There is a line somewhere between copying a style (which seems to be fine) and copying a song. I suppose that has to be judged on a case by case basis. And it's not something new. We've had Red Hot Chili Peppers cover bands who need to pay them to use their songs. And bands who play original songs in the style of RHCP. I've been to such a concert in some pub like 7 years ago and it was awesome. I don't think that's copyright infringement. But they had a very very similar style, a name that was a pun on the original and even the vocalist did a good job of sounding similar to Anthony Kiedis.
I'm not sure what kinds of laws there are. But if that's okay, I think same should apply to AI.
I'm a bit split on the whole topic. Artists get ripped off anyways. Look at what Spotify pays them, and we can skip arguing about other things. They take 15€ from me and forward next to nothing to smaller artists. And I've rarely heard original songs in the radio. I think 99% of music is dull pop songs made for radio and to appease. Always a similar set of instruments, one of the common chord progressions, not too adventurous so it can be played on radio, same small set of topics they sing about. It's not my music and I don't feel anything when listening to that kind of music. I don't mind at all if that gets replaced by AI.
My thinking is: If that's the level of creativity the artists are able to come up with, they deserve to get replaced by AI. And if the audience wants dull, canned pop made in a factory (as it's been for some time already), they, too, don't deserve any better.