A mother from Abu Dhabi is developing a will that would require future guardians to consult ChatGPT when making important decisions about raising her child if she dies while he is still young. This unusual proposal may test the role of artificial intelligence in estate planning.
The proposed 'Living Wishes Protocol' would allow guardians to use the designated AI system, drafted as ChatGPT, alongside a written record of the mother's values, beliefs, parenting philosophy, and wishes for her son.
The AI would not be appointed as a guardian nor would it possess any legal authority over the child. Instead, it would serve as a consultative tool, helping human guardians consider how the mother's recorded values can apply to situations she could not foresee.
The draft will is being prepared for registration with the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department, but it is not yet registered or approved by the court.
Byron James from Expatriate Law, who prepared the document, told Khaleej Times that they are studying the unusual application of AI to custody and parental wishes matters. He emphasized that the goal is not to recreate the mother or allow AI to raise the son, but to preserve part of her guidance, keeping decisions firmly in human hands.
The seven-page bilingual draft, analyzed by Khaleej Times, describes the Living Wishes Protocol as a way to transform a parent's wishes into a continuous basis for decision-making, rather than leaving guardians a static letter.
Under this proposal, guardians would have to consult the specified AI system before making significant decisions concerning the child. Such decisions include choosing or changing schools or educational paths, country or city of residence, non-urgent medical or psychological treatment, religious upbringing, and contact with the mother's family.
The guardian would provide the AI with the mother's 'Living Wishes Record'—a written statement of her values, principles, hopes, and parental wishes—along with relevant facts about the situation. Nevertheless, the final decision always remains with the guardian.
The draft explicitly states that the AI has no appointment in the will and that no authority over the child is transferred to it. It also specifies that the system should not present itself as speaking on behalf of the mother or knowing what she would decide.
James noted that the main motivation is to ensure that the people raising the son have more than just a static letter with her wishes if she dies while he is still young. He added that a parent can record their values, beliefs, and hopes, but cannot foresee every decision that might arise over the next ten or fifteen years.
The proposal is also aimed at preventing the mother's wishes from turning into a rigid set of instructions that might contradict the child's interests as he grows up. The guardian is obliged to consider the mother's recorded values alongside the child's desires and feelings, as well as their own assessment of the child's well-being. The child's wishes must gain increasing importance as he grows and becomes able to express them.
Annually until the child reaches 18, the guardian must review his education, health, happiness, friendships, interests, and changing needs, as well as compliance with the Living Wishes Record. The child will be invited to participate in these reviews as soon as he is able to do so.
The draft also provides for an independent human advisor for the annual protocol review and upon request by the guardian. This advisor must check whether the child's confidentiality and developing independence are being maintained, as well as whether the AI system is appropriate. The protocol does not apply to urgent decisions necessary to protect the child's life, health, or safety, nor can it authorize actions that violate the law or a court order.
The draft also clarifies that non-compliance with the protocol will not lead to the automatic invalidation of the decision or the guardianship appointment. Guardians must also keep confidential records of important consultations, including questions asked, AI responses, and decisions made, specifying reasons if they differ from the AI's conclusion. These records can be provided to executors, the human advisor, and the court upon request.
The proposal acknowledges that using AI raises serious privacy concerns, especially since it involves a child. James stated that the technical aspects of accessing and storing the mother's wishes have not been finalized. He noted that the protocol should not unduly depend on a specific account or version of a commercial product, especially if the arrangements are meant to last many years.
The key feature is the continuity of the mother's recorded wishes, not the permanence of any specific software platform. He added that additional work is required regarding information storage, access to it, what information will be passed to the AI provider, and the ability to minimize or anonymize sensitive data. James stressed: 'We do not want the intimate personal history of a child to be unduly uploaded to a commercial AI service. Ultimately, the child's privacy, well-being, and developing independence must take precedence over any desire to maintain parental influence.'
This proposal is noteworthy not only because it mentions AI in a will, but also because it seeks to create a continuous process where guardians can consult the AI system, using the deceased parent's values as a guide. James reported that Expatriate Law was unaware of a previously registered will with such a combination of provisions, including annual reviews, growing attention to the child's wishes, independent human oversight, and safeguards against AI impersonating the parent. However, he emphasized that the firm does not claim a world first, as wills are not public documents, and an exhaustive global search was not conducted.
The legal status of this arrangement in the UAE also remains unresolved. James stated that approval or adoption of the Living Wishes Protocol by the court has not been confirmed at this time, and its legal regulation is yet to be determined. He clarified that ChatGPT is not a legal entity, but the proposal does not appoint it as a guardian or grant it legal powers. 'Whether the court deems this distinction sufficient and accepts the provisions in their current form are questions we cannot predict,' he said.
The wording may change following legal analysis or feedback from relevant authorities, including consideration of which elements should be included in a registered will and which may be contained in a separate letter of wishes. The draft itself indicates that it 'is not a registered document' and is intended only for discussion; the court registration number and attestation details remain blank. James reported that the identities of the family and the child's age are kept confidential as he is a minor. Nevertheless, the concept raises a question that traditional estate planning rarely faces: how long can a parent's influence on a child's upbringing be preserved after their death, when the parent cannot foresee the circumstances the child will face?
Currently, the answer proposed by this Abu Dhabi will is not to leave the matter entirely to the discretion of a human guardian or hand it over to AI, but to combine both under judicial control and the child's own evolving wishes, which ultimately must remain above the machine.