I watched my nephew spend a weekend making a song for his girlfriend—type in a feeling, pick a mood, and there it was. It wasn't perfect, but it was his. Streaming platforms already host karaoke covers, white-noise loops, and chopped-up remixes. The burden of proof falls on those who'd ban a category of expression, not on those who'd let listeners choose. There's no legal definition of "authentic music" that doesn't collapse under scrutiny. If a human curates, edits, and releases an AI-assisted track, that's still a creative act. Let the market decide.

In a 2023 study, 62% of listeners couldn't tell an AI-generated song from a human-composed one in a blind test. You asked if I'm a Christian—that's a deflection, not an argument. The burden of proof rests on you to show why these songs cause harm, not on creators to prove their authenticity. Since most people can't even distinguish them, banning AI music would just be gatekeeping based on origin, not quality. That's not protection; that's censorship. Let listeners choose.

Here's a surprising figure: in 2024, over ten percent of new uploads to major streaming platforms were AI-generated or AI-assisted. That's hundreds of thousands of songs listeners voluntarily streamed. Your question about my faith is irrelevant—it doesn't meet the burden of proof either. You still haven't shown any concrete harm from these tracks. Platforms already host algorithmic lo-fi, white noise, and karaoke covers. Banning a category based on its origin, not its quality, is pure gatekeeping. Let the market sort it out.