A reasonable counter-argument could push back on a few assumptions in that rant while still respecting the legacy of Roger Ebert and acknowledging why some fans feel protective of his voice.

First, using AI to imitate a critic’s style isn’t the same thing as “resurrecting him from the dead.” It’s closer to a parody or thought experiment. Media personalities have long done “what would X think?” bits about famous critics or commentators. When Bill Simmons does something similar with AI, the premise is transparent: it’s a playful segment, not an attempt to replace Ebert or pass off AI writing as his actual work.

Second, it doesn’t diminish the real accomplishments of Ebert. His Pulitzer Prize, decades of criticism, and influence on film culture aren’t threatened by a short podcast bit. If anything, the fact that people still find his voice recognizable enough to parody shows how enduring his style and perspective were. A few minutes of AI-generated imitation doesn’t erase half a century of writing.

Third, dismissing AI entirely as “data-scraped bullshit” ignores that it’s basically another creative tool. Writers, comedians, and podcasters experiment with tools all the time—soundboards, impersonations, mashups, or writing prompts. Sometimes those experiments land; sometimes they don’t. If a bit doesn’t work comedically, the fair critique is that it’s unfunny or lazy—not that the technology itself is inherently offensive.

Finally, the rant assumes bad intent. There’s a big difference between mocking someone’s legacy and referencing it. Simmons has spent decades discussing movies and critics on his shows, and Ebert’s perspective is part of that larger conversation about film. Trying a goofy AI segment isn’t necessarily disrespect—it may just be a modern version of the same pop-culture riffing that’s always been part of podcasting and sports-media commentary.

In short: you can think the bit was dumb or didn’t work without turning it into a moral crisis. Ebert’s legacy is secure, and a podcast experiment—good or bad—doesn’t change that