In many ways, it is a zero-sum game. Art is a form of communication, and people have a finite amount of time and attention. Some people enjoy seeing the craftsmanship of artists, and some artists enjoy displaying their mastery of the craft. Beyond that, people use craftsmanship as a proxy for care/thought put into a work. If you can successfully mimic the appearance of craftsmanship without the effort, a major incentive for artists to create, polish, and publish their work is now gone. If you're someone who enjoys viewing craftsmanship, or who tries to find for high quality work based on the craftsmanship put into it, how long will you be willing to look through a sea of increasingly convincing noise to find some kind of signal?
I don't think this type of argument is sound at all. There are plenty of programmers whose work doesn't contribute to automating away others' jobs, or those who might not see it in such a way. You are free to disagree with the opinions expressed by the poster above, but making such a sweeping generalization about how we shouldn't hold a supposedly hypocritical opinion based on some kind of imagined consensus seems like an excuse to promote your views over others' as the 'correct' ones.
The LLM erotic roleplaying community's usage of "slop" aligns with the definition in this paper, so it's not without precedent. Several novel sampling methods have originated from that community trying to address this specific issue.
The goal of AI automating labor should be to give us more leisure time to pursue hobbies, not to fill our limited leisure time with low quality substitutes for those hobbies.
Making an activity in which the primary limiting factors for most people are the time, knowledge, and effort required (as opposed to expensive tools) into an effortless slot machine pull is enfeebling to human creativity and agency. Who will spend the hours of making bad music to get to the point where they become good if they can just rely on something else to generate music that's "good enough"?
There's something to be said about all this which is related to AI generated images that I rarely see brought up: people with specific skills play roles within groups, so AI making their hobby that they dedicated so much time to more easily accessible makes them lose social value, which might make them quit altogether.
The common response that "people should make art because they love it, not for attention" is a prescriptive statement that supposes there are more or less "pure" forms of performing an activity and also ignores that art is a form of communication.
The tools and knowledge for making music are already unbelievably accessible. Anyone with an internet connection and a decent computer can read about music theory, learn to use a DAW, and get some basic virtual instruments. The same goes for producing art, which doesn't even require anything digital.
This does not augment the music making process in any way, it simply replaces it with what might as well be a gacha game. There's no low-level experimentation, no knowledge acquisition, no growth, and you can't even truly say you made whatever comes out.
It's not a tool for music creators, it's a tool for people who want slop that's "good enough".