The most practical consequence is that AI songs would drown out actual musicians overnight. Streaming platforms already have millions of tracks competing for attention, and the economics are brutal—payouts get split among whoever gets played. Flood the system with infinite AI-generated music, and real artists' streams become a drop in the ocean. The feedback loop is even worse: platforms optimize for what keeps listeners engaged, and if AI can pump out endless variations that satisfy algorithms, the system starts favoring machine content over human creativity. That's not hypothetical, it's how these recommendation engines already work. Discovery, the whole point of streaming for emerging artists, becomes a lottery stacked against anyone who can't mass-produce. And once the market fills with AI tracks, record labels and platforms have zero incentive to invest in human talent because the content pipeline never runs dry. The practical damage is real artists finding it impossible to earn a living, and that's a consequence we can't shrug off.

I was at a local open mic last week, and someone played a song about their grandmother. It wasn't perfect, but you could feel the years in it. No AI can generate that weight, because it never lived anything. And that's the core issue. Sure, synthesizers are tools, but they still need a human to play them, to make choices, to mess up in interesting ways. AI doesn't make choices based on experience. It just averages everything out. Your rules about deception and spam are fine on paper, but they forget the incentive loop. The platform rewards volume. Artists need to eat. So even honest musicians will feel pressured to crank out AI tracks just to stay visible, and suddenly the whole scene gets commodified. It's not about banning a tool. It's about protecting the space where human expression can survive the algorithm's hunger. Regulation won't fix that.

[No submission - Time expired]