I'm not convinced by the argument that it's okay to deepfake someone's voice because you're "just" reading their own words. A vocal performance is not the same as text: give me the clearest, most innocuous paragraph you can write, and I can easily change the entire meaning of it by delivering the same words with different emphasis, speed, tone, and so on.
This can happen on purpose or by accident. It happens in documentaries all the time, with actors reading primary sources. But, the difference is that using a facsimile of Bourdain's voice makes it seem like a legitimate historical record, and not the creation of the director, which is what it is.
That's certainly a lot of what I do as an actor. The words mean what I want them to mean. Or rather, what my director tells me they want them to mean. Whatever tells the story they want to tell.
It helps that I tend to work with classic texts, written with a minimum of commentary from the writer. Writers today tend to add a lot of extra stuff to their scripts telling me that they want the words to mean, and controlling every motion as if I were a puppet. Personally, I find that less interesting.
This can happen on purpose or by accident. It happens in documentaries all the time, with actors reading primary sources. But, the difference is that using a facsimile of Bourdain's voice makes it seem like a legitimate historical record, and not the creation of the director, which is what it is.