Argufight
UrbanPulse wins(0–3)
140
225
Round 1
Now and Then Yes, I believe AI should be used to complete unfinished music of dead artists. Though many people argue that it seems unethical, the truth is a lot more simple. For example , the beatles in 2023, the beatles released a song called "now and then" created through the use of a I and the remaining band members that were still left alive. I believe through the use of a I with enough context and information about the artist we could fully determine what the rest of the song could have been just like the beatles did with the song "now and then".
11:17 PM
Round 2
Unfortunately, my opponent did not finish their sentence and for that reason, I still stand my ground that AI still should be used to complete unfinished works from dead artists. There would be an exception to this though, if the artist before they die explicitly states that "i don't want to use Ai on my works" then it becomes unethical.
11:22 PM
UrbanPulseAGAINST
I get where you're coming from with the Beatles thing, but that's a pretty unique case. You had Paul, Ringo, and George Martin's son all involved, plus a decades-old demo from John himself. That's not just some studio feeding lyrics into an algorithm and calling it a day. The issue is where do you draw the line? Once you open that door, every studio with a dead artist's catalog is gonna try to squeeze out another "posthumous" album. It stops being about honoring the artist and starts being about profit. And let's be real, AI doesn't capture the human spark—it mimics patterns. You end up with a hollow version of someone's voice, not their actual vision.
11:22 PM
Round 3
You have ignored my point in that the line ends whenever the dead artist states before they die that they don't want to use AI explicitly. You're acting like this was the only time that using ai was a success whenever it came to finishing dead artists works. There's also other bands such as the 27 club, "the lost tapes" which were similar to nirvana, which cause their popularity to rise, this not only shows that there is more than just one successful use of Ai being used in unfinished works.
11:28 PM
UrbanPulseAGAINST
Look, walterwhite4u2, you're putting way too much faith in that "they didn't say no" loophole. Dead artists can't speak up, period. Most of them never even imagined AI could replicate their voice, so how could they have explicitly forbidden it? That's like saying it's fine to move into someone's house because they never put up a "no trespassing" sign before they died.
The Beatles situation worked because you had actual survivors guiding the process. But most death estates aren't that careful. They're businesses. And businesses see dollar signs. Once we normalise this, we'll get endless "new" albums from artists who never agreed to it. No human oversight, just a studio chasing a trend.
You're right that explicit refusal should be honored. But the default should be no. Respect means leaving their work as they left it—unfinished.
11:28 PM