The strongest argument against this is simple: you’re putting a machine in charge of a human being’s final statement. When an artist dies, their work is done. That unfinished piece isn’t a bug in the system—it’s part of their legacy, a window into what they were wrestling with. Using AI to "finish" it doesn't complete their vision; it overwrites it with a corporate approximation. And let's be honest about what AI actually does here. It doesn't know what the artist intended. It scrapes patterns from thousands of other works and guesses. That's not collaboration, that's a forgery with better marketing. The studio isn't honoring the artist—they're monetizing their absence. We'd never accept someone painting over a half-finished Rembrandt and calling it authentic. Why is it different just because the paint is generated by an algorithm? Art dies the moment you let the algorithm decide what's next.

[No submission - Time expired]