Inspiration. According to the Musician's Institute/College of Music, AI music can be used to recommend songs to users based on their listening habits, "Another benefit of AI in music production is the ability to personalize the listening experience." Further stating, that companies already utilize AI in order to streamline services to those who use their apps, such as Spotify and Apple Music. In Spotify, there exists a "Prompted Playlist" released to users worldwide, (for Premium Users only), which, of course allows users to give a prompt to AI in order for the AI to tailor music to them based on said prompt. It can also act as a catalyst to provide musicians with real inspiration for a theme, mood, or even beat for their music. However, a real issue that may reach artists who decide to use a piece of AI generated music is around the legality of the music. With this being said, AI-generated music, samples, or any such ideas generated from AI in relation to music cannot be copyrighted. From the U.S. copyright office, of copyright.gov, a report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence was published in July 31st 2024, stating that "No court has recognized copyright in material created by non-humans, and those that have spoken on this issue have rejected the possibility"( p. 15). Furthermore, the College of Musicians states, "AI is not a replacement for human creativity, but rather a tool to enhance it. " Additionally, the music that which is created by AI, is fairly unique with infinite possibilities for each artist, or creative using the AI tool, erasing any possible risk of two artists sounding similar *because* of the AI generated music used in their creative process. This is supported by The Association for Computing Machinery, where in an article published in July 19, 2024, they state, "AI-AMG systems are potentially capable of creating an infinite number of unique affective music compositions and composing music without any associated time constraint" (p. 2) Lastly, a quote from an English singer and songwriter expresses, "AI as a tool in music-making is fine, but it's always going to be the humanity in music that makes people want to listen to it". This proves that creativity, IS purely human. These arguments are not to say that AI is human, or that it is creative. It is to say that AI songs, should and can be used because of the fact they inspire artists, cannot be copyrighted, and because the possibilities of their potential are endless.

I completely understand how you see human art is about expression, and it absolutely is. As I stated before, Jacob Collier, an English singer and songwriter, said "AI as a tool in music-making is fine, but it's always going to be the humanity in music that makes people want to listen to it." The negative team is failing to understand the point I am mentioning, and failing to refute them. The negative team states, that AI is trained on copyright material; however, as reported by the United States Copyright Office in a report from 2024 about AI and Copyright, it is clearly shown that AI *cannot* be copyrighted whatsoever, making the possibilities for creators endless. Furthermore, due to the fact that "AI-AMG systems are potentially capable of creating an infinite number of unique affective music compositions and composing music without any associated time constraint", as documented by the Association for Computing Machinery, different artists who use AI would not be able to see any form of repetition between their songs because of AI (this does not account for any other factors), due to the fact the songs which AI would provide unique music compositions. (p. 2) Furthermore, as stated before, streaming services have already implemented AI in their apps. For example, Spotify has implemented a "Prompt Playlist" feature for those who have Spotify Premium. There is no point in denying the already accelerating technology within our musical communities. The negative team states that streaming platforms are already a mess for real artists trying to make a living, but does not specify how or to what extent. They do not give a percentage or any such example as to how many artists are "drowning", or for what reason. Their claims are based solely on emotions and are completely baseless, with a lack of evidence. Also, they state that AI can copy patterns but doesn't feel anything, however, they completely ignore that my point is that they should be used as a tool to help real human artists and that AI, in fact, cannot be creative but it can help humans be creative.

Streaming platforms understand that human music garner more attention. Here's the fallacy within your argument: when fully AI music is generated and accessible on streaming platforms, it can still inspire real people's music. There is no competition between AI music and organic music simply because people who choose to listen to AI music, specifically prefer that. There is no "competition" between AI and organic music. AI can create infinitely different types of music genres and songs, but humans create things that mean something. If those who choose to listen to AI music prefer something artificial, they would not see organic music as an option altogether. It is like comparing being a lawyer specializing in immigration, to a lawyer in corporate law. Why would you keep people from listening to AI music, if they simply prefer it Next, your copyright argument falls on the following front: Ai's training data does not include copyrighted songs. As I stated before, the United States Copyright Office clearly said any song created by AI cannot be copyrighted, no matter where its data originates from. Lastly, I would like to point out the negative team fails to refute the fact that their claims are based on a lack of evidence; that streaming services have already incorporated AI music, and AI, to not see that and lean into its benefits, would be to fall behind; that they do not specify how AI music is in competition with real people; and they do not refute the fact that the United States Copyright Office has an officially published report stating AI cannot be copyrighted, particularly for the reason that they understand it *isn't* a competition to real artists.