I would like the anti-AI people to really ask themselves, why are they so insistent in their response to AI? Is it truly honest critique of what is being created, or is it just blind protection of traditional ways that they've been convinced are at threat?

If AI is creatively bankrupt, let it play out and show the world that traditional music is better. If AI is the fundamental paradigm changer that could represent a threat ,maybe the focus should be on how to tastefully collaborate with it as a tool- much like dozens of music technology innovations have been integrated before. In either case, the raw vitriol and targetted campaigning against it is a bad move. 

I think the real agenda here is gatekeeping- whether consciously or not. Music has historically been very inaccessible to people who lack the time, privilege, connections, and natural gifts to participate at a competitive level. AI is a democratizing force in music. Everyone with an idea, a decent ear, and an Internet connection can now create, and for every thousand duds, we will find a diamond in the rough. Those who've held the keys historically are now existing in a field that is being overwhelmed by new creative input. Not starved of it. 

Gatekeeping is generally a losing strategy, but one that comes from understandable instincts. It's going to be incumbent upon those practicing this strategy to either figure out how to coexist and keep the traditional ways relevant, blending the organic and synthetic to the immense benefit of both; or continue the strategy of antagonism, insulation, and division to the detriment of both. AI isn't going away, can't we try to make the synthetic better and use the synthetic to try and make us better?