grok:
Jim Acosta, a former CNN journalist, conducted an interview with an AI-generated avatar of Joaquin Oliver, a 17-year-old victim of the 2018 Parkland school shooting, on what would have been Oliver’s 25th birthday, August 4, 2025. The interview, aired on Acosta’s Substack, was facilitated by Oliver’s parents, Manuel and Patricia, who created the AI using their son’s writings and posts to advocate for gun control through their organization, Change the Ref.
The AI avatar discussed gun violence solutions, suggesting stronger gun control laws, mental health support, and community engagement, and also touched on lighter topics like basketball and movies such as Star Wars and Remember the Titans.Manuel Oliver emphasized that the AI was not an attempt to “bring back” his son but a way to hear his voice again and amplify his message on gun safety. He noted the AI was trained on Joaquin’s own words, making it “very legit,” and expressed plans to continue using it for advocacy, including posting videos to build a following. This was not the first use of Joaquin’s AI likeness; in 2024, it was used in a robocalling campaign called The Shotline to urge lawmakers to act on gun reform.
The interview sparked significant controversy. Critics on social media platforms like X and Bluesky called it “creepy,” “unsettling,” “exploitative,” and “grotesque,” arguing it was unethical to use an AI recreation of a deceased person for journalistic purposes. Some, like Reason reporter Billy Binion, criticized it as “chasing clicks” by animating a child to speak words he never said, while others questioned the journalistic ethics of platforming an AI over living survivors.
Supporters, however, viewed it as a touching experiment and an expression of the Oliver family’s love for their son, with Acosta himself describing it as a “beautiful thing.”The backlash led Acosta to disable comments on X, though criticism persisted on other platforms. The debate raised ethical questions about using AI to recreate deceased individuals for advocacy or public discourse, balancing the parents’ intentions with concerns about authenticity and exploitation.