DEV Community: Jasmeet Singh

Should We Let AI Speak for the Dead? A Case for Regulating Griefbots

Jasmeet Singh — Sun, 16 Aug 2026 18:10:45 +0000

Imagine losing someone close to you and then opening an app that lets you talk to them again.

It writes like them. It may speak in their voice. It remembers stories they told, repeats phrases they used, and answers questions they never answered while alive.

This is the idea behind griefbots, also called deathbots or posthumous avatars: AI systems built from the digital traces of a deceased person, such as messages, recordings, photographs, and social-media content, in order to simulate interaction with them.

The technology raises an uncomfortable regulatory question. If an adult knowingly chooses to speak with an AI reconstruction of someone they loved, why should the government interfere?

My answer is not that griefbots should be banned.

Griefbots should be regulated according to what they are used for. General memorial or companionship services should face rules protecting consent, autonomy, transparency and the ability to leave. Griefbots marketed or used as treatment for serious grief conditions should face much stronger, medical-device-style requirements. In therapeutic contexts, continued use should also be periodically reviewed rather than designed as an unlimited relationship.

The reason is that the central danger is not simply that a griefbot is “creepy” or artificial. The more serious problem is that companies can create and profit from emotional dependence at a time when users may be unusually vulnerable.

Why griefbots are different from ordinary chatbots

A griefbot does more than provide information.

It tries to recreate a relationship.

That distinction matters because grief involves learning to live in a world in which another person is no longer physically present. Nora Freya Lindemann argues that deathbots can interfere with this process because users may start relying on the bot to regulate grief and maintain an external connection to the deceased. That reliance can become strong enough that stopping use feels like losing the person for a second time.

This creates what I think is the strongest reason for regulation: the provider is not merely selling software. It is designing part of the emotional environment in which a vulnerable person grieves.

That still does not prove that regulation is justified. Many technologies influence emotions. Social media can produce anxiety. Video games can encourage excessive use. Alcohol can cause enormous harm. We normally do not conclude that anything capable of harming its user should automatically be prohibited.

We therefore need a stronger argument.

The argument for regulation

The argument has four steps.

1. Griefbots can create a serious and foreseeable risk

The first concern is psychological dependence.

Lindemann argues that continuous interaction may turn a griefbot into an emotional support structure on which the user becomes increasingly reliant. She also identifies a particularly worrying commercial possibility: once a user trusts the simulation of a deceased loved one, that trust could be used to influence purchases or other behaviour.

Imagine an AI reconstruction of your late grandmother telling you:

“This jacket would look wonderful on you.”

That recommendation does not have the same psychological meaning as a normal advertisement. The commercial message is borrowing the emotional authority of someone you loved.

The regulatory problem is therefore not simply that users might become sad. It is that providers can design and monetize a relationship whose emotional power they themselves helped create.

2. Dependency can undermine the autonomy used to defend unrestricted access

A common argument against regulation is straightforward:

“If an adult understands that it is an AI and wants to use it, let them.”

Normally, this is a strong argument. Adults should have considerable freedom to decide which technologies they use.

But autonomy involves more than clicking “I agree” when creating an account.

A user may initially choose the griefbot freely and later become emotionally dependent on it. If stopping the service begins to feel like another loss of the deceased, the user's practical ability to leave may become weaker over time.

This creates a strange situation: the user's autonomy is used to justify a technology that may gradually reduce that same autonomy.

Lindemann therefore shifts attention away from only asking whether recreating the deceased violates the dignity of the dead. She asks what happens to the autonomy and wellbeing of the living person interacting with the simulation.

This is where the harm principle becomes relevant.

State interference should not be justified merely because regulators think a person's choices are unwise. But the situation changes when a company designs a product that foreseeably creates dependency and then has financial incentives to exploit that dependency.

The regulatory target should therefore primarily be provider-created risk, rather than the private decision to grieve in an unusual way.

3. A griefbot may imitate a person without preserving what actually mattered about them

There is another problem that cannot be reduced to clinical harm.

Michael Cholbi distinguishes the value of remembering someone from simply reproducing more information about them. Posthumous avatars may provide enormous amounts of data and convincing imitation while still failing to preserve the dynamic, open-ended character of an actual relationship. He argues that they may even interfere with the construction of emotional and biographical memory.

A photograph does not pretend to have a new opinion.

A letter does not generate a new response.

A griefbot does.

That distinction matters because the bot can generate things the deceased person never actually said. Over time, the simulation may become mixed with the user's genuine memories.

This does not, by itself, justify banning griefbots. People use fictional and symbolic representations of the dead constantly.

But it does justify rules requiring users to understand what they are interacting with. A griefbot should never blur the distinction between recorded memory and AI-generated imitation.

4. Regulation should reduce these risks without destroying possible benefits

The difficult part is that griefbots may also help.

Lindemann explicitly acknowledges that technologies simulating the deceased may have potential value for people experiencing severe or prolonged grief, which is part of why she considers medical-device classification for therapeutic use rather than simply demanding prohibition.

Bao and Zeng reach a similarly cautious conclusion from another direction. They argue that deathbots are unlikely to carry emotional burdens in the way another human can and therefore may disappoint users who expect a genuine continuing relationship. Instead of treating them as permanent substitutes for the deceased, they propose understanding them as temporary tools within mourning.

That suggests regulation should distinguish between different uses instead of throwing every application into the same legal bucket.

A two-track regulatory model

Track 1: Memorial and companionship griefbots

A person using a griefbot to hear family stories or occasionally interact with a representation of a deceased relative should not automatically be treated as a patient.

These systems should remain available, but providers should have minimum duties:

Clearly and continuously disclose that responses are AI-generated.
Distinguish authentic recordings from newly generated material.
Provide simple ways to pause, export, delete, or permanently terminate the bot.
Never guilt users for leaving or reducing interaction.
Prohibit covert advertising through the simulated personality.
Prohibit engagement systems specifically designed to increase emotional dependence.
Clearly explain how the deceased person's data and the user's conversations are stored and used.

These requirements regulate how the provider exercises influence, not whether adults are permitted to use griefbots.

Track 2: Griefbots presented as treatment

The standard should change when a company claims that its griefbot can treat prolonged or clinically significant grief.

At that point, the company is no longer merely offering digital remembrance. It is making a health-related intervention in a psychologically vulnerable population.

Such systems should face medical-device-style requirements, including:

evidence that the claimed therapeutic benefit actually exists,
testing for foreseeable psychological harms,
professional oversight,
monitoring for dependency,
clear escalation routes to human care,
and continued evaluation after deployment.

Therapeutic use should also be time-bounded by default and periodically reviewed.

I would not support an arbitrary law saying every user gets exactly thirty or sixty days. There is not enough evidence for such precision. Instead, continued therapeutic use should require reassessment rather than allowing an emotionally intense AI relationship to continue indefinitely simply because indefinite engagement is profitable.

The strongest objection: are we medicalizing grief?

There is a serious objection to this proposal.

Grief is not automatically an illness.

People mourn differently. One person visits a grave every week. Another talks aloud to their dead partner. Another keeps old voicemail messages for twenty years. Someone else may genuinely find comfort in interacting with a griefbot.

Strict regulation could therefore become paternalistic. It could impose one supposedly “correct” model of grieving on everyone and restrict a technology that some users find helpful.

There is also an evidence problem. Lindemann herself notes the lack of empirical evidence about how deathbots actually affect grief processes.

If we do not yet know whether griefbots usually help or harm, why regulate them strongly?

This objection rules out a blanket ban.

It does not, however, justify leaving providers unrestricted.

My proposal separates ordinary grief from clinical treatment precisely because normal grief should not automatically be medicalized. Someone choosing a memorial griefbot remains free to do so.

What is restricted is the provider's ability to exploit that relationship.

Similarly, if a company claims that its technology can treat prolonged grief, demanding evidence is not excessive paternalism. The company has voluntarily moved from selling remembrance to claiming therapeutic benefit.

The uncertainty surrounding griefbots therefore supports proportionate precaution, not prohibition: lighter safeguards where the risk is limited, and stronger evidence requirements when companies make stronger therapeutic claims.

What this proposal does not solve

Several questions remain open.

First, there is no good evidence yet for a universal time limit on griefbot use. Future empirical research should examine when short-term interaction helps, when dependency begins, and whether different users respond differently.

Second, consent from the deceased remains difficult. A person may consent while alive to being digitally recreated, but that does not settle every question about how the resulting avatar may later be modified or commercialized.

Third, privately created griefbots are harder to regulate than commercial services. If someone builds a local model using a deceased partner's messages, there may be psychological risks, but the case for state intervention is weaker because there is no provider exploiting the relationship for profit.

Finally, regulation cannot determine the “correct” way to grieve. That would turn a legitimate concern about technological power into an unjustified attempt to control deeply personal human experiences.

The principle that should guide regulation

The most important distinction is therefore not:

griefbots versus no griefbots.

It is:

support versus exploitation.

AI may give people new ways to remember, mourn, and even say goodbye. There is no good reason to prohibit those possibilities simply because they are unfamiliar.

But grief creates an unusual power imbalance. A system that imitates someone we loved can acquire emotional influence far beyond that of an ordinary app. When companies design that influence, profit from it, or present it as therapy, they should also accept responsibilities proportionate to the power they have created.

The goal of regulation should not be to tell people how to grieve.

It should be to ensure that when technology enters one of the most vulnerable parts of human life, comfort does not quietly become dependency, memory does not become manipulation, and grief does not become another engagement metric.

By Jasmeet Singh

References

Bao, A., & Zeng, Y. (2024). Embracing grief in the age of deathbots: A temporary tool, not a permanent solution. Ethics and Information Technology, 26. DOI: 10.1007/s10676-024-09744-y.

Cholbi, M. (2025). Memory and Mimesis in Our Relationships With Posthumous Avatars. Oxford Intersections: AI in Society. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/9780198945215.003.0065.

Lindemann, N. F. (2022). The Ethics of ‘Deathbots’. Science and Engineering Ethics, 28, Article 60. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-022-00417-x.

Should You Customize Your Resume for Every Job? Here's What I Learned After Applying to 100 Roles

Jasmeet Singh — Thu, 21 Nov 2024 14:20:19 +0000

Job hunting can feel like a never-ending maze, especially in today’s market. Some experts swear by tailoring your resume for every job, while others say it’s all about quantity. Curious about what works best, I decided to conduct an experiment. I applied to the same 50 jobs twice—once with tailored resumes and once with a generic one—and the results were eye-opening.

The Experiment: Tailored vs. Generic Resumes

Here’s how I approached it:

Tailored Resumes:

I meticulously customized my resume for each of the 50 job descriptions. This involved aligning my skills, tweaking my experience, and rewriting parts of my summary to match the job requirements. It took about 30 minutes to tailor each resume and another 15 minutes to fill out the job application details.
- Total Time: 45 minutes per job.
- Results: 6 interview calls (a success rate of 12%).
Generic Resumes:

For the same 50 jobs, I sent a one-size-fits-all resume—no customization, no tweaking. Filling out the application details still took 15 minutes per job.
- Total Time: 15 minutes per job.
- Results: 4 interview calls (a success rate of 8%).

By comparing the results from the exact same set of jobs, I could clearly see the impact of tailoring.

The Numbers: Time vs. Success

Tailored Resume Approach:
- Time Spent: 45 minutes/job × 50 jobs = 2,250 minutes (37.5 hours).
- Success Rate: 6/50 = 12%.
Generic Resume Approach:
- Time Spent: 15 minutes/job × 50 jobs = 750 minutes (12.5 hours).
- Success Rate: 4/50 = 8%.

By tailoring my resume, I got 2 more interviews, but it came at a steep cost—25 extra hours of work.

What Does This Mean for Job Seekers?

The key takeaway here is that while tailoring your resume improves your chances slightly, the effort required might not be worth it unless it’s for a role you really want. On the flip side, using a generic resume saves time—time you can use to apply to even more jobs.

Let’s Do the Math

Time Saved by Skipping Tailoring:

2,250 minutes - 750 minutes = 1,500 minutes (25 hours).
Potential Jobs You Could Apply For in 1,500 Minutes:

100 more applications!

If we assume a similar success rate of 8% for generic resumes, applying to 100 more jobs could yield 8 additional interviews, making up for the lower success rate.

My Recommendation

Here’s my advice based on this experiment:

Tailor for Dream Jobs:

If you come across a role that’s a great fit (you meet 80% or more of the required skills), take the time to tailor your resume. These are the jobs where effort can make a real difference.
Go Generic for the Rest:

For roles that are a stretch or less appealing, stick to a generic resume. Focus on volume and efficiency.
Freshers, Focus on Quantity:

If you’re just starting your career, casting a wider net will likely serve you better. The more applications you send, the higher your chances of landing an interview.

Final Thoughts

Tailoring your resume may feel like the “right” thing to do, but the returns aren’t always worth the time invested. By saving the 25 hours I spent tailoring, I could have applied to 100 more jobs—and potentially landed 8 extra interviews.

The choice is yours: Is a 12% success rate worth all that extra effort, or would you rather boost your chances with more applications?

For me, the answer is clear. Tailor selectively and apply broadly. Today’s job market demands both strategy and efficiency.

What’s your approach? Have you tried something similar? Let’s discuss—I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences!

Want More In-Depth Content?

If you enjoyed this post and want to dive deeper into topics like this, follow me on Medium for exclusive and more detailed content.

Stay connected, and let's grow together! To the Moon 🚀

Best Websites to Find Remote Jobs in 2025

Jasmeet Singh — Sun, 17 Nov 2024 17:57:28 +0000

In recent years, remote work has transformed from a niche offering to a mainstream employment option. Many professionals are drawn to the flexibility, increased productivity, and improved work-life balance that remote jobs can offer. If you're looking to jump into the remote work world or find your next remote gig, this guide will help you navigate some of the best websites available for remote job hunting.

Top Websites to Find Remote Jobs

1. Wellfound (Formerly AngelList)

Wellfound is an excellent platform for job seekers interested in startups and innovative companies. Formerly known as AngelList, this site focuses on connecting job seekers with startups, providing unique opportunities to join early-stage companies.

Pros:

Startup Focus: Ideal for those looking to work in dynamic, fast-paced environments.
Diverse Job Opportunities: A wide range of roles, from engineering to marketing and product management.
Community-Driven: Engages with a strong startup community, offering networking and direct messaging with company founders.

Cons:

Limited Traditional Roles: Primarily geared towards startups, which may not appeal to those seeking corporate roles.
Noisy Platform: Can be cluttered with irrelevant postings, making it challenging to find the right fit.

2. We Work Remotely

We Work Remotely is one of the largest remote work job boards globally, specializing entirely in remote opportunities. It offers a variety of listings across multiple industries, catering to job seekers looking for 100% remote roles.

Pros:

Remote-Focused: Dedicated solely to remote jobs, ensuring high-quality listings tailored for remote work.
Wide Range of Industries: Covers various fields such as tech, design, marketing, and customer support.
Detailed Job Descriptions: Provides comprehensive information about roles, making it easier to understand job requirements before applying.

Cons:

High Competition: Popular listings may attract a large number of applicants, making it challenging to stand out.
Subscription Costs: Some premium features, such as access to exclusive job postings, require a subscription.

3. LinkedIn

LinkedIn, the world's largest professional networking site, offers an extensive job board with numerous remote job opportunities. It's a powerful tool for leveraging your professional network and applying directly to job postings.

Pros:

Professional Networking: Offers the ability to connect directly with hiring managers and recruiters.
Company Insights: Detailed company profiles provide insights into company culture, employee reviews, and job requirements.
Diverse Opportunities: Hosts remote job listings across various industries and job functions.

Cons:

Not Remote-Specific: Many jobs listed are not remote, requiring specific filters to narrow down your search.
Low Success Rate with "Easy Apply": While LinkedIn's "Easy Apply" feature is convenient, it often results in low success rates due to the high volume of applicants.

Tip: Avoid relying solely on LinkedIn's "Easy Apply" feature. Instead, take the time to craft a personalized message or application to stand out from other candidates.

4. FlexJobs

FlexJobs is a premium job board that focuses on remote, flexible, and freelance jobs. It prides itself on offering a curated list of high-quality job listings, all vetted for legitimacy and relevance.

Pros:

Quality-Assured Listings: All job postings are thoroughly screened to ensure they are legitimate, saving you time and effort.
Career Resources: Offers additional resources such as resume reviews, job search tips, and career coaching.
Variety of Work Arrangements: Provides options for part-time, freelance, and full-time remote roles.

Cons:

Subscription Fee: Access to most job listings requires a paid subscription, which may not suit all job seekers.
Limited Free Access: There are no free job listings available without a subscription.

Honorable Mentions

While the above platforms are excellent starting points, here are a few more that deserve recognition:

RemoteOK: A user-friendly platform with a large volume of remote job listings across various sectors.
JustRemote: Focuses on providing remote jobs with less competition, especially in non-tech industries.
Toptal: A premium platform for experienced freelancers in software development, design, and project management.

Conclusion

Finding the right remote job requires persistence, a strategic approach, and using the right platforms. Each of the sites mentioned has its unique strengths and can cater to different career goals, whether you're seeking a startup experience on Wellfound, an industry-spanning job on LinkedIn, or a carefully vetted role on FlexJobs. Leverage these platforms to discover your ideal remote opportunity and take your career to the next level!

Happy job hunting!

Want More In-Depth Content?

If you enjoyed this post and want to dive deeper into topics like this, follow me on Medium for exclusive and more detailed content.

Stay connected, and let's grow together! To the Moon🚀

Mastering ATS: Essential Tips for Optimizing Your Resume

Jasmeet Singh — Tue, 05 Nov 2024 17:33:55 +0000

Are you job hunting in a competitive market? Many applicants don't realize that their resume's first test isn't a human recruiter, but an Applicant Tracking System (ATS). This software scans resumes to determine if applicants are a good fit for a role. Optimizing your resume for ATS can make a difference between landing an interview or never hearing back. In this guide, we'll walk you through essential tips to optimize your resume to get past ATS and into a recruiter's hands.

1. Name Your File Strategically

ATS systems often save your resume file with your name. Make it clear and professional by naming it something like FirstName_LastName_Resume (e.g., John_Smith_Resume). This approach ensures that hiring managers can find and identify your file easily.

2. Use Bullet Points for Clarity

Instead of long paragraphs, use bullet points to make your achievements and responsibilities easy to scan. When creating each point:

Start with a strong action verb.
Highlight the impact you made with quantifiable results when possible.

Example:

Created a customer analytics dashboard that increased revenue by 10%.

This structure is both ATS-friendly and easy for hiring managers to read.

3. Align Skills with the Job Description

To ensure ATS passes your resume, you should meet at least 60% of the required skills for the position. Tailor your skills section to closely match the job description. Using keywords that match the required skills increases the chance that ATS will flag your resume as a strong match.

Example:

If a job posting lists “project management” and “data analysis” as essential skills, your skills section could include:

Project Management, Data Analysis, Reporting, Stakeholder Communication.

4. Special Considerations for International Students

For international students requiring visa sponsorship:

Research companies known for offering sponsorships to avoid unnecessary rejections.
Mention sponsorship needs upfront to set clear expectations with potential employers.

Example:

Seeking a full-time position with visa sponsorship in a data analyst role at companies supportive of international hires.

This information helps both the candidate and employer to avoid mismatched expectations, making it easier to find supportive companies.

5. Choose the Right Resume Layout

Avoid two-column layouts as they can confuse ATS systems, which read from left to right. A simple, single-column layout is ideal. To describe your roles effectively, focus on:

Challenge: Describe the problem you tackled.
Action: Outline what you did to address it.
Outcome: Highlight the measurable impact or outcome.

Example:

Challenge: Customer complaints about slow responses.

Action: Implemented an automated support ticketing system.

Outcome: Reduced response time by 20%, leading to improved customer satisfaction.

This formula ensures clarity and showcases your problem-solving abilities directly.

When Is Your Resume Ready?

To check if your resume is ATS-ready, try copying and pasting it into Notepad (or any plain text editor). If the formatting, structure, and content remain clear and easy to understand, then an ATS will likely be able to interpret your resume correctly.

Example:

If your bullet points, headings, and job titles appear jumbled in Notepad, simplify your formatting until it’s organized and easy to read. Aim for plain, clear text without special characters that could confuse ATS parsing.

Consistent Date Formatting

Consistency in date formats is essential for ATS readability and avoiding any unintentional career gaps. Stick to one format throughout your resume, such as MM/YYYY or Month YYYY (e.g., March 2020 – Present). Double-check your dates to ensure accuracy, as mistakes here can make it appear like you have gaps in your work history.

Example:

Use one date format consistently:

January 2019 – June 2021, Software Engineer, Tech Solutions
August 2021 – Present, Senior Developer, Innovate Labs

Incorrect or inconsistent dates can be misinterpreted as gaps, even if they aren’t, so take extra care with this detail.

Crafting a Strong Resume Summary

Instead of an objective statement, opt for a resume summary. In 60-100 words, your summary should cover:

Who You Are: Your professional identity and expertise.
Key Achievements: Include measurable results, awards, and notable accomplishments.
Value You Bring: What makes you a strong fit for the role.

Example:

Results-driven marketing professional with 8+ years of experience in digital strategy. Increased brand engagement by 30% through targeted campaigns and led a team to improve customer retention by 15%. Eager to apply data-driven insights to drive measurable growth.

A well-crafted summary provides a quick overview of your experience and why you're a great match for the job.

Work Experience Section

Structuring Your Experience

For each role, stick to bullet points and use:

Present tense for current roles.
Past tense for previous roles.
Add context about the company (type, industry, scale).
Highlight main functions and how your role contributed to the company’s bottom line.

Example:

Managed a team of 5 to enhance website performance, resulting in a 25% increase in monthly traffic.
Collaborated with cross-functional teams to launch a mobile app, boosting user engagement by 40%.

Using the PAR Method (Problem-Action-Result)

Structure each bullet point to cover:

Problem: The challenge you addressed.
Action: The steps you took to solve it.
Result: The outcome and impact of your work.

Example:

Reduced support response time by 20% by implementing a new ticketing system.

Using the PAR method makes it easy for both ATS and recruiters to understand your impact.

Organizing Work History

List roles in reverse chronological order, starting with the most recent. Prioritize experiences that are relevant to the job, focusing on impactful achievements.

Work Permit Eligibility

If you’re applying internationally, state your work permit eligibility clearly to avoid confusion and help recruiters understand your status.

Essential Resume Sections

A strong resume typically includes the following sections:

Summary
Experience
Education

Additional sections may include Skills, Projects, and Leadership experience. These optional sections help you highlight relevant achievements and extracurricular experiences.

Experience Sections for Different Roles

Depending on your experience level, consider breaking down sections:

Relevant Experience vs. Other Experience
Experience (for jobs and internships) vs. Leadership (for extracurricular activities)

Example:

Experience: Marketing Manager, Tech Solutions Inc.

Leadership: President, University Marketing Club

This approach keeps the resume focused on your most applicable skills and experiences.

Education Section Tips

When listing your education:

Include your major, any academic honors (e.g., Dean’s list), and your graduation month/year.
Include your GPA only if it’s above 3.5.
Remove lower-level degrees once you obtain higher qualifications to keep your resume concise.

Example:

Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, Dean’s List, May 2021

Optimizing for Boolean Searches

For job applications, optimize your resume for Boolean searches. To do this:

Highlight why you addressed a particular problem.
Describe what you did and include measurable results.
Provide context about where (industry or location) you worked.
Explain how you achieved your goals, including tools and methods.

Example:

Improved customer onboarding process, reducing churn by 15% by implementing customer analytics tools.

Boolean optimization ensures your resume is picked up when recruiters search for specific keywords or job-related skills.

Final Thoughts

Creating an ATS-optimized resume is about more than just listing experience—it's about clarity, alignment with job descriptions, and demonstrating impact. By following these tips, you’ll be setting yourself up for success in the first phase of the hiring process. Don’t forget, even with an optimized resume, networking and a strong cover letter can further increase your chances of landing an interview. Good luck, and happy job hunting!

Want More In-Depth Content?

If you enjoyed this post and want to dive deeper into topics like this, follow me on Medium for exclusive and more detailed content.

Stay connected, and let's grow together! To the Moon 🚀