Despite your personal fears I believe I spoke for the vast majority of cases rather than just for myself.

Although I suppose royalty-free stock music is the norm nowadays for most commercial uses, which takes it a step further, anonymizing the composer entirely...

> Although I suppose royalty-free stock music is the norm nowadays for most commercial uses, which takes it a step further, anonymizing the composer entirely...

That's by choice though?

By the composer, yes, but the composer here is the AI. In neither case did the musicians that the composer studied/trained on get asked.

And that's the point: The difference is the replacement of 1 flesh-and-blood composer with 1 virtual composer, with the consequence being the lost business of the former. The artists studied were never part of the transaction in either case.

Now, the long-term consequences for artists - e.g., reduced supply on the low end as they're out-competed - is harder to guess, but that's just market dynamics. It may very well increase supply as composition becomes more available, diversifying by allowing people with other skills or creative treats to create music that previously could not - even if the musical part is done by AI.

I meant, royalty free music is released/licensed by artists who get paid or are OK not being paid

but with AI whatever consequences there may be their work is highjacked/stolen.

The AI "stole" it's training data the same way that those fleshy composers "stole" their training data.

Not AI, people who trained AI and who use it for profit

You can learn yourself but if you use an automatic tool to bypass and automatically make similar works and compete with original authors then you're IP thief