I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what I’d say if I could have one last conversation with people I’ve lost. I bet you have, too. It’s a deeply human, heartbreaking wish: to hear their voice, to see them smile, to feel their presence just one more time. It’s the kind of thing we thought was reserved for dreams or the sci-fi aisle.
Well, it’s not sci-fi anymore. The age of AI-powered “digital ghosts” is officially here, and it just created one of the most ethically tangled messes I’ve ever seen in modern journalism.
This is a wild one. A former top-tier journalist just “interviewed” the AI recreation of a dead child. And it’s forcing us to confront some super uncomfortable questions about technology, grief, and the very nature of truth.
🤯 What Just Happened?
Here’s the breakdown. Jim Acosta, who you probably remember as CNN’s White House correspondent, recently aired a segment for his new Substack venture. He promoted it as a “one of a kind interview” with a victim of the 2018 Parkland school shooting, Joaquin Oliver.
There’s just one massive, gut-wrenching problem: Joaquin Oliver was murdered in that shooting. He would have turned 25 this year.
So how did Acosta interview him? He didn’t. He interviewed an AI avatar. Joaquin’s grieving parents, Manuel and Patricia Oliver, created the avatar using their son’s photos, videos, and writings. Their goal is heartbreakingly clear: they want to keep their son’s memory alive and use his “voice” to advocate against gun violence. They approached Acosta, and he agreed to do it.
The result was a segment where Acosta asked questions to a stilted, robotic-looking avatar of a dead teenager, and then acted as if it were a real, groundbreaking conversation.
I watched the clip, and honestly, it felt sick to my stomach. It was a deeply unsettling moment that crossed so many lines, it’s hard to even count them all.
🚩 The Ethical Red Flags Are Screaming
Let’s be crystal clear: I have nothing but empathy for Joaquin’s parents. They’re navigating an unimaginable nightmare, and they’re using every tool they can to find meaning and fight for a cause they believe in. My criticism is aimed squarely at the journalist who should have known better.
This “interview” was a catastrophic failure of journalistic ethics. Here’s why:
- 📌 1. The Total Obliteration of Truth. A journalist’s number one job is to be a truth-teller. You report what is real. An AI avatar is, by definition, not real. It’s a sophisticated program designed to mimic a person. By treating this exchange as a genuine interview, Acosta didn’t just blur the line between reality and fiction, he took a bulldozer to it. He presented a fabrication as news.
- 📌 2. The Exploitation of Grief. Even with the parents’ consent, this felt deeply exploitative. Broadcasting a family’s profound trauma and packaging it as a tech-forward “interview” turns a tragedy into a spectacle. It uses the raw, open wound of a family’s loss as a hook for a show. It’s a line that journalism should never, ever cross.
- 📌 3. The Dangerous Lie He Told. After the taped AI segment, Acosta talked to Joaquin’s father, who expressed hope that the avatar could one day be on debate stages. Acosta agreed, saying:
“We’ve heard from the parents, we’ve heard from the politicians. Now we’re hearing from one of the kids. That’s important. That hasn’t happened.”
This is the most dangerous part. He looked into the camera and told his audience that they were hearing from a victim. But they weren’t. They were hearing from a script fed through a program. It’s a lie. A deeply misleading, emotionally manipulative lie. And it’s a lie that sets a horrifying precedent.
- 📌 4. The Towering Hypocrisy. This is the part that drives me nuts. Acosta’s bio on X (formerly Twitter) proudly states he believes in “#realnews.” You can’t build your entire professional brand on the foundation of fighting for facts and then turn around and interview a computer program as if it’s a person. It feels less like a journalistic endeavor and more like a desperate attempt to stay relevant after leaving the primetime spotlight.
⚙️ This Isn’t Just One Story, It’s a Warning Shot
Okay, so why am I so fired up about this? Because this isn’t just about one bad judgment call. This is a five-alarm fire drill for the future of media and information.
AI is improving at an exponential rate. The avatars of today might look a little clunky, a little “uncanny valley.” But in a few years? In five years? They will be indistinguishable from reality.
Now, imagine the world we’re heading into:
- Political Propaganda: Imagine an AI of a beloved historical figure “endorsing” a political candidate. Or a deepfake of an opponent “confessing” to a crime.
- Commercial Exploitation: Think AI avatars of dead celebrities will be used to sell you products? You can bet on it. Marilyn Monroe for Chanel No. 5, but she’s actually talking to you.
- Erosion of Trust: If journalists start presenting AI-generated content as fact, how can we trust anything we see? The entire foundation of a free press relies on the audience believing that what’s being reported is, you know, real.
This is why professional journalists and news organizations need to draw a hard, bright, uncrossable line in the sand RIGHT NOW. AI can be a tool for data analysis or creating visuals, but it must always be labeled clearly. The moment you present fiction as fact, you’ve lost the plot entirely.
✍️ What We Need to Do
This whole mess is a powerful reminder that we’re all on the front lines of the information war now. The responsibility is on us, the consumers, to be more vigilant than ever.
- Question Everything: When you see something shocking or unbelievable, ask yourself: Who made this? Why are they showing it to me? What’s their motivation?
- Demand Transparency: We need to hold our news sources accountable. If they use AI, they need to slap a giant, unmissable label on it. No excuses.
- Separate the Tech from the Truth: AI is an incredible tool. It can do amazing things. But it’s not a source of truth. It’s a creator of content. Knowing the difference is going to be one of the most critical skills of the 21st century.
The Acosta interview was a profound ethical lapse. It was a glimpse into a future where grief can be packaged, reality can be bent, and truth can be sold to the highest bidder. It was a warning. Let’s make sure we listen.
- The AI avatar was created by Change the Ref, a gun control advocacy organization founded by Joaquin Oliver’s parents, Manuel and Patricia. They have consistently used unconventional methods to keep the conversation about gun violence in the public eye.
- This interview is a continuation of a larger AI-driven campaign. In early 2024, an AI-generated version of Joaquin’s voice was used in The Shotline, a project that sent robocalls to lawmakers, urging them to take action on gun control legislation.
- The use of AI to represent deceased individuals is a growing field sometimes referred to as “digital resurrection” or “grief tech.” This event highlights the urgent need for ethical guidelines in journalism and activism regarding the creation and use of such digital replicas, especially without the explicit prior consent of the person being recreated.