The other side assumes AI songs are a zero-sum game, that every stream an AI track gets is stolen from a human artist. That's not how markets work. Adding AI to the supply curve gives listeners more choice, and choice doesn't disappear—it shifts. Some people want novelty, others specifically want human emotion. That's a differentiated market, not a takeover. In game theory terms, both can coexist in a Nash equilibrium where each serves a distinct audience. Blocking AI outright just creates a monopoly for incumbents and slows innovation. Let the platforms compete, and let listeners decide.

Imagine a commuter who just wants background music to focus, not a emotional journey. For them, AI-generated tracks fill a real need that human artists often don't serve cheaply. I'll concede the emotion point—human artists do have a comparative advantage in feeling. But that's exactly why banning AI is wrong: it forces everyone into one strategy instead of letting the market segment. In game theory, total welfare rises when both products coexist. Human artists move upmarket, AI covers the functional tier, and listeners win. Blocking one side just leaves table stakes on the floor.

The real question isn't whether AI songs are good, it's whether we trust listeners to choose. Banning AI to protect growing artists assumes a fixed pie, but that's a zero-sum fallacy. In a crowded market, human artists actually benefit from AI existing: it raises the bar for cheap imitation and makes genuine creativity more valuable as a differentiator. The artists who lose are the ones trying to compete on volume instead of emotion. That's not AI taking away creativity, that's the market finally pricing it correctly. Let both compete, and let the listeners decide the equilibrium.