Sheep in the Box review – a bland, baffling tale of AI children from Hirokazu Kore-eda | Cannes film festival

The Rise of ‘Grief Tech’: Can AI Truly Replace a Lost Loved One?

In Hirokazu Kore-eda’s latest exploration of the human condition, Sheep in the Box, we are presented with a provocative premise: a company called REbirth that creates generative AI humanoid replicas of the deceased to help parents navigate the crushing weight of grief.

While the film serves as a cautionary tale about the “muddle” of blending high-tech surrogates with raw human emotion, the reality is that we are rapidly approaching this horizon. “Grief Tech”—the intersection of AI, robotics and bereavement—is no longer just a sci-fi trope; it is an emerging industry.

From Chatbots to Humanoids: The Evolution of Digital Immortality

We have already seen the first wave of digital resurrection through “deadbots”—AI chatbots trained on the emails, texts, and voice recordings of the deceased. Platforms like StoryFile and HereAfter AI allow users to interact with a digital version of a person, creating a bridge between the living and the dead.

However, the trend is shifting from the screen to the physical world. With the acceleration of humanoid robotics—seen in projects like Tesla’s Optimus or Figure AI—the leap from a voice on a phone to a physical entity, as depicted in Sheep in the Box, is becoming technically feasible.

The goal is no longer just “remembering” but “simulating.” By combining Large Language Models (LLMs) with high-fidelity synthetic skin and actuators, the industry is aiming for a level of presence that mimics physical touch, and gaze.

The Psychological Paradox: Healing or Hindering?

Psychologists are divided on whether AI surrogates aid the grieving process or trap the bereaved in a state of permanent longing. Traditional grief models emphasize “acceptance” and “moving forward.”

The danger, as hinted in the film, is that a “convincing” replica might prevent the necessary emotional closure. If a parent can simply “turn on” their child, the biological and psychological imperative to process loss is bypassed, potentially leading to a stunted emotional state.

The Ethical Minefield of Digital Resurrection

The concept of “REbirth” brings up a haunting question: Who owns the rights to a person’s personality after they die?

If an AI is trained on a person’s private data, does the surviving family have the right to “reanimate” them without their prior consent? This creates a conflict between the desire for comfort and the right to be forgotten.

the potential for “algorithmic drift” is high. An AI replica is not the person; it is a statistical prediction of how that person might have spoken. Over time, the AI may begin to hallucinate traits or opinions the original person never held, effectively creating a “synthetic ghost” that replaces the actual memory of the loved one.

The Path Toward AI Autonomy and ‘Replicant Revolt’

One of the more surreal themes in Kore-eda’s work is the idea of feral robot children planning a revolt. While we are far from a “robot uprising,” the trend toward AI agency is real.

As AI systems move from being reactive (answering questions) to proactive (setting their own goals), the boundary between a “tool” and a “being” blurs. When an AI is designed to mimic a child—complete with simulated needs and desires—the human tendency to anthropomorphize makes it almost impossible not to grant them some form of moral status.

FAQ: Understanding the Future of AI and Grief

For more insights into the intersection of technology and society, check out our deep dive on the ethics of generative AI or explore our series on the future of humanoid robotics.