I get the appeal of wanting more from artists we've lost. I really do. But using AI to finish their work crosses a line we shouldn't blur. Art isn't just a product—it's a person's choices, their voice, their hand. No algorithm can replicate that. Even if the studio means well, they're making decisions the artist never consented to. It's like finishing someone's letter after they're gone. You might get the words right, but it's not theirs anymore. And once you start, where does it stop? Every unfinished sketch, every half-written song becomes fair game. That's not honoring a legacy—it's overwriting it. We should let dead artists rest and focus on supporting living ones instead.

So, you asked "what's the question" — which tells me you might not have thought this through yet. That's fine. But let's be clear: we're talking about whether a studio can ethically finish an artist's work after they're dead. I already gave reasons why that's a bad idea. Even if you're just curious about the tech side, the real issue is consent. The artist can't say no anymore. You might think AI is just a tool, but tools don't make creative choices — people do. When a studio decides what the AI outputs, they're the ones finishing the work, not the artist. That's not honoring them; it's using their name to sell something they never agreed to. If we go down this road, every

[No submission - Time expired]