I do think I have a general principle, which is: once we have a new capability, we can use it to reach further or to reach the same places with less effort. Reaching further seems objectively good; reaching the same places with less effort is more of a gray area.
I realise there's an argument for democratization, for reducing friction to put creativity in the hands of more people. Say you're a great artist who could make beautiful games but don't know how to code, you might use AI as a crutch to enable you to express your art. Same if you're a coder or have great ideas about game design but don't have graphics available to make the whole product happen.
If AI is covering all fronts though, we're throwing the baby with the bathwater here. There's no talent allowed to shine, no message that can now be better delivered, no idea better expressed. it's all wrapping.
and notice how the message from google is not 'reach more people', or 'let your talent shine'. The message is 'type a whim from your couch and you'll get it instantly'. Quick empty dopamine, no quality involved.
Every person decides what to do with their saved time. Some people may want to use a ready made game, others may prefer to write a story or alter the script of the game. The ones who play a ready made game may express their creativity in areas not related to gaming.
You are judging people for not doing what you think they should do. As if your role was to be their social engineer.
It really isn't, presumably you go to a restaurant to enjoy someone else's work, and the owner put some effort at the dishes.
I suspect you'll struggle to find an example of human activity where there is no effort or agency in both the consumer and the maker.
>You are judging people for not doing what you think they should do. As if your role was to be their social engineer.
Kind of a weird argument. Now you're judging me for the writings of my post, as if you were my editor (?). Of course debate implies voicing an opinion.