Let me first apologize for the wall of text, but i am not willing to make it shorter. So double sorry.
I don't have any issue with AI generated content. And I'm a person (one of many) that is not 'tired' of that content. So, you know, don't pretend you are representing others. And talking about your points:
'unethical: uses other people's art, writing, photos from social media, without their consent'
while it's true that most of models are trained on copyrighted material. The art styles (anime, ghibly, photo, 3d, etc),literature genres (like horror, sci fi, etc) and so on. Can not be copyrighted. The crime is pirating content to create the model, but that doesn't make the model unlegal, the same that doesn't made an artist a criminal because he learned drawing watching pirated manga. And while they may not be popular, there are models trained with CC0/public domain content.
'*takes jobs from artists, writers and musicians'
50/50. While it is a new technology that apparently does a lot of stuff, the truth is that while the quality may be acceptable, you still need the technical art knowledge (color theory, music theory, composition, editing and so on) to create something good with it. It ease weight off the shoulders to professional and small creators, but it's doesn't fully replace. And by the way, you then may wanna come with (but x company fires n amount of exployees) yeah. But those professionals where fired by idiot bosses not AI itself. If they are good, they will (and pretty much are) hired by other companies of the same ones they where fired, when all begin to fall down.
'*unoriginal: no human creativity or insight used to create it'
And how you know something is original or not? look at all art humanity created since the dawn of days, and you will see it's all references, representations and remixes of existing things to say the least. Tolkien didn't create the fantasy genre, Terminator wasn't the first 'evil robot' (in fact, Skynet is based in AM) and so on. What we understand as creative and original, in the end is just a uncommon remix.
'*wastes tons of electricity and water to run the data centers'
Same datacenters that holds mail services, video streaming (and any other types of streaming), wikipedia, and pretty much all (in fact, the water is not 'destroyed forever' but evaporated to the air (forming clouds and so on), you know, water cycle) Also, you have local AI's that work in consumer hardware and are less energy demanding and don't use water for refrigeration.
'*the data centers are built by clearcutting tons of land that used to be home to many native plants and animals who now have been displaced from their habitats'
Dude (or girl) same as pencil and paper, and don't forget that to create pencils you need to also mine the graphite out of the earth. (in fact, pencil and paper can be even worse, since you had to chop more trees to create more.)
'*in the US, laid-off workers are being paid diminishing fees to train the algorithms that are replacing them.'
I don't know about it, but sounds hard to believe. how that is suppose works? 'Hey employee, train for me your permanent replacement I'll pay you 5 bucks... yes yes my boss.' sorry, but that sounds like something that somebody who never had a job before would say. or the yellow press. Besides, don't you think that AI is not autonomous and need to be used by somebody (and the bigger the project/company the more people needed) Basically, creating more jobs in the process?
'*using generative ai, both by generating images and by generating text causes AI psychosis and degrades critical thinking, and makes people lose touch with reality'
By the love of... where the heck you got that sh** from? do you realize is the same kind of things boomers and yellow press says about video-games right? And who knows... there may be rare cases of isolation where that happens, similar to games? yes, but exceptions are not the rule. (And it won't help anybody itch banning AI anyway)
'*Using AI to create writing and then putting your name on the final product is plagiarism'
Yes, but depends. Did the AI wrote the entire thing? yes, in that case it's like using an LLM as ghost witter. Writing something by your own and use it as cheap-ass editor/translator? in that case no. And in fact, not anybody has money to pay an editor/translator, so...
'*It fabricates disinformation'
While the AI hallucinate (something that doesn't happens all time and is comparable to when a person confuse) disinformation, fake news and hoaxes are made and deliberately distributed by people. The best way of fight disinformation, i think, is encouraging investigations, double checks or simply avoid blind credulity. (like with any scam) but know this. If AI didn't exists, misinformation would still exists like it always did.
'*the engines that run generative AI are used by p3d0philes to create CP'
Despicable yes, but is not either the intended use or the majority of the usage it's given. And is not different as Photoshop, perhaps easier to use yes, but like i said 'not either the intended use or the majority of the usage it's given'. If you wanna fight AI because that, then you should also be agaisnt Photoshop or any other photo editing program and even H artists. Also... seriously? you put anything in the same bag without hesitation?, okay then let's ban all games because engines can be used for CP as well... and traditional artists because pen and paper can also be used to do the same things.
In summary, AI is a powerful tool for solo devs and small teams that can ease prototyping and development. And there is no such thing as a 'AI made' game (like the whole game made) games are made by persons, AI helps in the development either by music, code, graphics or even quick searching in the documentation. There are bad games, yes, like always, but not all games made with AI are bad nor all made fully by humans are good. Slop existed always and it will always exists.
I am not defending AI as is. But the problem with thinking who should and should not publish games in any place doesn't help anybody. There are good ideas out there that people without funds, help or deep knowledge can't make by themselves, and banning the AI in the end only benefits those with enough resources (money, free time, etc.)
Or perhaps the real issue is not preventing 'bad art' but you want to avoid having competition? (don't reply, that's a lame ass provocation from my side)
Sorry. I know i sounded energetic and ranting (and narcissist as heck, sue me.) And I am agree with you if the issue is the over-flood of low quality games like some indie version of the shovelwares. And i'm agree that we (as community) will need some kind of solution eventually, and i'm not your enemy, know that. But banning any project based on what tech it was used to created it, it's an starting awful choice.