By: Hannah Zhang

“If my mom turned right, I could have been alive today. Unfortunately, she turned left,” calmly stated James Bulger, a British 2-year-old reflecting on his abduction 30 years ago. However, the voice uttering these words wasn’t his own, but rather an AI imitation. Tragically, the young child was abducted by 10-year-olds in a supermarket, subjected to torture, and ultimately killed. In today’s world, AI technology has reached a level where it can replicate the voices of missing individuals, an advancement that is regrettably open to exploitation, particularly on the Internet.

Denise Fergus, James’s mother, conveyed her deep sense of revulsion towards these AI-generated videos portraying her son. Her sentiments find resonance with many, including a spokesperson from TikTok who described the videos as ‘disturbing’.

Upon discovering these deeply unsettling videos, TikTok has taken substantial measures to remove them from their platform. However, many of these videos continue to circulate on other platforms like YouTube. While TikTok has taken a clear stance in their guidelines, warning about the blurring lines between fact and fiction due to AI advancements, YouTube has yet to address the issue publicly.

Despite TikTok’s vigorous efforts, numerous such videos still persist, garnering millions of views and counting. Among these, one of the most prominent examples features an AI-generated portrayal of Madeleine Beth McCann, which was recently removed.

“My name is Madeleine Beth McCann,” calmly states the AI version of Madeleine. “I’m still missing.” The creator of the video defends it as ‘immersive storytelling’.

Despite the objections of the parents of these missing children, many creators of these eerie videos argue that their intention is to ‘raise awareness’ and ‘prevent harm’. Allegedly, their aim is to share these videos to ensure that such tragic incidents do not recur.

However, even with good intentions, the videos can negatively impact the families of the young missing children, and consent from parents should have been mandatory. They also provide no help in the search for the young children.

This raises the question: Can the distribution of videos featuring AI-generated versions of these children truly be considered spreading awareness, especially if the parents are against it? Can a video effectively deter abductors from committing their heinous acts? Does this approach genuinely give these children a voice they never sought? Only time will provide the answers.