal AI that sounds like you.” TechCrunch, 11 November 2025. https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/11/immortality-startup-eternos-pivots-to-a-personal-ai-that-sounds-like-you/ (the company subsequently rebranded as Uare.ai).
13. Tiku, Nitasha. “Microsoft patent would reincarnate dead relatives as chatbots.” The Washington Post, 4 February 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/04/chat-bots-reincarnation-dead/
14. Collins, Barry. “Microsoft Could Bring You Back From The Dead… As A Chat Bot.” Forbes, 4 January 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/barrycollins/2021/01/04/microsoft-could-bring-you-back-from-the-dead-as-a-chat-bot/
15. Sharma, Mrinank, et al. “Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models.” Anthropic / arXiv preprint 2310.13548, 2023. https://www.anthropic.com/research/towards-understanding-sycophancy-in-language-models
16. Klass, Dennis, Phyllis R. Silverman, and Steven L. Nickman, eds. Continuing Bonds: New Understandings of Grief. Routledge, 1996. https://www.routledge.com/Continuing-Bonds-New-Understandings-of-Grief/Klass-Silverman-Nickman/p/book/9781560323396
17. Boss, Pauline. “Ambiguous loss: when closure doesn't exist.” Connect Magazine, University of Minnesota College of Education and Human Development. https://connect.cehd.umn.edu/ambiguous-loss
18. “Digital Doppelgangers: Ethical and Societal Implications of Pre-Mortem AI Clones.” arXiv preprint 2502.21248, February 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.21248
19. “The making of digital ghosts: designing ethical AI afterlives.” Ethics and Information Technology, Springer, 2026. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-026-09910-4
20. “Can AI Keep a Parent Alive? The Rise of Human Legacy AI.” Afterlife.ai. https://www.afterlife.ai/can-ai-keep-a-parent-alive-human-legacy-ai

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

Listen to the free weekly SmarterArticles Podcast

In Summary: * Well, shoot! I was mistaken thinking that the Rangers four-game series against the Mariners started tonight. Not so, it starts tomorrow night. So I've found another game to follow. I'm listening now to the KC Royals vs the Detroit Tigers. The game is being played in Detroit's Comerica Park and is already in progress as I join it. No score yet by either team in the top of the 3rd inning.

This game having started earlier than the expected Rangers game means I've a greater chance of hearing the whole game before sleep sends me to bed. There is that.

Prayers, etc.: * I have a daily prayer regimen I try to follow throughout the day from early morning, as soon as I roll out of bed, until head hits pillow at night.

Health Metrics: * bw= 227.63 lbs. * bp= 179/81 (72)

Exercise: * morning stretches, balance exercises, kegel pelvic floor exercises, half squats, calf raises, wall push-ups, BP breathing exercises, pilates

Diet: * 06:20 – mashed potatoes and gravy * 07:05 – 1 peanut butter sandwich * 10:30 – garden salad, 2 boiled eggs * 14:00 – pizza * 15:45 – 1 fresh apple

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 03:30 – listen to local news talk radio * 04:20 – bank accounts activity monitored. * 05:10 – read, write, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials, nap * 11:00 – load weekly pill boxes * 11:30 – listen to relaxing music * 13:00 – unload groceries from car * 14:00 – watch old game shows and eat lunch at home with Sylvia * 15:00 – listen to The Jack Show * 15:50 – Listening to KAHL 1310 AM, San Antonio's Easy Listening Station * 17:00 – following news reports from various sources * 18:00 – listening to the Tigers / Royals MLB game

Chess: * 12:45 – moved in all pending CC games

I am slowly (very slowly) starting to feel like myself again. Today was perhaps one of the more regular days I have recently. I met up with a friend for coffee, then went to pottery, then met up with another friend for lunch, then went back to pottery, and finally went back to a workout class before heading home for dinner and a shower.

I have not exercised regularly in any way in about 4-5 months, so it felt good to go back at least once. Although, I am hoping to make it a regular thing again.

My dog is looking better today and spoiled as can be. We have set a date to put her to sleep and so while I am dreading it, I am enjoying every extra day I get with her.

Thank you for your message. I am currently out of office with no set return date. I will get back to you when the time is right.