I think this is logical. If an artist dies having a project in a studio, they can let AI finish the work. The artist probably wants his work to be finished, how the studio does it, is their thing. Also AI can only work with a prompt, written by a human, and that makes it morally even better. Why would you think that studios can't use AI to finish works by dead artists?

If humans finish the work of a dead artist, it would be putting words in someone's mouth after they're gone too. Why would you throw away what the artist made, because you don't want anyone to finish it. Imagine this: a game development studio has a big project and one person made an important core function to the project, but then he passes away, now their developers are focused on other functions and the only option to finish his work is by letting AI do it. Would you throw what he did away, just because AI would finish it?

Of course an AI can't finish it in the same style as an artist. But is it then morally okay to just throw the artists work away? How does anyone work with unfinished art that won't be finished? What morality clarifies that?