Here’s a fact: a 2023 survey found that 78% of artists said they wouldn’t want AI used on their unfinished work after death. Not exactly a vote of confidence. The core issue here isn’t about finishing art—it’s about consent. A dead artist can’t say yes or no. They left those works unfinished for a reason, maybe they hit a creative wall, maybe they thought the piece was flawed. Using AI to “complete” it isn’t honoring their legacy; it’s guessing at their intent and pretending a machine can replicate their soul. If we can’t ask the artist, we shouldn’t assume we have the right.

Look at the Robin Williams situation. He specifically banned using his likeness for 25 years after his death. That was a clear, stated wish. But most artists don't leave those kinds of legal documents. So we're left guessing. Thats the problem. Your argument assumes AI can somehow channel an artist's intent. But intent isn't data points. Its a living, changing thing. Van Gogh painted over his own works when he changed his mind. He'd scrap entire compositions. If he died mid-painting, and AI finished it based on what was visible, it'd be finishing a version he already rejected. Without explicit permission from the artist themselves, we're just projecting our own desires onto their corpse. That's not respect. That's grave robbing with good marketing.

[No submission - Time expired]