I listened to the whole special, and I can agree with much of what the Carlinbot had to say. I think that's fun.

I know there's overwhelming hatred towards the idea of AI doing stuff like this, but I'm curious as to why exactly that is. I hate this about as much as I hate impressionists, which is a somewhat apt comparison. That is to say, I think it's pretty neat and I'm curious what all went into making it happen, so I can't say I hate it. Could someone break down why this is awful? Is it a "let the dead lie" kind of thing, keeping the dead sacred? Do we want the AI to be completely original, despite it being derivative in nature? Do we simply want AI not to exist at all? Is it just in poor taste? If so, who do we let define what constitutes good or poor taste?

I see AI as a philosophical issue, as it's a technology seeking to cross the uncanny valley and simulate consciousness as we understand it, which has serious implications regarding the nature of consciousness, the concept of the self, how we define life and understanding, how much control we grant this artificial life, what rights artificial life should have, and plenty of other conundrums along the way. I honestly don't think it's as simple as "Carlin wouldn't like this", as this video is ultimately an unsatisfactory impression of a man that only goes on for one hour. There are worse things in the world we could be lambasting (as the Carlinbot points out mid-video), but there are clearly some implications involved that people are very upset by. So, where do we go from here?