Abstract
The memorialization of mass atrocities such as war crimes and genocides facilitates the remembrance of past suffering, honors those who resisted the perpetrators, and helps prevent the distortion of historical facts. Digital technologies have transformed memorialization practices by enabling less top-down and more creative approaches to remember mass atrocities. At the same time, they may also facilitate the spread of denialism and distortion, attempt to justify past crimes and attack the dignity of victims. The emergence of generative forms of artificial intelligence (AI), which produce textual and visual content, has the potential to revolutionize the field of memorialization even further. AI can identify patterns in training data to create new narratives for representing and interpreting mass atrocities—and do so in a fraction of the time it takes for humans. The use of generative AI in this context raises numerous questions: For example, can the paucity of training data on mass atrocities distort how AI interprets some atrocity-related inquiries? How important is the ability to differentiate between human- and AI-made content concerning mass atrocities? Can AI-made content be used to promote false information concerning atrocities? This article addresses these and other questions by examining the opportunities and risks associated with using generative AIs for memorializing mass atrocities. It also discusses recommendations for AIs integration in memorialization practices to steer the use of these technologies toward a more ethical and sustainable direction.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Zucker, Eve M. 2
; Simon, David J. 3
; Bultmann, Daniel 4
; Ulloa, Roberto 5
1 University of Bern, Institute of Communication and Media Studies, Bern, Switzerland (GRID:grid.5734.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 0726 5157)
2 Yale University/Weatherhead Institute of East Asian Studies, Columbia University, Department of Anthropology, New York, USA (GRID:grid.21729.3f) (ISNI:0000000419368729)
3 Yale University, Jackson School of Global Affairs, New Haven, USA (GRID:grid.47100.32) (ISNI:0000000419368710)
4 Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany (GRID:grid.7468.d) (ISNI:0000 0001 2248 7639)
5 University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany (GRID:grid.9811.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 0658 7699); GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Cologne, Germany (GRID:grid.425053.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 1013 1176)




