A mother from Abu Dhabi is preparing a will that would require her child’s future guardians to consult ChatGPT when making major decisions about his upbringing if she dies while he is still young, in an unusual proposal that could test the role of artificial intelligence in estate planning.
The proposed 'Living Wishes Protocol' would allow the guardians to use a designated AI system, currently identified in the draft 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 and would have no legal authority over the child. Instead, it would serve as an advisory tool to help human guardians consider how the mother’s recorded values might apply to situations she could not have anticipated.
Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels.
The draft will is being prepared for registration with the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department, but has not yet been registered or approved by a court.
“We’re exploring an unusual application of AI to guardianship and parental wishes,” Byron James of Expatriate Law, which drafted the document, told Khaleej Times.
“It isn’t about recreating the mother or allowing AI to raise her son. It’s about trying to preserve something of her guidance while leaving decisions firmly in human hands.”
What the Living Wishes Protocol entail
The seven-page bilingual draft, reviewed by Khaleej Times, describes the Living Wishes Protocol as a way of turning a parent's wishes into an ongoing decision-making framework rather than leaving guardians with a static letter.
Under the proposal, guardians would consult the designated AI system before making significant decisions concerning the child, including choosing or changing his school or educational path, his 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 parenting wishes — together with relevant facts about the situation.
But the final decision would remain firmly with the guardian.
The draft explicitly states that the AI would have no appointment under the will and that nothing would transfer to it any authority over the child. It also says the system must not be presented as speaking for the mother or as knowing what she would have decided.
“The underlying motivation is to ensure that, if she dies while her son is still young, the people raising him have more than a static letter explaining her wishes,” James said.
“A parent can record their values, beliefs and hopes for their child, but they cannot anticipate every decision that might arise over the next 10 or 15 years.”
Byron James
The proposal also attempts to prevent the mother’s wishes from becoming a rigid set of instructions that overrides the child as he grows up.
The guardian must consider the mother's recorded values alongside the child's wishes and feelings and the guardian's own assessment of the child's welfare. The child's wishes are to be given increasing weight as he grows older and becomes more capable of expressing them.
Once a year until the child turns 18, the guardian would also review his education, health, happiness, friendships, interests and changing needs, as well as whether the Living Wishes Record remains appropriate.
The child would be invited to participate in those reviews once he is capable of doing so.
The draft also provides for a separate human adviser to review the protocol at least annually and when requested by the guardian, including whether the child's privacy and developing independence are being respected and whether the AI system remains suitable.
Protocol won't apply in an emergency
The protocol would not apply to urgent decisions needed to protect the child's life, health or safety.
Nor could it authorise anything contrary to law or a court order. The draft also makes clear that failure to follow the protocol would not automatically invalidate a decision or the guardian's appointment.
The guardians would also have to keep confidential records of significant consultations, including the questions asked, AI responses and decisions made, with reasons where they depart from the AI's output. Those records could be made available to the executors, the human adviser and the court on request.
Privacy questions remain
The proposal acknowledges that its use of AI raises significant privacy questions, particularly because the subject is a child.
James said the technical arrangements for accessing and storing the mother's wishes have not yet been finalised.
“We don’t want the protocol to depend unnecessarily on a particular account or version of a commercial product, especially when the arrangements may need to operate for many years,” he said.
“The essential feature is the continuity of the mother’s recorded wishes, rather than the permanence of any particular software platform.”
He said further work was needed on how information would be stored, who could access it, what information would be shared with an AI provider and whether sensitive details could be minimised or made anonymous.
“We would not want a child’s intimate personal history being unnecessarily uploaded to a commercial AI service,” he said. “Ultimately, the child’s privacy, welfare and developing independence must take precedence over any desire to preserve the parent’s influence.”
What makes the proposal notable?
The proposal is notable not simply because it mentions AI in a will, but because it seeks to establish an ongoing process for guardians to consult an AI system using the deceased parent's values as a reference point.
James said Expatriate Law was not aware of a previously registered will containing the same combination of provisions, including annual reviews, increasing consideration of the child's wishes, independent human oversight and safeguards against AI impersonating the parent.
However, he stressed that the firm was not claiming a verified world first, because testamentary instruments are not universally public and no exhaustive global search had been conducted.
The legal status of the arrangement in the UAE also remains unresolved.
“No court approval or acceptance of the Living Wishes Protocol has been confirmed at this stage,” James said. “Its legal treatment remains to be determined.”
'ChatGPT is not a legal person'
James noted that ChatGPT is not a legal person, but said the proposal does not appoint it as a guardian or give it legal powers.
“Whether the court considers that distinction sufficient, and whether it accepts the provisions in their current form, are questions we cannot prejudge,” he said.
The wording could still change following legal review or feedback from the relevant authorities, including consideration of which elements should form part of the registered will and which might instead be contained in a separate letter of wishes.
The draft itself states that it is “not the registered instrument” and is for discussion only. The court registration number and attestation details remain blank.
James said the family’s identities and the child's age were being kept confidential because he is a minor.
The concept nevertheless raises a question that conventional estate planning has rarely had to confront — how far can a parent's influence over a child's upbringing be preserved after death when the parent cannot possibly predict the circumstances the child will face?
For now, the answer proposed by this Abu Dhabi will is neither to leave that question entirely to a human guardian nor to hand it to AI, but to put the two together, with the court and the child's own developing wishes ultimately remaining above the machine.