Soon, anyone can build a digital version of themselves. But should they?

2 hours ago7 min read

After more than two decades of daily writing, I've accumulated a textual footprint vast enough to train an AI model that could convincingly mimic my voice. With current technology, constructing a system to generate opinions that sound authentically like Enrique Dans—an algorithmic professor publishing long after I'm gone—is not just feasible; it's practically straightforward.This represents the next frontier in productivity: the digital twin. Startups like Viven and tools such as Synthesia are pioneering 'AI clones' of employees and executives, trained comprehensively on their voices, writings, decisions, and habits.The proposition is undeniably seductive—imagine scaling yourself infinitely, answering emails, recording videos, and drafting updates while you focus on higher pursuits or simply do nothing at all. Yet, seductive does not equate to sensible, and this emerging capability forces us to confront profound ethical and existential questions reminiscent of the dilemmas Isaac Asimov might have woven into his robotic laws.We are entering an era where professionals won't merely automate tasks; they will replicate their very personas. A company might build a digital copy of its top salesperson, a CEO could deploy a virtual twin for inquiries, and a university might scale a popular lecturer's reach with an AI version.In theory, this promises unparalleled efficiency. In practice, it invites a form of existential confusion: if the replica is convincing enough, what becomes of the original person? What does 'productivity' mean when your digital self handles the labor? This fascination with digital self-cloning mirrors the age-old temptation to outsource not just labor but identity itself, though AI now replicates that identity's voice both literally and metaphorically.I could easily undertake this myself—feed a large language model the millions of words I've written since 2003, and it would produce a fairly accurate simulation, capturing my tone, vocabulary, and rhythm to write plausible articles at the same pace. But such an endeavor would fundamentally miss the point.I don't write to fill a schedule or a database; I write to think and to teach. Writing, for me, is an act of reflection, not production.That's why, as I've explained before, I never let AI write my articles for me—it defeats the very purpose of my daily ritual. Of course, I use AI constantly as a thinking partner: summarizing sources, checking facts, exploring counterarguments, and finding references.Yet, I never allow it to finish my sentences; that boundary preserves the integrity of my work. The promise of digital clones is rooted in a misconception that replicating output equals replicating value, with companies talking about 'bottling expertise' or 'scaling human capital' as if personality were a production line.However, cloning output is not the same as extending competence. A person's professional value lies in their judgment, cultivated over time through context and curiosity.A model trained on past decisions may imitate tone, but it cannot anticipate evolution—it's a fossil, not a future. An AI clone of me could mimic my 2025 writing style, but if I let it publish, it would freeze me in that year forever, a museum piece updated daily.Executives, entrepreneurs, and creators should weigh this carefully. A 'digital twin' might manage an inbox or record briefings, but it dilutes what makes leadership and creativity meaningful: presence.In Axios's coverage of CEO clones, many executives admitted they liked their AI doubles but didn't fully trust them, as the clones handled repetitive interactions but lacked empathy, timing, and nuance—the very qualities that define credibility. Delegating these to an algorithm is like sending a mannequin to a meeting: technically present, emotionally vacant.Beyond immediate productivity, there's the thorny issue of legacy. What happens when your digital twin outlives you? Some companies already treat employee data as assets, so why not digital clones? Imagine a firm deploying the 'AI version' of a beloved leader posthumously—it might seem a tribute, but it's corporate necromancy, using intellectual remains to perpetuate a brand.Universities selling 'virtual professors' or corporations reusing former CEOs as permanent avatars aren't far-fetched; in a recent academic paper on digital twins, researchers warned that the boundary between representation and possession is blurring, raising questions of ownership and profit. When we replicate people as data objects, we risk turning identity into infrastructure—something licensable, monetizable, and rebrandable at will.Yet, there's a rational path forward: using AI for augmentation, not imitation. I employ it daily as a thinking partner, a tireless research assistant that critiques logic and suggests structures without offense.The act of reasoning, however, remains mine. This distinction between using artificial intelligence and becoming it is crucial; outsourcing thinking severs the feedback loop of reflection, revision, and growth that makes us human.Professionals who embrace AI responsibly will amplify their reach without diluting their essence, while those who don't may find their voices indistinguishable from their machines. For businesses considering employee clones or AI avatars, key principles should guide them: define purpose over imitation, keep humans in the authorship loop, treat data as legacy rather than property, and focus on augmentation instead of automation.AI isn't here to replace human expertise; it's here to challenge how we apply it. Soon, anyone with sufficient data can build a digital self—some may see it as immortality, others as redundancy.I view it as a mirror, testing what truly matters in human work. When my digital twin can write a decent article, I won't be impressed.The question isn't whether it can write, but whether it can care, and whether it serves a meaningful purpose. Until algorithms genuinely care about truth, nuance, curiosity, or purpose, I'll continue what I've done for 23 years: sit down, think, and write, not out of obligation, but because I still can, and because that act itself defines the human experience in an age of replication.

#digital twins

#AI clones

#ethics

#productivity

#human judgment

#corporate legacy

#featured

Stay Informed. Act Smarter.

Get weekly highlights, major headlines, and expert insights — then put your knowledge to work in our live prediction markets.

Comments

Loading comments...