I think you're looking at this wrong. If I have an idea for a song I my head, I could record myself humming or sining it. While it might represent a thought, feeling or experience it's not going to be very pleasant. With AI, I will be able to transform it into something enjoyable. That is creation and not just generation.
Between someone that generated music from ideas, and someone that spent time and thinking and practicing to refine and these ideas, each will not relate the same to the end result. If only because the latter will know which happy/sad accidents made it to the end, and which did not, based on a specific judgement, or moment.
I've already done both. Generators are only good to produce specific ideas to integrate sometimes, at most.
It's exactly the same difference between writing your own novel, and getting it written by a text generator. You don't relate to the story, and to the characters, the same way. You may not even _explain_ them the same way.
But you can use AI and still refine these ideas. The entry is just easier.
On a walk -> Idea -> hum melody into website -> listen if that is something that floats your goat. And then you can follow the traditional way of midi keyboard + daw or however you produce.
Did you reply to me? I'm the OP of this comment tread so it's not me who is missing the point at all. In the context of my original post, AI in music will be a barrier to entry for _creation_. It is not relevant how Spotify use AI in music.
It's your conjecture that using AI tools doesn't involve a creative act. That conjecture may be true inside your mind, but so far you haven't provided support for it through your words - all you did was scream into the void as if everyone who doesn't agree with your conjecture is mad.
