Not sure that article is making the point you have in mind:
“people let playlists run on in the background when they serve inoffensive, bland music they can’t be bothered to turn off. If you look at the music Spotify has broken, it’s all chill-out stuff. That isn’t art, it’s wallpaper.”
As I said, we will see in 2 years. I am confident that your prediction (which was not "widespread music generation" but quite specific - in a platform in which the majority of streaming is generated by a handful of artists) will be spectacularly wrong.
I'm sure the names of the "handful of artists" will still be attached to the music, it's just the music will be AI generated. Most of those artists don't compose their hits anyway.
Yes, I expected goal-post moving in line of "even if a single beat is AI-generated, the entire song counts for AI-generated".
Or, the more likely one, in this case, "the first draft of the beat was AI-generated, then human-edited and the vocals were by the singer but they were processed, so it's AI-generated". Typical singularitarian bullshit.
No goal-post moving here, I predict that the entire song, every sound in it, including vocals, will be AI generated. Optionally with the name of your favorite human artist attached to it. Whether people will know (or care) that it's fully AI generated I don't know, it depends on how Spotify decides to promote such songs.
I don't know about half, but if Spotify don't have a large AI team they're missing the boat. They have a perfect opportunity to segue their audience into cheap content they create themselves.
You know how I know? The Rolling Stones are still touring. Most people don’t go to Spotify or YouTube for discovery, they go for convenient on demand.