AI-generated songs now account for approximately 44% of new uploads and less than 1% of actual listener streams. My case is that if AI can publish research, and it can make music that it SHOULD belong on streaming platforms. Tell me, given that low listener rate, why should humans have the least concern of whether AI-generated songs belong on streaming platforms since music IS music just of differing quality dependent on one's taste.

Whilst it may feel "off", recall what happened in chess when computers arguably by the early 2000s surpassed all humans in chess. What was the result? AI-generated insights into games but it did not kill the game of chess but reworked what the game meant and what having a human champion means. Now back to music, whilst I applaud the artists putting themselves out there, there are many people with no talent and without money and if I recall correctly 1 in 3 Australians cannot afford music lessons. What can this do? AI tutor platforms and EXTEND what music is. Whilst it is true 44% of new uploads and nearly half of songs uploaded on a daily basis are AI, the statistic Which is is of futher relevance is that this accounts for less than 1% of LISTENED STREAMS!! So therefore, it is still borderline impossible that human artists are being drowned out.

My opposition still HAS NOT ANSWERED how platforms are '[getting] flooded' IF less than ONE PERCENT of LISTENED STREAMS are AI generated. Thus, it is more likely by statistics that HUMANS hold the edge in the music industry, and they are NOT 'being flooded' and my opponent has yet to provide any statistic not objective data on this debate. Additionally it is important to regard that my opponent has not provided any chain of logic apart from 'no real band'.