> you sound like someone from the 1800's shouting about how photography should be banned and not allowed to crowd out hard working painters.

I'm saying that you shouldn't call photographs paintings because they aren't paintings. I don't particularly care if people make AI "music" or "art" and I don't particularly care if they consume it (people have been consuming awful media for the entire history of humanity, they aren't going to stop because I say so), but if you give me a ham sandwich and call it a hamburger I am going to be annoyed and tell you that it isn't a hamburger and to stop calling it that because you're misleading people who actually appreciate hamburgers.

AI "art" isn't art. I don't care whether you like it. It's like fractals or rock formations or birdsong - it may be aesthetically appealing to some people, but that isn't the definition of art.

> if you cant create something that competes with AI slop

Nothing can compete with AI slop when the ratio is 100000:1 AI slop vs real music.

Look at Google search results... they're not all AI slop yet, but they're 100000:1 content mills vs useful results.

Can artists compete with algorithms that push AI slop because it costs less to license?