Advances in generative AI have given rise to a growing industry centred on interactive representations of deceased individuals. Within this emerging “digital afterlife industry”, interactive deadbots (IDBs) are presented as hyper-realistic avatars that use a person’s likeness, voice, and personal data to simulate conversational interactions with them. Rapidly moving from a niche experiment to a mainstream phenomenon, IDBs are poised to reshape the ethical, social, legal, and governance landscapes surrounding death, mourning, and digital legacy. This paper examines the disruptive nature of IDB technology through a multidisciplinary lens, using the concept of indeterminacy as its guiding analytical framework and a novel way to conceptualise the unstable field. Rather than advancing a unified understanding of indeterminacy, we introduce a structured analytical map and provisional taxonomy that distinguishes technological, social, philosophical, legal, and regulatory manifestations of indeterminacy in IDBs. By offering a tentative and necessarily selective map of this fluid and nascent field, we explore how indeterminacy and IDBs intersect. The paper examines how IDBs amplify existing forms of indeterminacy and how indeterminacy itself shapes the development and use of these systems across five domains: technological, social, philosophical, legal, and regulatory.

The rapid proliferation of AI systems has raised many concerns about safety and responsibility in their design and use. The philosophical framework of Meaningful Human Control (MHC) was developed in response to these concerns, and tries to provide a standard for designing and evaluating such systems. While promising, the framework still requires further theoretical and practical refinement. This paper contributes to that effort by drawing on research in axiology and rational decision theory to identify a critical gap in the framework. Specifically, it argues that while ‘reasons’ play a central role in MHC, there has been little discussion of the possibility that, when weighed against each other, reasons may not always point to a single, rationally preferable course of action. I refer to these cases as instances of reasons underdetermination, and this paper discusses the need to address this issue within the MHC framework. The paper begins by providing an overview of the key concepts of the MHC framework and then examines the role of ‘reasons’ in the framework’s two main conditions - Tracking and Tracing. It then discusses the phenomenon of reasons underdetermination and shows how it poses a challenge for the achievement of both Tracking and Tracing.