A Continuum of AI Use in Family History

Navigating Ethical Boundaries in Genealogy

Artificial intelligence has not simply “arrived” — it has quietly woven itself into the everyday practice of family history research. Many of us use it already without thinking: automatic transcriptions, enhanced search, handwriting recognition, image restoration, and suggested records all rely on forms of AI.

Now, ever increasing powerful tools sit directly at our fingertips, capable of animating historic photographs, generating voices to read long-forgotten letters aloud, and creating visual interpretations of ancestors based on archived descriptions. These possibilities are expanding rapidly and, before long, will be as familiar to researchers as searching a digitised index.

With this progress comes an important question for genealogists, and is one that often comes up in presentations: Will we gone too far with the use of AI in Family History?

How Far Is Too Far?

When we use AI to represent the past, we are making choices that sit somewhere on a spectrum from faithful preservation to imaginative interpretation. And those choices matter.

For me, the answer often depends on proximity. If I create a digital interpretation of a 3rd great-grandfather from the early nineteenth century, I feel comfortable acknowledging the imaginative gaps. But if someone produced an AI deepfake of my late mother, a person I knew deeply, I would look much more critically at how faithfully it honoured her.

This insight led me to develop what I call the Continuum of AI Use in Family History — a way of understanding not just what AI can do, but how far we feel ethically comfortable in employing AI tools.

This continuum is not a rulebook. Rather, it is a framework to help us reflect on where we each sit, and why. And in fact, we may sit at different places, depending upon the context, our research question and what we want to achieve.

The Continuum of AI Use in Family History

Below are the six stages of the Continuum, with examples of how genealogists may already be using (or may soon use) artificial intelligence in their work.

Emotional Distance Matters

A guiding principle emerged as I developed this continuum:

The closer our lived memory of a person, the greater our ethical responsibility in representing them.

In genealogy, the emotional distance between us and those we research shapes the decisions we make about how they are portrayed. Our comfort and caution shift depending on how closely we feel tied to the person.

We can think of this as a progression or spectrum:

Lived memory > Family memory > Archival memory > Historical imagination

• Lived memory
  People we knew personally. Our responsibility is high because we hold real knowledge of who they were, how they spoke, what mattered to them. Depicting them inaccurately can feel like a betrayal of trust.
• Family memory
  People remembered through stories, photos, and the recollections of relatives. We feel a duty to be faithful to shared memory and to handle stories passed down with care.
• Archival memory
  Individuals known only through documents, records, and historical traces. Here, we become interpreters. We rely on evidence, inference, and context rather than personal recollection.
• Historical imagination
  Those for whom only fragments remain, or whose identities are largely symbolic in the family tree. Here, creative reconstruction may feel more acceptable — as long as it is clearly acknowledged as interpretation.

In each case, our role shifts:

• We guard the dignity of those we knew.
• We interpret those we only meet through the archive.

Both are acts of care and remembrance — simply expressed differently.

Understanding where an ancestor sits on this spectrum can help us decide how far we are comfortable going with AI-assisted reconstruction. It is not about rigid rules, but about thoughtful stewardship, emotional honesty, and respect for the lives we explore.

Guiding Questions for Using AI in Genealogy

As AI becomes increasingly embedded in genealogical tools and workflows, these questions help ensure that care remains at the centre of innovation:

• Am I illuminating their story, or rewriting it?
• Would future generations be able to tell what is factual and what is interpretative?
• Is this representation respectful of the person and their life?
• Am I filling gaps responsibly, or inventing detail that may mislead?
• Would I be comfortable if someone did this with my story, or with a loved one’s?
• Is the technology helping me understand the past — or tempting me to recreate it?

There is no single correct answer. What matters is reflection, transparency, and respect.

Where Do You Sit?

AI in family history provides us with an opportunity, and a big responsibility, to use it thoughtfully. The Continuum helps us frame those decisions, from factual clarity to imaginative reconstruction.

I would love to hear your ideas on the continuum, and how you see it being useful in AI shaping the future of family history.

Download the Continuum

You are welcome to share and use this framework in presentations, society meetings, teaching, and personal research, provided attribution is included.

Please credit: Continuum of AI Use in Family History | © Andrew Redfern 2025

Formats available:

• PNG (for slides and digital use)
• PDF (for printing and handouts)

Concept developed and first published by Andrew Redfern, 2025.