TL:DR is the researchers may be biased in their conclusion because they've:

a) Worked at/for a clinical research company, health NPOs and others.

b) Had their education funded by the government & NPO.

c) Received research funding from NPOs, advocacy groups, research institutes.

The young teenagers who frequented internet cafes are now working and have disposable income. They no longer need to rent a gaming pc when they can buy it for themselves. Gaming also became a common lexicon when they started creating a family. Also communicating with friends online has become much easier compared to the high days of the internet cafe.

How is this an exact opposite of the OP's piece? The two takeaways you can get is:

- As there are no external motives (eg. for profit) held by the AI when analyzing the works it is not a copyright infringement.

- Parsing through whether the data set is legally obtained is not feasible therefore that shouldn't be the limiting factor to further development.

However as the transcript was uploaded last month, things may have changed since then.

Not a music producer but I have been using this service since launch for some of my projects. Fairly user friendly I think. Although new genres have been added, older ones haven't changed much in terms of variety of melodies.