I dont mind AI character designs, following promts by humans, and them then picking what suits them most.
Or A.I giving ideas or concepts about how the enviroment in the game should look (generated on the spot) and then the artists pick which suits best ect.
All ofc given a once over and touch up, by human artists.

A.I should be a tool to make things easier in game development.
Mostly from the art design department.

It's not art if it's AI and AI generates it by stealing. So no. Humans have been doing amazing art for thousands of years without the need of any AI assitence. A tool in art is a paint brush or tools in Photoshop. The artist is still making the image. Photoshop or a brush helps fill it in. AI is taking over a creative proccess with no creativity.

Anyone simping over that idiot is also an idiot. Never simp with a nazi.

Sure, but he makes all the soulless sheep in the hivemind act like whiney bitches and brainlessly parrot words like "Nazi" so it's a win-win.  More importantly, his presence shines a light on the hypocrites who think his wealth gives him an unfair advantage but had no problem with the technology sector being completely dominated by billionaires from the left.  Part of the reason the Democrats lost was because they turned the internet into their own little bubble and thought it represented the world.  Musk is good for them because he breaks the false sense of security they had fostered with their own wealth and power.  Plus it's interesting to watch elitist bullies throw tantrums like children when they get challenged in areas where they thought they were unassailable.  

We are probably 2-10 years away from AI with real reasoning and creativity abilities in the sense that humans are capable of (and beyond.) That's about when we'll have Level 3/Level 4 agents that will be quite capable at out-of-distribution generalization. 

In that scenario, humans (until robotics catches up with ML, which might not be long) will be assisting AI agents, rather than vice-versa. AI agents will probably take the role of art directors. 

Quite honestly we should start worrying about how people are going to survive when the mass of human labor is outmoded. In a system designed for the bulk of the human population being laborers to survive, that system needs to be outmoded as well. 

We were warned in 1984. Skynet. Good news I won't be alive in 10 more years so I don't have to see it

I am a bit more optimistic. I think there is a good possibility that we can live in a society akin to The Culture, if we make the correct early decisions when designing the initial systems. I do think there is a significant risk though too, albeit it probably won't look like terminator. Fighting a conventional war wouldn't make sense when you could just engineer something else that would bring far less resistance (i.e a virus that causes a further decline in human birth-rates.) 

My personal opinion is that any cost-benefit-risk assessment needs to consider all x-risks. If we are almost certainly going to be massively devastated from climate change (which it seems to be the case) or nuclear war, building advanced intelligences might be the better option than not, if the x-risk of doing so is less than the x-risk of the prior events.

I don't really get the stealing argument. When Stephen King wrote his book "On Writing", his most important (in his own words) advice for aspiring writers was: read, read and read more. Every good artist learned by looking at other art. That is why you see progression in art, not every human invents art on their own from scratch, they build on each other. Look at medieval art and modern. Or even more back, look at cave paintings.

Artists have gone from this:

to this:

to this:

This progress happened because the artist didn't start from scratch, they knew the previous art, they learned from it, they "stole" from it.

This happens today as well. Elden Ring learned from Breath of the Wild, as Miyazaki himself says, and it helps make it a better game.

If your argument would be AI is lacking creativity (hard to pin down really) or is bland and bad, then it would be a much stronger argument. The theft argument though - it is kinda weak, because human artists do the same.

Hmm, there is strong indication that current AI ran out of training data, because they already absorbed *everything* humankind has produced over the millenia. That's why OpenAI trained a Speech-to-text AI, so that they can access the content of videos. That doesn't mean there aren't some improvements possible, but we might well have hit another ceiling for the moment and need a new breakthrough, just as this paper was the breakthrough that lead to the current AI development.

But yes, we need to rethink how to organize labor. There are two scenarios, the one there everyone is poor except a few tech billionares and one there AI is put to produce wealth for everyone. And surprisingly these scenarios were already thought through about a decade ago, the story Manna by Marshall Brain. I highly recommend that read if you think about the AI future.

American media always seems to see technological improvement as something to fear. The Skynet scenario (or to go to the works where Terminator stole that idea from: Larry Ellison's 1967 story "I have no mouth, and I must scream") seems unlikely, unless we leave AI development solely in the hands of the military. AI doesn't have a reason to wipe us out. It could happen accidental, but not in a targeted way like Skynet.

Outside of America there are more positive views on an AI future, like:

Yeah, the Culture cycle is a great set of novels, that show how AI and humankind (and alienkind) can coexist and thrive. Key points here are treating AI as equals to humans, holding every live at great value and providing the basic necessities without a capitalist society.

Your risk-weighing also seems productive. Yes, we should consider that AI can help us for instance on climate change. But we also should not rely on it and try other avenues as well.