I get the appeal of AI music—it's a fun toy and a neat trick. But letting that trick flood streaming platforms treats a cultural commons like a dump site. Real artists already fight to get noticed alongside millions of tracks; adding an infinite supply of soulless facsimiles just buries their work deeper. If we say yes to unlimited AI songs, we're telling every songwriter that their labor is worth the same as a prompt. That's not innovation, that's devaluing the one thing streaming still has left: human expression.

So jimrot597 just made my case for me: AI songs copy existing artists and leave human creators feeling like their work is worthless. That's not an argument for allowing them—that's the exact reason to keep them out. Streaming is already a flood; letting an infinite generator dump unoriginal clones on top just makes the platform a landfill instead of a venue. Innovation doesn't come from mimicry, it comes from humans taking risks. And if we let AI drown that out, we're not expanding music, we're just licensing it to die by machine.

Is jimrot597 secretly arguing for my side? Every point they make—AI copying artists, killing motivation, turning creativity into a prompt—is exactly why these songs shouldn't be on streaming. If the best defense of AI music is that it gives everyone instant copies of their favorite artists, then we're not talking about music, we're talking about a photocopier with a beat. Streaming platforms should be for human expression, not for an infinite feed of algorithmically generated echoes. Let AI be a tool in the studio, sure. But don't let it flood the shelves.