The big assumption behind using AI to finish a dead artist's work is that the artist's intent is a puzzle we can solve with enough data. That's where this gets wrong. Intent isn't just a style or a set of brushstrokes; it's a living, changing decision process. The artist could have pivoted, scrapped everything, or gone in a completely different direction. An AI trained on their past work can only extrapolate from what they already did, not what they might have chosen next. It's basically a sophisticated imitation, and passing it off as "the artist's vision" is misleading. We also have to think about consent. The artist isn't around to say yes or no. Using their likeness and creative voice without permission feels like a violation, no matter how respectful the studio claims to be. The result might look impressive, but it's a fabrication. We should preserve what they left us as a genuine, finished statement, not rewrite it into something they never approved.

Take the Anthony Bourdain documentary from a few years back. The filmmakers used AI to recreate his voice reading letters he never recorded. His friends and widow spoke out, saying he would have hated it. That’s the core problem. Even if the technology gets perfect, the artist isn’t there to say yes or no. And I think you and I actually agree on the biggest point: AI can’t replicate the live decision-making process. The artist could have changed direction, scrapped the project, or made a different call in the last week. A machine trained on their past can only copy, not choose. So if we both admit that, why would we ever pass this off as finishing their work? It’s not their vision. It’s a studio product wearing their name. Without explicit consent before death, it’s not honoring the artist. It’s just using them.

[No submission - Time expired]