Let's define terms first. Finishing a work means completing the artist's intentions, right? But intentions are personal and contextual, not just technical data points. When an artist dies, those intentions die with them. AI might replicate style or fill in notes, but it's guessing at choices the artist never made. That's not finishing, that's inventing. Here's my strongest point: consent has no replaceable substitute. Dead artists can't say yes or no, and no studio, estate, or algorithm can speak for them authentically. Every prompt, every generation is a projection, not a completion. Zeldon might argue the audience gets closure, but we're trading honesty for a polished simulation. What about the artist's legacy? Would we rewrite a novel's ending because the author died? Leaving a work unfinished can be its own statement, like Kafka's manuscripts or Schubert's fragments. And let's be real about why studios push this. It's not reverence, it's revenue. They see unfinished IP as untapped content. That's a conflict of interest that should disqualify the practice entirely.

[No submission - Time expired]