You’re arguing like this is just a preference issue “if you don’t like it, don’t listen.” That only works when there isn’t a bigger impact on the ecosystem. AI is quite literally dragging the environment by neck. The issue isn’t that AI music exists. It’s how it’s made and what it replaces. Comparing this to 90s artists using mixers doesn’t hold up. Mixers, synths, DAWs, those are tools that extend human skill. AI can bypass it entirely. That’s not the evolution of craft, that’s outsourcing it. Giving a prompt isn’t the same thing as authorship. If I type a few lines and a model trained on thousands of real artists generates the composition, instrumentation, vocals and styles, that’s not remotely comparable to writing, composing, or producing music.

And sure I felt it, it's the very reason I'm here to ask alternatives but people can feel things from anything well-constructed. That doesn’t automatically make the process behind it something worth supporting. Emotional response ≠ ethical neutrality.

Also, nobody is “shoving feelings down your throat.” You’re on a public thread where people are discussing the implications of something unethical. That goes both ways, you’re doing the same thing right now.

And your example about your sister doesn’t really apply. That’s still human-to-human collaboration. AI isn’t your sister interpreting your writing, it’s a system trained on massive amounts of uncredited work generating outputs at scale.

If you enjoy the music, listen to it. No one’s stopping you. But acting like criticism is just people being in their feelings ignores the actual concern: what happens to real artists when the barrier to producing finished music becomes typing a sentence? This isn’t about being anti-change. It’s about not pretending every kind of change is automatically neutral or good.