Premise 1. The talent of an artist plays a significant role in the quality of a song. Premise 2. Allowing competition in the industry will create a general trend of more talented artists gaining more traction. Premise 3. Using AI to create songs significantly lowers the amount of talent required to produce a song. Conclusion. Allowing these songs made by AI to compete against songs made by people will lower the incentive for talented people to make music.

As stated in my previous argument, somebody wanting to hear an AI-made song doesn't justify the fact that it will lower incentive for talented people to make music and overall reduce the amount of creativity that goes into the creation of music.

This is a spoken discussion about AI songs to some of the least. The first claim about most listeners skipping a track within a few seconds has no correlation to the argument that I'm making, and I did not claim that AI songs would dominate by existing. I claimed they'd simply play a role in the market, which would lower their incentive for talented people to make music. You acknowledge that my argument makes a fair point, and your only response is that it feels wrong to ban a whole kind of song for everyone. This doesn't actually address my argument and is simply an appeal to emotion-logical fallacy.