Look, if we ban AI songs because they're not "human enough," we're heading down a ridiculous slope. If that were true, then we'd have to ban drum machines, autotune, and half of electronic music history. Streaming platforms aren't museums for human purity; they're marketplaces for what people actually want to hear. Some AI tracks are bad, sure, but so is plenty of human-made music. The gatekeepers shouldn't decide what's authentic art—that's not their job. If listeners like it, it belongs there. Mayonnaise, you're acting like the algorithm is a threat, but it's just another tool.

Look, if the climate argument is the hill you want to die on, then we should ban Netflix, cloud gaming, and every data center on the planet before we touch songs. AI training is a genuine concern, but it doesn't justify blocking the output. As for harming musicians? That's the same panic we heard when sampling came out, and now every producer uses it. The practical consequence of allowing AI tracks is that independent artists can compete without expensive studios. Ban them and you're just protecting the big labels who already have all the marketing muscle. You don't fix that by closing the door.

Here's a surprising fact: a 2023 survey found over half of professional musicians already use AI tools in their own workflow. So if we ban AI songs, we're not protecting humans—we're banning humans who use the tech. And with climate, if that's the reason to restrict, then we should shut down all of streaming, because servers run 24/7 for human music too. That argument would mean no digital music at all. You can't selectively ban AI tracks without banning the entire infrastructure. Protecting musicians means protecting their right to use every tool available, not locking the door on one.