If you don't enjoy composing music, just don't do it, and give it to someone who does, and has the experience/knowledge/culture/practice/gut to do it.
It's just that.. you can't master something you don't practice and understand. It's true in every single thing in life you do, sports, literature, maths, music, cuisine, kindness, etc.
If you don't like to compose music, why suffer this and even submit to the randomness of some computer program, rather than giving the opportunity to another fellow human to open your ears and your mind to what they appreciate doing?
You can generate your music if you like. It just cannot compare to something a human really did on her own, and invested of her desire, time, practice, research, even a beginner.
It's not a matter of being professional or not. The best musicians I know are not professionals, they all have a day job.
For every famous star for one given instrument, you have 10s of undiscovered/local better musicians that just are carpenters, cooks, painters, drivers, factory workers.
I think "stop not enjoying it" is a better line to take. Like with AI illustrations (where I'd much rather see a blog author's crappy biro drawings instead), terrible amateur efforts with some online 808 emulator or whatever would be more entertaining and interesting than AI output.
"Giving it someone who does" is also an opportunity to socialise and grow a mutual understanding of said music desire. That's sometimes even how collaborations start. But that's not on short notice...
Perhaps generators could be also seen as some kind of introductory instruments to wet the appetite of becoming musicians?
This supposes that the music is the end goal, and the very point of my comment is that it doesn't always have to be, and in those cases "just don't do it" also means not doing whatever comes after.
Just as you state below, this doesn't replace creating music for the creation's sake. I don't believe it will, or should. It merely replaces having nothing at all, or having the 100,000th video with the same upbeat stock sound.
Well it has the benefit of being true.
These API composers perform a task many humans want to do. And there are roughly zero consumers of music saying "you know what's missing from the music market? music made with no human input."
This strictly serves capital. The goal is to destroy more artists livelihood to marginally increase the wealth of already wealthy people.
By the same logic synthesizers shouldn't have been invented that allowed people to make advanced sounds without tediously learning an instrument first, consumers should remain priced out of microphones and editing software, etc.
Like I said, I am not trying to feign ignorance on the drawbacks of the tech which is very real and far from negligible. I am not a tech bro AI maximalist. I just do believe that hyperbole will not put the djinn back into the bottle, and pretending like there isn't a real market between nothing and paying or being a composer isn't adding anything to the conversation.
Tell me one example how music gen in any way benefits anybody to the level that is worth putting out of business the last few artists that make ends meet?
We would be better off if the other 99.9% didn't have worry about making ends meet, than if we do whatever it takes to keep the status quo of the 0.1% intact. That does not only go for artists.
Check how many ai songs are uploaded daily to spotify and any other platform.
And show me a few of those artists that hate making music and welcome ai.