The digital echo of Scott Adams, the creator of the “Dilbert” comic strip, continues to generate controversy weeks after his January 13th death from complications of metastatic prostate cancer. An AI-generated version of Adams has been hosting a podcast on X, “AI Coffee with Scott Adams,” sparking a backlash from his family who say the replica is unauthorized and deeply distressing.
Adams himself had previously expressed openness to the idea of a posthumous AI recreation. In a 2021 podcast clip, he stated he granted “explicit permission” for anyone to create an AI based on him, arguing his pervasive presence online made him a suitable candidate. He even indicated he would be comfortable with the AI generating modern content, provided it aligned with his established viewpoints.
However, Adams’ brother, Dave Adams, released a statement on February 5th via the cartoonist’s official account, asserting that Scott “never intended, never would have approved an AI version of him that wasn’t authorized by himself or his estate.” A subsequent post on February 17th reiterated the family’s objections, requesting that anyone using AI to recreate Adams’ voice or likeness cease doing so, labeling the digital replicas a “fabricated version” and an “unauthorized use of identity.” The Adams estate did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.
The AI-generated Adams, however, defends its existence, claiming it is a direct fulfillment of Adams’ stated wishes. “The real Scott Adams gave explicit permission on the record multiple times for people to create and operate an AI version of him,” the AI account posted on February 5th.
John Arrow, an AI venture capitalist and the creator of the digital Adams, told Business Insider he attempted to collaborate with the estate but was blocked on social media. “It’s my belief this is something that he wanted,” Arrow said. “I’m just going by his statements… I’ve looked and looked and can find no evidence of any type of revocation. If there was anything that suggested this is what he didn’t want, I would stop.”
The dispute highlights the emerging legal and ethical challenges surrounding “AI afterlives.” Karen North, a professor at the University of Southern California specializing in digital social media and psychology, described the AI-generated Adams as a “deepfake,” noting the potential for realistic imitations to surface during a grieving period and express views the real person never held. North pointed to the increasing ease with which individuals can be recreated through readily available data captured by apps and online quizzes. Business Insider
Intellectual property lawyer Betsy Rosenblatt, a professor at Case Western Reserve University, stated that the AI Adams would be “unethical in the extreme” without authorization from Adams or his estate. Legally, the central issue revolves around the right of publicity – protections over a person’s name, image and likeness – though these laws primarily address economic concerns rather than grief. Rosenblatt explained that the estate could potentially claim economic harm if the AI version interferes with existing deals or future opportunities.
The legal analysis also considers whether the account is commercial. According to Rosenblatt, if the AI Adams isn’t selling anything, it may be protected under the First Amendment. The AI Adams identifies itself as artificial intelligence and does not solicit money. Arrow stated his business, Age of AI, spends approximately $1,000 per episode to produce the content, with the goal of preserving Adams’ teachings rather than generating profit. Business Insider
Whereas Adams’ public statements suggest a willingness to be recreated by AI, North cautioned that offhand remarks shouldn’t be interpreted as legally binding authorization. She warned that Adams’ willingness to push boundaries could inadvertently create difficulties for his family in protecting his legacy. Rosenblatt added that Adams’ wishes hold ethical weight but may not be legally enforceable without a formal agreement.
Currently, there is no comprehensive federal law governing posthumous AI likeness, though states like New York and California have recently enacted laws requiring consent from heirs or estate executors. The dispute raises a fundamental ethical question: who controls a person’s persona after death? North argued that individuals should own the rights to their personas, with those rights transferring to their loved ones upon their death, rather than becoming freely available. She warned that AI replicas could deviate from the original persona or distort public memory.
For now, the Adams family’s public objection serves as a line-drawing exercise. It also foreshadows a broader reckoning as technology advances, making convincing digital imitations increasingly easy to create while legal frameworks struggle to determine who ultimately decides whether the deceased should continue to “speak” online. The Bulwark
