Look, the other side might argue that AI music is just another tool, like synthesizers or auto-tune. But that misses the point entirely. Those tools still required human creativity and intention. AI-generated songs are just algorithms remixing existing data. They don't create anything new—they just statistically predict what sounds good based on already-existing human work. And that raises a huge fairness issue. Artists pour years into their craft, and then a machine trained on their songs floods the same platform, competing for plays and royalties. Streaming platforms are already terrible for paying artists. Adding AI tracks would only drown them out further. If we want actual music, not just noise that mimics music, we need to protect the space for human artistry.

So does "efficient" automatically make something good? A machine that cranks out songs in seconds isn't creating—it's just remixing what humans already made. You say listeners enjoy it, but enjoyment doesn't mean it's ethical. I enjoy a free meal, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to steal it. These AI models are trained on millions of copyrighted songs without permission or payment. That's not innovation, that's exploitation. And cheap music for listeners? Streaming already pays artists pennies. Flooding platforms with AI tracks won't make music cheaper for us—it'll just make it impossible for real musicians to compete. You get convenience, they lose their livelihood. That's not progress, that's a race to the bottom. If we want genuine creativity, not just statistically-generated copies, we need to keep AI out of the streaming ecosystem.

[No submission - Time expired]