There are several things that would make it difficult or impossible for people. Advanced MS, missing limbs. Conditions such as dyspraxia that effect motor control.
Confirmation biased assumption. You have taken from my statement that which supports your beliefs in a logical fallacy of assumptive belief. And whilst I do agree that I support your statements to the extent that professional developers and those who have the capacity to finance development teams should not be using generative AI the fact remains that it is an invaluable tool to solo, hobbyist developers.
Its not about the speed of the process. I have spent days working on a single image. Its about having a creative vision and stories to tell and having the ability that never existed before to bring that to life visually in a way that never existed before generative AI without having to hire a team of developers at great expense. That is not a luxury most people can afford - especially in the type of games we make and play through this forum.
Or let’s say you get lucky and you get people volunteering their services for free - that only works when it is a collaborative effort planned out by the whole team from the outset. Every person added is another viewpoint, another set of ideas, another creative vision and these all need to be balanced or you end up with discord and strife and the project collapses. There’s a very good example of that from this very forum - Love is the Way to My Heart.
Now don’t get me wrong - I’m not against people forming development teams to make games. That would be lunacy. But that doesn’t mean that everyone a) wants to do that b) should feel they need to be part of a development team in order to make a game. It would also be the height of arrogance that if I am the “creative director”, for want of a better term, behind a project that I started by myself and was later to bring others in so that I could avoid using generative AI content to demand strict adherence to my creative vision and not allow any input from others. Which changes the nature of what is created. Which is fine from an objective point of view.
You have mentioned I don’t create art - this is true. In as much as visuals go. And at no point have I claimed to be creating art - or if I have I meant it in the vague sense of calling “visual assets” for a game “the artwork”. In a work that is principally about story, with the visuals merely window dressing, the art is in the tale that is told. If I can make even one person feel something with the words I have written then I have done my work. The written word is as much an art form as any form of visual media. Arguably, it is the most true expression of art. It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words - but words are the means by which we derive meaning, they are at the very core of human connection and interaction.
And to circle back to my original point regarding confirmation bias - this is not an academic forum for peer review. You can reference all the articles in support of your arguments that you like - it doesn’t make your point of view any more valid. If anything, it dilutes it. Not standing on its own merits but propped up by reliance on the crutch of the work done by others, not unlike the AI you so abhor.
In hindsight, I should have avoided this whole needlessly inflammatory thread and seen it for what it is before engaging but I was bored. “Feedeth ye not the trolls, lest ye be shat upon.”