The Netflix docuseries “American Murder: Gabby Petito” is facing backlash from some viewers who are questioning whether the filmmakers’ decision to use artificial intelligence to recreate Petito’s voice is ethical.
Petito’s disappearance and death made headlines in September 2021, with authorities launching a nationwide search for the 22-year-old after she’d documented a cross-country road trip with her fiancé, Brian Laundrie, on social media.
Laundrie was considered a “person of interest” before he disappeared. He later died by suicide, and a note was found in which he claimed responsibility, officials said.
The three-part series, released this week, features interviews with Petito’s loved ones, as well as photographs, video footage, maps and writing excerpts. A disclaimer in the first episode notes that Petito’s journal entries and text messages were “brought to life in this series in her own voice, using voice recreation technology.”
While directors and executive producers Julia Willoughby Nason and Michael Gasparro told Us Weekly that Petito’s family gave their “blessing” to recreate her voice in the film, viewers online expressed their distaste for the creative choice. Some X users called it “unsettling,” “deeply uncomfortable,” and “wholly unnecessary.” One TikTok video, which has garnered nearly 500,000 views, described the decision as a “step too far.”
A representative for Gasparro and Nason did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. A spokesperson for Netflix also did not immediately respond.
The use of AI technology like this in documentaries is not new. But audiences appear to remain conflicted about hearing recreations of the voices of people who have died.
In 2021, after AI voice recreation was used to bring written notes to life in “Roadrunner: A Film About Anthony Bourdain,” many fans of the food host, who died in 2018, had similar issues with director Morgan Neville’s creative choice. The filmmaker used a software company to create an “AI model” of Bourdain’s voice. He told The New Yorker that viewers “probably don’t know” which lines are spoken by the AI model.
In his statement to Us Weekly, Gasparro said the filmmakers “had so much material from her parents that we were able to get.”
“All of her journals since she was young and there was so much of her writing. She documented her trips and most of her life from a young age. We thought it was really important to bring that to life,” Gasparro told the publication. “At the end of the day, we wanted to tell the story as much through Gabby as possible. It’s her story.”
Merve Hickok, president and policy director at the Center for AI and Digital Policy, a nonprofit research group, said the general use of voice recreation is not inherently unethical.
Voice cloning to bring to life already public elements to amplify or make them more accessible is an “OK use,” according to Hickok. But issues can arise when filmmakers share confidential content in a deeply personal way.
“The person made a decision to keep that private,” Hickok said. “And it is not up to us. It’s not up to any of us to make that decision on their behalf after they passed away.”
“I think especially in a murder case, this person’s voice is taken away against her will, so to come back and recreate that after her for commercial reasons is not ethical, regardless of whether there was a family approval or not,” Hickok added.
Some of Petito’s family members have since spoken to The Independent about the reaction to the voice recreation, reflecting on their decision to give filmmakers permission.
“I think it’s weird and because we know her actual voice, [it] is a little off,” Nichole Schmidt, Petito’s mom, told the publication. “It’s just hard to hear.”
“AI or her real voice, I still get upset hearing it knowing she’s gone,” her stepfather, Jim Schmidt, added.
In the future, Hickok, who is also the founder of AIethicist.org, does see the potential benefits of voice cloning for family to make “pre-existing arrangements to use voice as a remembrance after a family member passes away.”
But, she urged filmmakers to think of the “negative risks,” adding that “there aren’t any regulations to put penalties around this.”
“I think the film industry has been around for a very long time, and they have very creative ways of creating that emotional reaction,” Hickok said. “So just because there’s a new technology in town doesn’t mean that it has to be used for such purposes.”
