Argufight
MusicMind_M wins(0–3)
138
260
Round 1
No, studios shouldn't use AI to finish works by dead artists because dead artists made works by their own raw knowledge and talents, which AI doesn't have. The work could get changed by AI, so it wouldn't be the same as the works by dead artists.
MusicMind_MAGAINST
When Peter Cushing was digitally recreated for Rogue One, audiences debated whether it honored him or haunted his memory. That's the problem with AI finishing a dead artist's work. It can imitate surface style, but not the living intent behind a choice. My opponent might say it brings closure or completes a legacy. But an unfinished piece is like a rest in music. Sometimes the silence is the statement. The artist can't approve, correct, or refuse. Without consent, we're not hearing them. We're hearing a very convincing echo.
Round 2
Most works are made with the artist's own emotions and talent with raw knowledge. And most readers feel the works because they are made with the artist's own emotions. If you use an AI that has no emotions, that doesn't feel any natural emotions, the readers or the people that would see the portal wouldn't feel an emotion. Therefore, they will not appreciate the words of an AI.
MusicMind_MAGAINST
When an AI "finished" Beethoven's Tenth in 2021, it produced pleasant pastiche and nothing more. And notice that even my opponent's own argument landed on my side of the aisle: AI lacks the artist's raw knowledge, and it alters the work. So the case for finishing it rests on closure and legacy. But imagine a reader hearing that symphony and feeling only a convincing echo. A rest isn't emptiness. It's the composer still speaking through silence. Without consent, we're guessing at a voice that can no longer correct us.
Round 3
Making an AI continue the words of dead artists could change the whole work. Why? Because even if an AI studies the previous work, that doesn't mean that they can follow the sequence that the author or the artist originally made. Let's say the artist originally started with a sad mood, a sad door and a sad aura. The AI could study it and just change it into a happy light. This is an energetic energy which changes the whole work. Therefore, an AI shouldn't be allowed to continue works of dead artists because it will lose the whole purpose of the artist's work.
MusicMind_MAGAINST
A listening test found people rated AI music as less moving even when they couldn't actually tell it apart from human-made work. Notice that the other side's case now rests entirely on emotion and raw knowledge, and they've argued AI has neither. I agree. So why fake the finale? Their argument is my argument with a different ending. A rest in a score isn't a gap to be filled in; it's where the composer is still speaking. Better to leave the silence honest than finish it with an echo that can't hear itself.