> It's too late to stop the tech from existing
I have no qualms with the tech existing, assuming I do is you creating an argument I don't have. In fact I work in ML generative modeling. But just because a tool exists doesn't mean you shouldn't be thoughtful about how you use it. Technology isn't really good or bad on its own.
> there's no individuals actually being harmed
This is debatable. I think a lot matters on how you think of dead people. I believe most people would take the stance that it is unethical to use someone's image to promote things they did not stand for. You're right that it is very difficult to impossible to harm a dead person, but there's still respect. There's also a family that lives with how you portray said person. They _can_ be harmed.
> the end-game is just going to be updated contracts which demand rights to use the performer's likeness for these sorts of purposes
If there's (informed) consent then what's the issue? (If we assume that said person knows what they have consented to)
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your response seems in bad faith and to operate on many assumptions about me that just do not hold true. Frankly this is not the kind of conversations I want to have on HN or expect to have. I'm happy to argue about the ethics and have differing opinions, but I do not appreciate my image being depicted with a broad brush. As long as the conversation is in good faith we can discuss a lot of controversial things and disagree all day and everything will be fine. But turning
> Bourdain likely would not have liked this
into
> a fashionable hint of 21st century doom-cult luddism
Is just ridiculous. That's far too large of a leap and such comments are not welcome here. You're welcome to try again but you'll need to update your priors.