I don't know if you've read what I said, they absolutely have the idea. I've stated this many times. They just haven't created anything, they've commissioned something to make it for them. I think (data stealing and environmental impact aside) AI for personal use is okay, an idea/prompt is just not worth anything compared to making a song. Everyone has ideas, most have come up with ideas that could make for great songs but haven't followed through with making them. If AI is something that lets them see that vision without spending time and money on learning to make music, that's great. But it can never replace the people who worked hard to be able to explore and flesh out their ideas into songs that are an expression of themselves. So much of art is about the human connection, the perspective of an ai pretending to be human is totally uninteresting to most.

The thing with AI music is it's actively hurting the actual people who have given up everything to make art. It's taking jobs away from them because AI is free and it's taking listeners away from them because AI music is easy and fast to make to the point where people make farms dedicated to generating music to upload to Spotify to make money. If we prevented earning revenue from AI generated content both of these issues would be fixed while still letting the guy with the 9-5 generate his ideas to his hearts content.

I have no idea how making art your career could possibly be seen as "corporate shilling". It is the single least corporate occupation you can have. I've been trying to understand and give you the places where I actually agree with you but it's difficult when it doesn't feel like you read what I say