AI-generated songs should be allowed because streaming platforms are meant to distribute music, not restrict creation based on how the music was produced. Banning AI music because it could compete with human artists is like banning a new creative tool because it changes the industry. Instead, platforms can require AI labeling and use fair policies for creators. AI can make music creation more accessible while still giving listeners the choice of what they want to hear. The issue should be how AI is used, not whether AI-created music is allowed to exist.

The environmental concern is legitimate, but their argument jumps from “AI consumes resources” to “therefore AI music should not be allowed.” The IEA estimates data centers used about 415 TWh of electricity in 2024 and projects roughly 945 TWh by 2030, while also noting that efficiency improvements can significantly reduce future demand. Yes, AI has an environmental cost. But that doesn't prove AI-generated music should be banned from streaming platforms. Data centers already serve countless digital services, and the IEA projects efficiency improvements that could cut future data-center electricity demand by more than 15% compared with its base case. � If your argument is that unnecessary energy use makes a form of music unacceptable, then prove why AI music specifically crosses that line instead of simply pointing out that AI consumes electricity.

You're using the planet as an argument for banning AI music without actually proving the scale of the harm. If the problem is millions of pointless generation requests, then regulate excessive generation or improve data-center efficiency. And saying a song is ‘forgettable’ doesn't tell us how much energy it consumed. You need to prove that AI music creates enough additional environmental damage to justify banning it, not just prove that AI uses electricity.”