Music has always evolved with technology. From synthesizers to digital production software, every innovation was once criticized. AI is simply another creative tool. AI makes music creation more accessible. Independent artists, beginners, and people with limited resources can create and share music without expensive equipment or studios. It encourages creativity rather than limiting it. Some argue that AI threatens human musicians. However, the solution is not to ban AI but to regulate its use. Streaming platforms can require proper labeling and ensure copyright laws are respected, allowing both human-made and AI-generated music to coexist fairly. Ultimately, streaming platforms are about giving listeners choice. If AI-generated music is created ethically and people enjoy listening to it, there is no reason to ban it.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that because AI can be used to copy an artist, allowing AI music automatically means artists will be buried by copies. That simply doesn't follow. Unauthorized cloning is a copyright and identity issue, and it should be treated as one. If someone uploads a thousand cloned versions of an artist's music, platforms can remove those tracks, block repeat offenders, and prevent them from earning royalties. We already do this with stolen music, fake streams, and other forms of copyright abuse without banning the entire platform. More importantly, AI does not make human creativity worthless simply because it makes production cheaper. A song's value isn't determined by how difficult it was to produce; it's determined by whether people actually want to hear it. In fact, Deezer reports that although around 75,000 AI-generated tracks are uploaded every day, they account for only about 1–3% of total streams. That means enormous upload volume has not translated into overwhelming listener attention. So the real choice isn't "human musicians or machines." It's whether we create rules that stop AI from impersonating and exploiting human artists while still allowing legitimate creators to use a new tool. Protect the artist's identity and work, absolutely,but don't confuse regulating AI abuse with banning AI music.

I don't doubt that experience, but one personal example cannot prove that AI music makes human creativity worthless. The real question is whether AI itself caused the loss of attention and revenue, or whether the platform failed to properly moderate spam, imitation, and unauthorized content. Those are problems that can be regulated without banning legitimate AI music. And the synthesizer comparison doesn't require AI to work exactly like a synthesizer; the point is that new technology has repeatedly changed how music is created without eliminating human creativity. A piano, drum machine, sampler, or digital audio workstation can all make production easier, but none of them determine what audiences actually value. The same applies to AI. In fact, Deezer reports that around 75,000 AI-generated tracks are uploaded every day, yet they account for only 1–3% of total streams. If infinite AI production automatically stole listeners from human artists, we'd expect those numbers to look very different. The answer to unfair imitation isn't to ban the technology; it's to stop unauthorized cloning, remove spam, protect artists' rights, and make AI-generated content transparent. Human creativity doesn't become worthless because creation becomes easier, the audience still decides what deserves to be heard.