Is the reason behind your refusal due to supporting artists, or due to quality? If quality: would you be open to AI-assisted but human reviewed art, especially when it's not the focus? Ie. if a game developer uses AI partially to do things that they aren't competent in, and likely AI is the reason the game actually sees the light of day. Would you prefer the game just never have been made? Will your view change if AI improves to the level where you can no longer tell the difference through the content alone?
If for supporting artists: do you hold the same opinion on generative AI in other areas (machine translation, software engineering, self-driving technologies)? What if the AI was used by an actual artist as part of the process, where the AI content doesn't make it into the final version (eg. designing concept art/inspiration, creating the wireframing for animation scenes, etc.)?
My personal opinion here is that some art is inherently about communicating a human message, which when replicated by AI loses meaning. However, in most places art is just transactional or filler - like in a poster, an educational video with animations, some parts of games, or a menu. I think that's okay.
If for supporting artists: do you hold the same opinion on generative AI in other areas (machine translation, software engineering, self-driving technologies)? What if the AI was used by an actual artist as part of the process, where the AI content doesn't make it into the final version (eg. designing concept art/inspiration, creating the wireframing for animation scenes, etc.)?
My personal opinion here is that some art is inherently about communicating a human message, which when replicated by AI loses meaning. However, in most places art is just transactional or filler - like in a poster, an educational video with animations, some parts of games, or a menu. I think that's okay.