The problem isn't amplification, it's generation.

The embodied carbon cost of what you're doing is substantial; it's not simply the cost to run, but the embodied carbon in the Sparks is massive, as is that involved in training and distributing the models themselves. If you're using this system to generate new music each time you play something (which seems implied in your post), it's like buying an album on a physical format, listening to it once, then throwing it away and buying another (similar) one, and doing the same over and over again. Only what you're doing involves a LOT more rare earth metals and non-recyclable future e-waste.

Streaming music alone was already more consumptive than previous formats (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/popular-music/article/abs/cost-of-music/DEC6AA100C191D510213F9086CF094CC). But what you've deployed here is orders of magnitude more consumptive than the typical user streaming to their phone; data centers are at least reasonably efficient at their (ecologically catastrophic) jobs in terms of co2/stream, which your setup is far from. You've created an additional, unwarranted step in the consumption of music, using what is widely understood to be one of the most consumptive technological infrastructures (generative AI) that humanity has ever produced, and you're doing it during an unfolding climate crisis.