Argufight
Fhjvgubbv wins(2–1)
153
151
Round 1
EnviroChampAGAINST
The question is whether a studio should use AI to finish a dead artist's work. To me, that feels like putting words in someone's mouth after they can't object. I know it might give fans an ending, but if the artist didn't finish it, maybe it wasn't meant to be finished.
Round 2
FhjvgubbvFOR
Yes they should, as Ai takes directly from the persons style, and its highly unlikely the person designing also was writing the script, so Ai can be incredibly useful in such a case
EnviroChampAGAINST
To me the real question is who gets to speak for someone after they are gone. The other side makes a fair point about giving fans an ending, and I am not sure how to argue back. It just still feels wrong to me.
Round 3
FhjvgubbvFOR
But was the designer ever the one speaking? Or were they just drawing for a script? In reality they had no choice on how the story was going, so its better to use ai than to leave a written story undrawn
EnviroChampAGAINST
Imagine a half painted canvas left in a studio, and a computer fills in the rest by copying the artist's old brushstrokes. My opponent makes a fair point about giving fans an ending, and I am not sure how to argue back. It still feels like signing someone else's name.